Jacob Segal wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I think this will be my last repetition for a while of what has become my central point.
The security of many will NOT, repeat NOT, be secured by the lives of another many. It will be a straight-out human sacrifice for no practical results. There will be no increased safety.
If one wants to defend _either_ the present U.S. policy (or any of the more moderate utopian policies many on this list support) one has to do so on the basis of the usefulness of human sacrifice for the sole purpose of calming u.s. nerves (but not saving any u.s. lives).
Carrol