> >What does have a future? I really don't get your position here - do
> >you admire the "resistance" because they can blow stuff up?
>
> (1) Do you believe that people who live under foreign occupation
> have the legal and moral right to resist the occupation, including
> the right to wage armed struggle against it?
No one's arguing that the resistance doesn't have a right to shoot at American soldiers. It's a question of whether we should support the existing resistance. We all recognize that Rupert Murdoch has to right to run reactionary media outlets, but that doesn't mean we support him.
> (2) Which party is the most legally and morally culpable: (A) a man
> who, telling boldfaced lies, votes for a war of aggression to invade
> a foreign country, compelling soldiers to blow up armed combatants,
> civilians, and properties; (B) soldiers of the invading army who
> follow the order that violates law and morality, blowing up armed
> combatants, civilians, and properties; or (C) men of the occupied
> country who resist the foreign army of occupation and indigenous
> collaborators, blowing up armed combatants, civilians, and properties?
>
> It seems to me that the order of legal and moral culpability would be
> (A) > (B) > (C), from the most culpable to the least. You don't seem
> to be ashamed of voting for and urging others to vote for (A) while
> sounding shocked, shocked that there are people who support (C). Why?
No one disputes your hierarchy of culpability. But you forgot to add a fourth example. What is the culpability of someone, (D), who has the opportunity, through the ballot box, to help ensure that the next president is one who is less likely to order soldiers into an illegal war -- but declines to exercise this opportunity?
Seth