----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Sawicky" <sawicky at bellatlantic.net>
> You folks really, really are not prepared to face up to the mayhem
> logically implied by your own assorted revolutionary positions.
> The use of force by somebody cannot be escaped as long as
> there are retrograde elements (such as al-qaida or OBL) prone
> to use force themselves.
>
> mbs
=========
To consistently maintain your position why aren't you suggesting we should bomb SA? They're marginally different from the Taliban; directly and indirectly funded the Taliban and by the Bushies own investigations, Al Qaeda*; the strategists - perpetrators mostly come from there. We're all familiar with the canard that the choices suck, but if the administration's claims to legitimize it's action is/was 'to bring the perpetrators to justice,' doesn't that minimally require getting the target right? You've yet to answer that part of my past queries. If SA is innocent from your perspective, then why aren't the Taliban and, surely, the Afghan people? If you claim expediency, how is that different from the capriciousness that we associate with blind vengeance?
Arguing the politics/ethics of the inauguration of aggression is another issue.
Ian
*As yet we've no direct evidence other than what Tony Blair asserted that Al Qaeda was directly involved in 9-11.