The basic point is this: if you invade, then you may incur some responsibility for what happens to the population (I'm not arguing how much that might be or that it is in itself reason enough to continue occupation for a particular duration). That responsibility, though, whether great or small, stems from having invaded and toppled the leadership of that particular country. It in no way implies a general obligation to launch other invasions to prevent similar or worse abuse against citizens of countries you have thus far left alone. That seems like a such an absurd suggestion that I can only conclude it is not seriously offered but is rather just a facile rhetorical device.

Even if we do incur a debt to repair damage we do to a nation we invade and occupy, there's no reason why that debt has to be paid with more occupation and damage(let alone another invasion). In fact, it seems to me that by continuing an unwelcome occupation and doing more damage, we aren't repaying our debt, but merely increasing it.

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

Yes.

I think my work here is done for today.

It's like this everyday around here Eman. People here are pretty honest about how they feel about things even if that honesty makes a politician who happens to be a member of the Democratic Party look like a schmuck. If Republicans had done that during the Bush administration, we would have been a lot better off and could probably have avoided much of what ails the country now.

Tell you what, you've done such a good job that you can stay away for a while. I'll let you know when to return.

I'm good with that.

Why, Elephantman, that makes me so happy that I could just squirt!

To be fair, however, we should thank you for your support of McCain/Palin in the last presidential election.

Abdullah Abdullah is calling for more troops

But what does he know -- he only lives there.

Tell us all you know about Abdullah Abdullah.

For instance, how does he make his living? Is he a leader elected by the people or a warlord type?

In what part of the country does he live?

What is his military expertise/background?

Yeah, I fully expect them to try to Ritter him. But I wonder how many times that strategy can succeed for them.

Ritter was working for the much-despised UN. This guy is working directly for our government. That won't mean anything to the foamers like JaaZee, but there are a host of others who may consider that sufficient to at least open their ears, if not necessarily their minds.

Of course, before that can happen he needs to keep the fickle attention of our media, something we all know is extremely difficult once you've passed the sold-by date for that stuff we call "news".

This guy's military credentials pale in comparison to Ritter's.

One problem we have now is the fact that our news sources are all compromised and basically held worthless by the general public. Even FOX is recognized, even by the foamers, as full of shit and not trustworthy (but FOX is their shitbag). Thus, this story will not last more than a day or two and even then, most people won't know a damned thing about it.

There are no Cronkites who can convince the public that our government is just flat wrong and without a Cronkite, there will be no consensus of opinion strong enough to force Washington to do anything. I can recall the day when there were several "anchors" who actually tried to honestly and completely deliver the news. Now, there are none. None at all.

Just who is there?

Wolf? Blitzer is a reader and not a very good one at that.

Olberman? Keith had some promise as a sportscaster but he's basically clowned himself into obscurity. He's not considered a Serious journalist.

Anyone on FOX (with one exception - Shepard Smith who at least occasionally attempts to deliver truth)

Frankly, there isn't anyone on cable or network news during prime time that's worth a damn (maybe Rachel but it's too early to tell). If people are going to get hard news, they have to do it during the daylight hours. Nights are for profit.

The corporatists have successfully co-opted the opinion shapers in our country and have left the public with nothing to base an educated opinion on. Thus, the public either ignores problems because they don't understand them, or they are ignorant of the problems because nobody has told them about them.

That, I am afraid, is the real consequence of the failure of journalists to actually do their jobs (as opposed to being stenographers)and the public's absolute failure to insist that they do it.

I congratulate Hoh's honesty in resigning. It will be interesting to see how he is attacked by the war mongers.--Jim White

Yes. He will present an interesting problem for them considering he has all the credentials they admire and exalt.--

So did Scott Ritter.

Amity does NOT like curling.

Last time she tried it, she burnt the hell out of her ear lobe.

Nothing would please me more than to be part of a massive politcal movement to restore civil liberties and impose restraints on the executive branch, but why should Obama support "the rights of terrorists" if there is insufficient political support?

You're kidding right?

Why?

Because, it's the law?

Because they aren't guilty of anything until proven in a court of law?

Because it's just the right thing to do?

Seriously, what religion drove the war between the Nazis and the Russian Communists?

Are you talking about those godless commies?