No subject

international policy in relation to what regimes are supported and which
opposed does not justify military action which results in suffering & death.
Granted. And I think that the case against war rests on something like this
point. There are less immoral and counterproductive ways to pursue
justifiable political ends.

But it sounds as though you intended something beyond this point?

Incidentally, what do you think should have happened in Afghanistan?

Jamie


> - Global Imperialism: again the case here is at best eliptical. It looks
> like another case of slurring motives, rather than dealing with the rights
> and wrongs of the case. And again it is hard EVEN to establish the slur on
> motives. Is it really thought that the US is trying to take over
countries?
> If something less than full-blown empire, then what? Establish & support
> friendly regimes in countries throughout the world? Seems like a
reasonable
> thing to do..... doesn't every nation try to do that? .... and if they
> don't, shouldn't they start?!! Again, we need better than a hint of a
slur.
>
Yes, but not by first promising to eradicate the population with shock and
awe (why not THE BOMB, he, he, we can't rule it out) and then govern via
strings. See the current Afghan puppet and consider his previous employment
record. Remember "free" trade agreements? And did you read anything at all
about the last *US* election? Ah, a model of democracy.