If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:37:37 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:13:13 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:02 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:35:47 -0500, BAR
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch
100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be
out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.
What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell
me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it
better.
What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and
capture
or kill him?
Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I
wouldn't of
been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think
there were
WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000
Americans a
priority.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really
don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's
whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest
statement that
can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that
attacked
us.

Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is
*not* important. What is important is the world-wide,
religiously based uprising against anything or anybody not
believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden may be a vocal
centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that important.

It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin
Laden was discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change.

Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that
may be looking for a simplistic solution.
If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment,
for al-qiada.

Not under MY plan, he doesn't.
Enlighten us please.
Find and kill the *******. Then put his remains in the poured
concrete
foundation of the new World Trade Center.
We already know you want to find him and kill him. What we want to
know is how you would go about the task of finding OBL?


Our leaders need to stay focused. If they had, we wouldn't be
wondering about how to find him.
You are all talk and not action. You just want something to complain
about.


Thats a fairly bizarre response.

You wont tell us what you would do to track down and capture OBL. You say
that OBL needs to be captured and that GWB has failed us by not capturing
OBL. What would you do or would you have done to capture OBL.

If you are not willing to tell us what your plan to capture OBL then you
are just blowing smoke, sucking up air for no reason or just want to keep
whining about the US not capturing OBL.

You are beginning to show traces of Kanterism.


Now THAT is funny. You won't tell us which specific measures have prevented
us from being attacked here since 9/11. The only factor you've alluded to
is Bush being in office.

Finish the discussion, or.....if you live in a glass house.....

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


Psssst! Can I tell you a little secret? GWB already ignores the
sovereignty of other countries. Please don't say silly things about how
we should respect the sovereignty of other countries. If you insist on
saying silly things like that, then you need to explain how the
invasion of Iraq fits your definition of respecting sovereignty.



Excuse me. I paid for this computer. I'll say any silly thing I want.

Eisboch



Really, I need to understand this better. So far, I've interpreted your
words to mean the following:

"We should respect the sovereignty of other nations, except when we don't
feel like it."

Is that it?


Nope.

Eisboch


Well, that's what your theory sounds like. In your other post, you said
"Reggie's correct. If we were going to go after Al Qaeda and all their
associated terrorists groups we would have to invade or be invited into
countries all over the world, including those of our allies. Just not going
to happen."

In other words, we can CLAIM we're going after AQ, and give ourselves a
green light to invade any country we want. Of course, we'd need to add a few
more weak reasons in case the original one fizzled out. That's how it worked
with Iraq, remember? The list of vanishing reasons?

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...


Who do you think we should invade next? Who has "threats" waiting for us?


Lots of threats. None worth going to war for, yet.
--
John H


Congrats on your performance in this video, but tell your wife I agree with
your idea of invading from the west. She was wrong.
http://www.digitalfog.com/gallery/invasion.html

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:22:28 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:37:37 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:13:13 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:02 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch
100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.
What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better.
What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture
or kill him?
Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of
been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were
WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a
priority.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that
can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked
us.

Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not*
important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising
against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden
may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that
important.

It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was
discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change.

Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be
looking for a simplistic solution.
If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment, for
al-qiada.

Not under MY plan, he doesn't.
Enlighten us please.
Find and kill the *******. Then put his remains in the poured concrete
foundation of the new World Trade Center.
We already know you want to find him and kill him. What we want to know
is how you would go about the task of finding OBL?


Our leaders need to stay focused. If they had, we wouldn't be
wondering about how to find him.
You are all talk and not action. You just want something to complain about.


Thats a fairly bizarre response.

You wont tell us what you would do to track down and capture OBL. You
say that OBL needs to be captured and that GWB has failed us by not
capturing OBL. What would you do or would you have done to capture OBL.

If you are not willing to tell us what your plan to capture OBL then you
are just blowing smoke, sucking up air for no reason or just want to
keep whining about the US not capturing OBL.

You are beginning to show traces of Kanterism.

Yet another bizarre response.

I don't believe I ever suggested that I should personally go and collar Bin
Laden. I just suggested that the people that should be going after Bin Laden
have Attention Deficit Disorder and they keep getting sidetracked. If the
president of the United States had the WILL to capture Bin Laden, it would
happen. He simply hasn't applied himself.


Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.
--
John H

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:22:28 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:37:37 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:13:13 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:02 -0500, BAR
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:35:47 -0500, BAR
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch
100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be
out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.
What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't
tell me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it
better.
What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL
and capture
or kill him?
Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I
wouldn't of
been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think
there were
WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000
Americans a
priority.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really
don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's
whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest
statement that
can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those
that attacked
us.

Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is
*not*
important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously
based uprising
against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam.
Bin Laden
may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not
that
important.

It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin
Laden was
discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change.

Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public
that may be
looking for a simplistic solution.
If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment,
for
al-qiada.

Not under MY plan, he doesn't.
Enlighten us please.
Find and kill the *******. Then put his remains in the poured
concrete
foundation of the new World Trade Center.
We already know you want to find him and kill him. What we want to
know
is how you would go about the task of finding OBL?


Our leaders need to stay focused. If they had, we wouldn't be
wondering about how to find him.
You are all talk and not action. You just want something to complain
about.


Thats a fairly bizarre response.

You wont tell us what you would do to track down and capture OBL. You
say that OBL needs to be captured and that GWB has failed us by not
capturing OBL. What would you do or would you have done to capture OBL.

If you are not willing to tell us what your plan to capture OBL then you
are just blowing smoke, sucking up air for no reason or just want to
keep whining about the US not capturing OBL.

You are beginning to show traces of Kanterism.

Yet another bizarre response.

I don't believe I ever suggested that I should personally go and collar
Bin
Laden. I just suggested that the people that should be going after Bin
Laden
have Attention Deficit Disorder and they keep getting sidetracked. If the
president of the United States had the WILL to capture Bin Laden, it would
happen. He simply hasn't applied himself.


Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.
--
John H

Do you think that if salty hasn't got the details of the proposed mission,
then it cannot be done, even by people who DO know how to do it?

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/20...den-still.html

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

Psssst! Can I tell you a little secret? GWB already ignores the
sovereignty of other countries. Please don't say silly things about how
we should respect the sovereignty of other countries. If you insist on
saying silly things like that, then you need to explain how the
invasion of Iraq fits your definition of respecting sovereignty.


Excuse me. I paid for this computer. I'll say any silly thing I want.

Eisboch


Really, I need to understand this better. So far, I've interpreted your
words to mean the following:

"We should respect the sovereignty of other nations, except when we don't
feel like it."

Is that it?

Nope.

Eisboch


Well, that's what your theory sounds like. In your other post, you said
"Reggie's correct. If we were going to go after Al Qaeda and all their
associated terrorists groups we would have to invade or be invited into
countries all over the world, including those of our allies. Just not going
to happen."

If you are going to tell us what we are thinking why the heck bother to
ask any questions?

You will misinterpret any statements made by anyone, so it fits your
preconceived assumptions.

In other words, we can CLAIM we're going after AQ, and give ourselves a
green light to invade any country we want. Of course, we'd need to add a few
more weak reasons in case the original one fizzled out. That's how it worked
with Iraq, remember? The list of vanishing reasons?

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:46:25 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:22:28 -0500, BAR wrote:

snipped

Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.
--
John H

Do you think that if salty hasn't got the details of the proposed mission,
then it cannot be done, even by people who DO know how to do it?

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/20...den-still.html


This is the kind of stuff you believe (from your source):

"...President Musharraf has helped create a quiet mountain retreat, a
veritable terrorism spa, for Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri to refresh
themselves and get back in shape."

One can only wonder where that stupid cow gets her intelligence.

No one asked Salty for details, just an idea. Dowd has a great idea, drop
in a team of Rangers or SEALs. That sounds cool. Is that what you'd do? Is
that what Salty would do?
--
John H

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:31:41 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:44:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:




Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.

I admit no such thing.

I think perhaps your nickname should be, "Red Herring"


Good idea, but you've yet to answer the question. Perhaps you should change
your nickname to Doug Kanter?
--
Red Herring

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Jan 18, 7:26*am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:31:41 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:44:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:

Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.

I admit no such thing.

I think perhaps your nickname should be, "Red Herring"

Good idea, but you've yet to answer the question. Perhaps you should change
your nickname to Doug Kanter?
--
Red Herring

He will never answer the questions, you are one of the last in the
group wasting their time..

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 04:48:54 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 18, 7:26*am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:31:41 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:44:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:

Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.

I admit no such thing.

I think perhaps your nickname should be, "Red Herring"

Good idea, but you've yet to answer the question. Perhaps you should change
your nickname to Doug Kanter?
--
Red Herring

He will never answer the questions, you are one of the last in the
group wasting their time..

It's hard to keep those two on the straight and narrow.
--
Red Herring

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:46:25 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:22:28 -0500, BAR wrote:

snipped

Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.
--
John H

Do you think that if salty hasn't got the details of the proposed mission,
then it cannot be done, even by people who DO know how to do it?

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/20...den-still.html


This is the kind of stuff you believe (from your source):

"...President Musharraf has helped create a quiet mountain retreat, a
veritable terrorism spa, for Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri to refresh
themselves and get back in shape."

One can only wonder where that stupid cow gets her intelligence.

No one asked Salty for details, just an idea. Dowd has a great idea, drop
in a team of Rangers or SEALs. That sounds cool. Is that what you'd do? Is
that what Salty would do?
--
John H


OBL worked out of that exact region while he was involved with fighting the
Russians. So, you're right. Musharraf did NOT create the comfy retreat. It
already existed. This is a fact. The situation remains the same to this day.

As far as how to capture him, if he's still there, that's not my job. I
would be guessing and you would pick apart my ideas if I designated the
wrong kind of boots for the soldiers, even though you would also be
guessing.

But, our military knew how. Unfortunately, a mission was cancelled in 2005
due to concerns about annoying Musharraf. It was aimed at one of OBL's big
shots, but also have nabbed him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/wa...=1&oref=slogin

July 8, 2007
U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in '05
By MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, July 7 - A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture
senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas was aborted at the
last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky
and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and
military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials
thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy and the man
believed to run the terrorist group's operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense
secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director
of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals
unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan
when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official
involved in the planning.

Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small
number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was
cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former
officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with
Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from
operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

The decision to halt the planned "snatch and grab" operation frustrated some
top intelligence officials and members of the military's secret Special
Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity
to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.

Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al
Qaeda has improved its abilities to plan global attacks and build new
training compounds in Pakistan's tribal areas, which have become virtual
havens for the terrorist network.

In recent months, the White House has become increasingly irritated with
Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, for his inaction on the growing
threat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

About a dozen current and former military and intelligence officials were
interviewed for this article, all of whom requested anonymity because the
planned 2005 mission remained classified.

Spokesmen for the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and the White House declined to
comment. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed about the planned
operation.

The officials acknowledge that they are not certain that Mr. Zawahri
attended the 2005 meeting in North Waziristan, a mountainous province just
miles from the Afghan border. But they said that the United States had
communications intercepts that tipped them off to the meeting, and that
intelligence officials had unusually high confidence that Mr. Zawahri was
there.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:09:42 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:26:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:31:41 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:44:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:




Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.

I admit no such thing.

I think perhaps your nickname should be, "Red Herring"


Good idea, but you've yet to answer the question. Perhaps you should change
your nickname to Doug Kanter?

Have you stopped beating your mother?


She died.
--
Red Herring

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:27:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .

No one asked Salty for details, just an idea. Dowd has a great idea, drop
in a team of Rangers or SEALs. That sounds cool. Is that what you'd do? Is
that what Salty would do?
--
John H


OBL worked out of that exact region while he was involved with fighting the
Russians. So, you're right. Musharraf did NOT create the comfy retreat. It
already existed. This is a fact. The situation remains the same to this day.

As far as how to capture him, if he's still there, that's not my job. I
would be guessing and you would pick apart my ideas if I designated the
wrong kind of boots for the soldiers, even though you would also be
guessing.

But, our military knew how. Unfortunately, a mission was cancelled in 2005
due to concerns about annoying Musharraf. It was aimed at one of OBL's big
shots, but also have nabbed him.

Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the country of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to the
intelligence from Iraq.

Jeees, wake up.
--
Red Herring

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:27:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..

No one asked Salty for details, just an idea. Dowd has a great idea,
drop
in a team of Rangers or SEALs. That sounds cool. Is that what you'd do?
Is
that what Salty would do?
--
John H


OBL worked out of that exact region while he was involved with fighting
the
Russians. So, you're right. Musharraf did NOT create the comfy retreat. It
already existed. This is a fact. The situation remains the same to this
day.

As far as how to capture him, if he's still there, that's not my job. I
would be guessing and you would pick apart my ideas if I designated the
wrong kind of boots for the soldiers, even though you would also be
guessing.

But, our military knew how. Unfortunately, a mission was cancelled in 2005
due to concerns about annoying Musharraf. It was aimed at one of OBL's big
shots, but also have nabbed him.

Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the country of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to the
intelligence from Iraq.


I wonder why it got so close to the "go" stage. Why did they waste their
time? Pakistan has been a so-called "ally" since the 1970s, when we paid
them to build nuclear weapons. Their status didn't suddenly become news to
Rumsfeld and others in 2005.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:41:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:27:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...

No one asked Salty for details, just an idea. Dowd has a great idea,
drop
in a team of Rangers or SEALs. That sounds cool. Is that what you'd do?
Is
that what Salty would do?
--
John H


OBL worked out of that exact region while he was involved with fighting
the
Russians. So, you're right. Musharraf did NOT create the comfy retreat.
It
already existed. This is a fact. The situation remains the same to this
day.

As far as how to capture him, if he's still there, that's not my job. I
would be guessing and you would pick apart my ideas if I designated the
wrong kind of boots for the soldiers, even though you would also be
guessing.

But, our military knew how. Unfortunately, a mission was cancelled in
2005
due to concerns about annoying Musharraf. It was aimed at one of OBL's
big
shots, but also have nabbed him.

Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the country of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to the
intelligence from Iraq.

Jeees, wake up.

If Pakistan was truly an ally, then they would have invited us to go
in and get Bin Laden. They might have even provided additional troops
and equipment for the missio. That's what friends are for.

If they wouldn't let us in, then they are not an ally, but a nation
harboring terrorists. BIG difference.



They did let us in at one point, and where I saw this was sort of
interesting: Discovery Channel's "Planet Earth" show. Their team had to
temporarily postpone their search for snow leopards because they crossed
paths with our troops, who ordered them out of the area for a while.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:43:00 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:27:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...

No one asked Salty for details, just an idea. Dowd has a great idea,
drop
in a team of Rangers or SEALs. That sounds cool. Is that what you'd do?
Is
that what Salty would do?
--
John H


OBL worked out of that exact region while he was involved with fighting
the
Russians. So, you're right. Musharraf did NOT create the comfy retreat. It
already existed. This is a fact. The situation remains the same to this
day.

As far as how to capture him, if he's still there, that's not my job. I
would be guessing and you would pick apart my ideas if I designated the
wrong kind of boots for the soldiers, even though you would also be
guessing.

But, our military knew how. Unfortunately, a mission was cancelled in 2005
due to concerns about annoying Musharraf. It was aimed at one of OBL's big
shots, but also have nabbed him.

Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the country of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to the
intelligence from Iraq.


I wonder why it got so close to the "go" stage. Why did they waste their
time? Pakistan has been a so-called "ally" since the 1970s, when we paid
them to build nuclear weapons. Their status didn't suddenly become news to
Rumsfeld and others in 2005.


One likes to be prepared to execute when seeking the SecDef's approval.
--
Red Herring

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:43:00 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:27:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
m...

No one asked Salty for details, just an idea. Dowd has a great idea,
drop
in a team of Rangers or SEALs. That sounds cool. Is that what you'd
do?
Is
that what Salty would do?
--
John H


OBL worked out of that exact region while he was involved with fighting
the
Russians. So, you're right. Musharraf did NOT create the comfy retreat.
It
already existed. This is a fact. The situation remains the same to this
day.

As far as how to capture him, if he's still there, that's not my job. I
would be guessing and you would pick apart my ideas if I designated the
wrong kind of boots for the soldiers, even though you would also be
guessing.

But, our military knew how. Unfortunately, a mission was cancelled in
2005
due to concerns about annoying Musharraf. It was aimed at one of OBL's
big
shots, but also have nabbed him.

Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the country
of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to the
intelligence from Iraq.


I wonder why it got so close to the "go" stage. Why did they waste their
time? Pakistan has been a so-called "ally" since the 1970s, when we paid
them to build nuclear weapons. Their status didn't suddenly become news to
Rumsfeld and others in 2005.


One likes to be prepared to execute when seeking the SecDef's approval.
--
Red Herring


Rumsfeld had been involved with Pakistan for almost 20 years before that.
You think he only realized at the last minute that there was no way he could
touch them?

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:58:46 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:41:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:



Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the country of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to the
intelligence from Iraq.

Jeees, wake up.

If Pakistan was truly an ally, then they would have invited us to go
in and get Bin Laden. They might have even provided additional troops
and equipment for the missio. That's what friends are for.

If they wouldn't let us in, then they are not an ally, but a nation
harboring terrorists. BIG difference.


Oh yes. Any ally would let foreign soldiers come trooping into their
country to capture someone. Horse ****.

The question is this: Is OBL worth going to war with Pakistan over? The
answer's no, whether you consider them an ally or not.
--
Red Herring

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:00:04 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:37:06 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:09:42 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:26:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:31:41 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:44:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:




Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.

I admit no such thing.

I think perhaps your nickname should be, "Red Herring"


Good idea, but you've yet to answer the question. Perhaps you should change
your nickname to Doug Kanter?

Have you stopped beating your mother?


She died.

So you have stopped beating her?


She's buried, so beating her would be rough.
--
Red Herring

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:10:39 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:43:00 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:27:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
om...

No one asked Salty for details, just an idea. Dowd has a great idea,
drop
in a team of Rangers or SEALs. That sounds cool. Is that what you'd
do?
Is
that what Salty would do?
--
John H


OBL worked out of that exact region while he was involved with fighting
the
Russians. So, you're right. Musharraf did NOT create the comfy retreat.
It
already existed. This is a fact. The situation remains the same to this
day.

As far as how to capture him, if he's still there, that's not my job. I
would be guessing and you would pick apart my ideas if I designated the
wrong kind of boots for the soldiers, even though you would also be
guessing.

But, our military knew how. Unfortunately, a mission was cancelled in
2005
due to concerns about annoying Musharraf. It was aimed at one of OBL's
big
shots, but also have nabbed him.

Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the country
of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to the
intelligence from Iraq.


I wonder why it got so close to the "go" stage. Why did they waste their
time? Pakistan has been a so-called "ally" since the 1970s, when we paid
them to build nuclear weapons. Their status didn't suddenly become news to
Rumsfeld and others in 2005.


One likes to be prepared to execute when seeking the SecDef's approval.
--
Red Herring


Rumsfeld had been involved with Pakistan for almost 20 years before that.
You think he only realized at the last minute that there was no way he could
touch them?


Perhaps to you that question made sense. Maybe even Salty could translate
it. You guys continue this thread with each other.

Bye.
--
Red Herring

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"Red Herring" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:58:46 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:41:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:



Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the country
of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to the
intelligence from Iraq.

Jeees, wake up.

If Pakistan was truly an ally, then they would have invited us to go
in and get Bin Laden. They might have even provided additional troops
and equipment for the missio. That's what friends are for.

If they wouldn't let us in, then they are not an ally, but a nation
harboring terrorists. BIG difference.


Oh yes. Any ally would let foreign soldiers come trooping into their
country to capture someone. Horse ****.


Are you saying this could never happen?

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Red Herring" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:58:46 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:41:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the country
of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to the
intelligence from Iraq.

Jeees, wake up.
If Pakistan was truly an ally, then they would have invited us to go
in and get Bin Laden. They might have even provided additional troops
and equipment for the missio. That's what friends are for.

If they wouldn't let us in, then they are not an ally, but a nation
harboring terrorists. BIG difference.

Oh yes. Any ally would let foreign soldiers come trooping into their
country to capture someone. Horse ****.


Are you saying this could never happen?


Doug,
Are you saying that this should always invade an ally's country to
capture a fugitive?

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:54:18 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:42:26 -0500, Red Herring
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:00:04 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:37:06 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:09:42 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:26:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:31:41 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:44:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:




Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.

I admit no such thing.

I think perhaps your nickname should be, "Red Herring"


Good idea, but you've yet to answer the question. Perhaps you should change
your nickname to Doug Kanter?

Have you stopped beating your mother?


She died.

So you have stopped beating her?


She's buried, so beating her would be rough.

You've got to admit you are dodging the question. Haven't you been
accusing me of that?


I thought I had. The answer is 'yes'.

Now it's your turn.
--
Red Herring

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Red Herring" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:58:46 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:41:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the
country of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to the
intelligence from Iraq.

Jeees, wake up.
If Pakistan was truly an ally, then they would have invited us to go
in and get Bin Laden. They might have even provided additional troops
and equipment for the missio. That's what friends are for.

If they wouldn't let us in, then they are not an ally, but a nation
harboring terrorists. BIG difference.

Oh yes. Any ally would let foreign soldiers come trooping into their
country to capture someone. Horse ****.


Are you saying this could never happen?

Doug,
Are you saying that this should always invade an ally's country to capture
a fugitive?

You never saw me say always, but it doesn't matter. You have lost touch with
the concept being discussed here.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Red Herring" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:58:46 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:41:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the
country of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to the
intelligence from Iraq.

Jeees, wake up.
If Pakistan was truly an ally, then they would have invited us to go
in and get Bin Laden. They might have even provided additional troops
and equipment for the missio. That's what friends are for.

If they wouldn't let us in, then they are not an ally, but a nation
harboring terrorists. BIG difference.

Oh yes. Any ally would let foreign soldiers come trooping into their
country to capture someone. Horse ****.


Are you saying this could never happen?

Doug,
Are you saying that this should always invade an ally's country to
capture a fugitive?

Whoa, Doug's thoughts, statements, opinions and questions are above
reproach. Doug spends a considerable amount of time formulating them and
they are all taken to the most logical conclusion.

How dare you accuse Doug of sending messages without fully vetting their
content.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:17:27 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:10:40 -0500, Red Herring
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:54:18 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:42:26 -0500, Red Herring
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:00:04 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:37:06 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:09:42 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:26:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:31:41 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:44:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:




Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.

I admit no such thing.

I think perhaps your nickname should be, "Red Herring"


Good idea, but you've yet to answer the question. Perhaps you should change
your nickname to Doug Kanter?

Have you stopped beating your mother?


She died.

So you have stopped beating her?


She's buried, so beating her would be rough.

You've got to admit you are dodging the question. Haven't you been
accusing me of that?


I thought I had. The answer is 'yes'.


Okay, now that we've established that you beat her until she died, can
you tell us why you beat your mother?


Actually, it was a two way thing.

Your turn. Or, are you going to pansy out?
--
Red Herring

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

BAR wrote:



Are you saying this could never happen?

Doug,
Are you saying that this should always invade an ally's country to
capture a fugitive?

Whoa, Doug's thoughts, statements, opinions and questions are above
reproach. Doug spends a considerable amount of time formulating them and
they are all taken to the most logical conclusion.

How dare you accuse Doug of sending messages without fully vetting their
content.

I know Doug's response, even if he doesn't post it.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Red Herring" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:58:46 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:41:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the
country of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to the
intelligence from Iraq.

Jeees, wake up.
If Pakistan was truly an ally, then they would have invited us to go
in and get Bin Laden. They might have even provided additional troops
and equipment for the missio. That's what friends are for.

If they wouldn't let us in, then they are not an ally, but a nation
harboring terrorists. BIG difference.

Oh yes. Any ally would let foreign soldiers come trooping into their
country to capture someone. Horse ****.

Are you saying this could never happen?

Doug,
Are you saying that this should always invade an ally's country to capture
a fugitive?

You never saw me say always, but it doesn't matter. You have lost touch with
the concept being discussed here.



I knew you were going to say that.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in
message . ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Red Herring" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:58:46 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:41:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the
country of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the
past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to
the
intelligence from Iraq.

Jeees, wake up.
If Pakistan was truly an ally, then they would have invited us to go
in and get Bin Laden. They might have even provided additional troops
and equipment for the missio. That's what friends are for.

If they wouldn't let us in, then they are not an ally, but a nation
harboring terrorists. BIG difference.

Oh yes. Any ally would let foreign soldiers come trooping into their
country to capture someone. Horse ****.

Are you saying this could never happen?

Doug,
Are you saying that this should always invade an ally's country to
capture a fugitive?

You never saw me say always, but it doesn't matter. You have lost
touch with the concept being discussed here.


I knew you were going to say that.


ps - since you obviously were out of touch with the concept I was
highlighting, I used the exact opposite of your question to highlight
what a simple minded question you asked.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Red Herring" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:58:46 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:41:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Cancelled because the SecDef had enough sense not to invade the
country of
an ally, especially given how wrong intelligence had been in the
past.

You're the same guy that says we should have paid no attention to
the
intelligence from Iraq.

Jeees, wake up.
If Pakistan was truly an ally, then they would have invited us to go
in and get Bin Laden. They might have even provided additional troops
and equipment for the missio. That's what friends are for.

If they wouldn't let us in, then they are not an ally, but a nation
harboring terrorists. BIG difference.

Oh yes. Any ally would let foreign soldiers come trooping into their
country to capture someone. Horse ****.

Are you saying this could never happen?

Doug,
Are you saying that this should always invade an ally's country to
capture a fugitive?

You never saw me say always, but it doesn't matter. You have lost touch
with the concept being discussed here.

I knew you were going to say that.


That's good.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:24:49 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:20:11 -0500, Red Herring
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:17:27 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:10:40 -0500, Red Herring
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:54:18 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:42:26 -0500, Red Herring
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:00:04 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:37:06 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:09:42 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:26:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:31:41 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:44:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:




Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.

I admit no such thing.

I think perhaps your nickname should be, "Red Herring"


Good idea, but you've yet to answer the question. Perhaps you should change
your nickname to Doug Kanter?

Have you stopped beating your mother?


She died.

So you have stopped beating her?


She's buried, so beating her would be rough.

You've got to admit you are dodging the question. Haven't you been
accusing me of that?


I thought I had. The answer is 'yes'.


Okay, now that we've established that you beat her until she died, can
you tell us why you beat your mother?


Actually, it was a two way thing.

Your turn. Or, are you going to pansy out?

I already responded to the question. You must have missed it, or the
truth is so painful to you that you blocked it out.


Pansied out. OK. Bye.
--
Red Herring