> Taking any action which you know will result in the death of
> innocent people is immoral.
Fighting Spanish fascists in heavily populated towns? Fighting Nazis in Germany and France? Fighting death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua? The Vietnamese kicking Pol Pot out of Cambodia? All these actions resulted in innocents being killed. All immoral?
> I fail to see how the retaliation on 9-11 was any more
> unethical then the US retaliation in Afghanistan.
What was/is al-Qaeda "retaliating" against? Or better, what are they fighting for? The poor and dispossessed of the region? Like the ones they were grinding up in Afghanistan?
> The US Empire is a
> far greater threat to world peace then Al-Qaeda; as evil as the later
> may be.
Dismantling the empire is desirable and worthwhile in the long run, for that's how long it will take. One can be opposed to it and the endless wars it seeks and still recognize the singular threat of al-Qaeda, which is very real.
>Even the CIA has said that conquering
> Afghanistan probably won't do much to deter al-qaeda.
Right, it will take more than that (as German authorities put it in the Financial Times the other day, it will take plenty of police work as well, and the Germans have been dogged when it comes to al-Q cells in their country).
> It has replaced
> the tyrannical Taliban with equally tyrannical warlords. Instead of
> making women wear the Burka, rape women and use them as sex slaves.
> What a big improvement.
And millions were kept from starving. And more medicines made it to those who needed them. And maps to land mines have been distributed. And more international relief has poured in.
What Joe is suggesting, cynically it seems, is that nothing should have been done in the wake of 9/11; that al-Q should have remained ensconced in Afghanistan, operating freely, planning further attacks without fear of reprisal.
What a big improvement.
DP