2. The suicide bombers are really badly informed and brainwashed by the leaders of the movement. [Then taking what they say to David Rohde at face value is a mistake. Why would they be more truthful to him than to their own followers?]

Being antiwar/pacificist is good - but at least try to understand what we're dealing with here.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that an adequate number of Suicide Bombers for Jesus could be recruited from the followers of some of the more extreme Christian minister/broadcasters who regularly con their followers into believing, and promoting some pretty outrageous ideas and positions on religion. No doubt whatsoever.

Being able to control behavior is what religion is for, isn't it? Anyone, Christian, Jew, Moslem, whatever, can be convinced to do just about anything if they are adequately prepped by their religion and committing suicide on behalf of their religion is not exempted.

This does not not change the argument that accepting responsibility for the welfare of the Afghan population (whatever actions such concern requires) does not imply we must accept responsibility for the welfare of the people in countries we have not invaded.

I do not believe I have argued otherwise.

There is, as TELIQUE notes, a moral or ethical dimension to be considered which takes into account a fuller view of the "ally" overall, not just for current purposes. Being, shall we say, indiscriminate based on today's practicalities may be a recipe for disaster down the road.

Of course there is.

Isn't that why we elect people who we believe share our values and who will appoint people who also share our values to deal with things such as this?

We cannot gain by ignoring the mistakes of the past and we cannot stop seeking allies simply because we do not know what the future will hold.

Having said that, in the case of Iraq (and many others) our country deliberately installed or supported dictators who we knew, or should have known, would turn out to be bad. Until we can admit this to ourselves, and I mean publicly and to the world, we will not begin to heal the damage we have caused. We need to pick and choose who we ally with very carefully and if there is the slightest hint that we are looking at a Saddam, or binLaden, Pinochet, we need to walk away from that particular table and go elsewhere for assistance. Of the three I mentioned, bin Laden was probably the safest choice.

I won't hold my breath waiting for our Harvard/Yale graduates to admit to doing anything wrong in the past. They are, in my opinion, incapable of admitting error.

-- TELIQUE

So can he be an ally in an anti-war movement given that he'd probably support other wars of equal immorality?

Jebbie: Yes

Well there we go then.

Jebbie reveals himself to be what I'd long suspected. Just a bog standard boiler plate ideological lefty like our own Socialist Workers Party, who is only against the wars because they are Capitalist wars launched after a false flag operation organised by capitalists rather than left wing wars launched after a false flag operation organised by lefties.

The question as asked had nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with practicality.

There is nothing inherently wrong with accepting as an ally, someone who is "on your side" at the time, with no guarantee that he will be "on your side" in the future. There's also nothing wrong with accepting someone as an ally who was NOT on your side in the past, but currently is.

Why do you find that so strange? Over the course of history, allegiances between nations have changed repeatedly, even between the same nations. For instance, the USSR was an ally of both the US and the UK during WWII. China was an ally of the US during WWII and an enemy during Korea, only 6 years later.

If one were to turn down as an ally, someone who could possibly change positions, for one reason or another, next week, one would never have a single ally. One cannot predict the future with any certainty. Nations change leadership or economic circumstances, and thus the attitude of that country toward war can possibly change at the same time. One cannot predict things like that.

Why should I, or anyone else, refuse to accept as an ally, a person or nation which clearly is an ally at the present time?

Would you have rejected the US as an ally during WWII due to being its enemy during the War of 1812?

Very few things are static, including one's opposition to (or support of) war.

There's also no reason to reject as an ally, someone who has a different reason why they are against a war prior to accepting them as an ally. The only thing that counts is whether that someone is truly an ally at the time.