uhm, you haven't read doug, have you? your example doesn't even bother to remember that doug said that the best we could do was NATO. and he concedes that's problematic. so, they're the judges and they've confirmed the evidence and that it warrants that the cops go out and track down the suspect. they have a warrant, or the equivalent of. presumably, this would entail giving the taliban what they wanted: the evidence. remember, doug's answer hinges on the evidence being at least available to the principles, if not the entire world. which means that doug's plan wouldn't even be much off the ground right now, from my interpretation of how shoddy the evidence is.
doug and seth surely aren't supporting the mess we're in. all doug did was note that he was willing to concede that it may well be that the taliban, if they are at all implicated with al Qaeda may not actually be interested in evidence, no matter how convincing.
and that's where force would come in. after going through all that, if the evidence is there, if the taliban refuses, if diplomacy doesn't work, to pursue them further as a multi-nation effort would certainly not be considered reprehensible on the view of many. we could hardly be blamed for sending ground troops in, possibly covered by air power, and, if it comes to that, killing civilians.
lord. i don't even know that i support this solution and i'm more one to say, NO, nothing, back off, it's not worth it. but good lord, how come it's so hard to get what doug is saying?
kelley