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

"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?

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?

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

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.