quite true, but i was responding to jks, not directly to dp. since jks did not include anything more than the above from dennis, and since i trust jks' logical completeness, i explicitly stated that *if* the choice is between the two positions, *then* i fall on the side of the malignant fucks.
further, to stretch this a bit, i am not sure how dennis' contempt (cowards! moral idiots! ...) is justified... does he know that the taliban is responsible for the wtc attack? in what way? perhaps my moral idiocy arises out of my ignorance (and i am not being sarcastic here. nothing i know or have read points to the taliban being responsible for the 9/11 attacks).
and as you ask me, one might well ask those who have been constructing a straw man of pacifism to attack, as carrol and others have asked repeatedly: where are these people, these posts that suggest this and this only: that the taliban be left alone?
an aside: the taliban are gangsters no doubt... that was well known before the wtc attack. is it provincial sentimentality that leads to the moral urgency of taking a position on the taliban? its quite possible that appropriate noises were made pre-9/11 about "not leaving the taliban alone"... if thats all that is required to escape moral idiocy, what a relief: something should be done about our boys over at the taliban. there i said it.
i should add that when i respond to a post on a forum such as this, i am also addressing the larger audience. i am not the brightest bulb on this list, and perhaps that has caused me to misunderstand the debate, but in my dull haze i perceive a polarization of rhetoric that passes for discourse. brad delong, for instance, a person much smarter than me, has had time to brand people malignant fucks, tell us about updates to his kill file, etc ;-) but no time to respond to my straightforward questions, each time he proposes some justification for the US military action or similar notions. he doesnt owe me an answer of course (or perhaps he feels they have been answered elsewhere). a regular joe like me, i would conclude, is justified in assuming that one has no option but to take sides, at least on this particular issue (or i could shut up, but surely on a left list, at least that much is not debated: that the regular joe's can voice their opinion? ;-)).
and as the billy joel song goes ;-)
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints Sinners are much more fun...
(and before the collective blood pressure upsurge, a disclaimer: the last stuff above is somewhat in fun... the analogy is not to the sinners i.e., i am not taking the side of the taliban, but rather, i'd rather not take the side of the righteous saints who demand some, any action. of course this bit of fun is also rhetoric and misrepresentation).
--ravi