> both you and brad use "their" barbarism as a political football.
So what? I also use "our" barbarism as a political football. Generally speaking, barbarism makes for a great political football. You haven't explained what's wrong with that.
> OT1H, you want to point out that the US harbors terrorists like Rumsfield.
> here, you engage in relativism.
>
> OTOH, ywhen it comes to their barbarism you refuse to relativize to the US
> case. indeed, you actually want to make a judgement when on the NA as
worse
> than the Taliban.
I'm not being rhetorical or snide when I say that I don't understand what you've written here. Are you saying that I'm taking Afghan barbarism for granted but not US barbarism? Or are you saying something different?
> yet, in both cases, the US has played a role in contributing to the
> conditions in which that alleged barabarism has errupted, whether the T or
> the NA. so what exactly is the difference?
But Brad and I were debating whether the *current* US intervention will make the lives of Afghans better or worse. It may be true that, either way, the US played a historical role in bringing Afghanistan to this low state. But it's still vitally important to ask whether the current intervention will make things even worse.
> go ahead and talk about it. but using it to try to "win" by trying to
make
> your opponent appear callous to these issues is the problem.
Why is it a problem? This is my question.
Seth