Hi, David, <br>I'm not sure I'm quite quick enough mentally to follow your reasoning... specifically the assertions below seem a tad chary of substantiation... <br> <br>>Say, try, "how will your proposed steps (bombing the Taliban) further Democracy for the world" Of course it doesnt- you give up some freedom every time you get gung ho, but you still have "Thank a Vietnam vet for your freedom" ? concept going here. <br> <br>I'm not advocating bombing the Taliban, nor, I believe, has Scaredycat done so. I'm advocating what is in effect ignoring the so-called "sovereignity" of the Taliban, since they won't take responsibility for the actions of the people dwelling on their soil. Specifically, I support dealing with the Afghan people kindly, like, by dropping Food on them. Elaborating here, I further suggest asking moderate Islamic states to assist us with selecting and packaging the food, and the composing of a suitably reassuring message to the Afghan people. This way, the moderate Islamics will know we don't seek to woo those people away from Islam, merely away from hatred. Secondly, I support carefully circumscribed military action aimed not at the Taliban, but at bin Laden's Al-Que-ada organization. <br>I strongly implied these priorities in my earlier posts, without spelling out specific actions. <br> <br>Re: "thanking a Viet Nam Vet...etc." It is now indisputable that the decades long policy of containment was successful in its primary goal of preventing the Soviet Union from using the cruel joke of totalarian communism to fool poor populations into becoming tributary nations to the USSR, while the West out performed Communism economically. Ultimately, TV and FAx machines felled the USSR - by preventing Pravda from continuing to convince the Soviet people that they were prospering more than people in free market economies. However,when this finally happened, the empire was considerably smaller than it would have been without US containment. Possibly, the subjugation of one after another satelite nation might have permitted enough incremental advances in quality of life for Russian citizens to delay the unrest to which Gorbachev was forced to respond with market reforms. <br> <br>So, yes, freedom's goals were served by Viet Nam. Which doesn't make it any less horrible a time for the Vietnamese, the Campbodians, Laosians, or 17-25 yr old soldiers from the "UN" peacekeeping force. <br> <br>>>The thing I fear is the Free People allow the government to do what the hell they like in times of strife, and boy are they ready to take advantage of it. Its the old " Government/Daddy" syndrome. <br>Get educated. Get logical. Stay Relevant. Beware of pat phrases. Macho went out with big families. Dont let the government roll over you. <br> <br> <br>God bless you David. Sincerely. Unchecked power is a horrible thing, trampling the rights of many, and ultimately redounding to the undoing of the powerful. The mighty, to be meritorious, and not merely bullies, must have a conscience, and must listen to the dictates of that conscience. In our nation, David, it is people like you and yes, to a certain degree, Wouter, who must act as our conscience. <br> <br>Didn't you read my post carefully, whien I said I wouldn't have it any other way? It's the self-hatred, I oppose here. The cynical, reflexive assumption that if we're considering taking action, it must by definition be wrong, self serving, greedy etc. <br> <br>Oh, and please, don't imply the post-ers on this thread are short of gray matter. You do yourself a disservice to imply that you have nothing better to do than to lecture to people of diminished intelectual capacity. <br> <br>Regards, <br> <br>Ed Norris<br><br>
