>And up the ladder we go. With unknown consequences for Afghans in terms of
>killed in bombing and starvation due to bombing, and god knows what else.
>Obviously some civilians will be killed in any action. The question is
>whether any military action, whether US or UN can be conducted without
>large-scale loss of life. Perhaps Max is correct that action is necessary
>given the deadly nature of the al-quida network and the unknown dimensions
>of their weaponary and skill. But anyone who supports such action would
>have accept that the security of many is bought at the cost of the lives of
>another many.
Like I've said many times, I oppose the current strategy. It kills and threatens lots of civilians, probably spares the actual perps, does little if anything to prevent future disasters, and makes us many enemies. I'd just like to make people realize that the no civilian death standard is impossible to meet anywhere but in fantasy. I'm not endorsing civilian death by saying that, either.
Doug