Been, and gonna be, busy; you'll hear from me less. Some of you be be pleased to know.
> >The general problem was the US bedding down with bad guys to do bad
>things,
>
>That's a huge problem, but generally not for the US. Where's the terrorist
>"blowback" for US policy in Latin America or Indochina?
As I said, it was bound to happen sooner or later with something. As for Indochina, remember they beat us, so they didn't have that reason to sulk. Besides, they, and formerly Latin American revolutionaries, were Marxists of some sort, and Marxists generally disapprove of terrorism.
>
>(As Walzer said in the aftermath of 9-11, whatever reasons for opposing US
>foreign policy we once had, we still have. However, the attacks did not
>illuminate any new reasons for that opposition.)
Except that what goes around eventually does come around. I'd say 3000 dead at home, plus USAPA, are new reasons for that opposition,
>
> > which is still going on. WHo sows the wind, as the proverb says . . . .
>
>The proverb has no predictive power, although it probably would in a world
>with karma.
Sure it does. It's not real precise about when you reap the whirlwind. But it does predict that sooner or later you will.
>
>Hoping you'll reap what you sow (in a positive sense, mind you),
>Luke
>
Hmph. Given what in general I now do for a living, let's hope not. Right now I'm doing something very good that all would approve of, helping to instruct a municipal police force how to not violate the Constitution (they asked). But generally what I do now is to defend the rich and powerful (at best) against each other.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com