I don't have to read 30 books on the complexity of SE Asian politics to be able to make a logically coherent argument about whether or not US military intervention in that part of the world a) serves our "interests" b) is effective, or c) is "necessary".

If you want to debate the "reality" here let's debate this proposition.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2010163457_kristof30.html

Greg Mortenson, author of "Three Cups of Tea," has now built 39 schools in Afghanistan and 92 in Pakistan — and not one has been burned down or closed. The aid organization CARE has 295 schools educating 50,000 girls in Afghanistan, and not a single one has been closed or burned by the Taliban. The Afghan Institute of Learning, another aid group, has 32 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with none closed by the Taliban (although local communities have temporarily suspended three for security reasons).

[snip]

Education isn't a panacea, and no policy in Afghanistan is a sure bet. But all in all, the evidence suggests that education can help foster a virtuous cycle that promotes stability and moderation. So instead of sending 40,000 troops more to Afghanistan, how about opening 40,000 schools?

Maybe we could start pushing for divestiture in Israel and simultaneously employ this strategy not only in Gaza but everywhere including Afghanistan.

Maybe that's too complex a strategy or doesn't appreciate the real complexity of the situation.

And just so I'm on the record, I don't buy into the supposed dilemma of "we broke it we're morally obligated to fix it." Because a) it isn't a true dilemma and b) the first half only raises one necessary moral conclusion--"we rightly bear the moral burden of knowing we broke something" assuming we did.

We could apologize. We could make financial reparations. We could offer humanitarian aid or help in reconstruction if it's requested. We could stop attempting to substitute our judgment of what is best for anybody. Assuming it leads to the inescapable moral conclusion that we are obligated to "fix" things, assuming we could, doesn't follow in the moral sense some think it does.

What?

Afghan at war 2001 and before, but between 2002-2005 by "some measures" it wasn't, and America wasn't at war with or engaging in war on some segment of the Afghan population (presumably only the "bad guys" and not the good guys excluding "collaterals") except between 2001-2002 and 2005 to present because we didn't change the AUMF or (?) legal justification, AND I don't get what's going on and you do because you included a gratuitous swipe at lawyers with neural tangles . . . or something like that. Right?

So again your point was what? Our kinda sorta legally amorphous ever changing "war status/posture" in Afghanistan leads to prisoners held without habeaus rights and war crimes but we should keep on keepin' on and maybe do a little "escalatin' or surgin'" and whatever happens it's the non-interventionist's fault if more war results by way of a steady withdrawal of combat troops and you'll be the first to petition the ICC to that effect? Did I get that right or not?

I may be a lawyer with a neural tangle but you still aren't making the slightest bit of sense. At least to me. But I'm not real smart and you are.

Maybe others here have the slightest clue what it is you're attempting to argue, but I'm not one of them.

Is this the point where we trade some insults? I'll pass because it would be like someone insulting by yelling "wearing kilts causes cancer in hummingbirds". I can't feel insulted if the insult is non-sensical.

You and I rarely are on the same side of much of anything.

But I can't for the life of me figure out what Ondelette is attempting to argue here today.

Either way I'm out. Don't want heru or didus to accuse me of being an over-commenting jackass so I'll leave it in y'alls capable hands.

Again. The non-interventionist anti-war advocates are really the "war criminals" and any wars that occur are the fault of the people who aren't willing to intervene more forcefully with more war, because war isn't really war unless it is defined as "war" but the meaning of language deciders, it's just wholly legal preventative life cessation interventionism for the unsuspecting objects of our peace spreading.

That's the most surreal Orwellian logic I've ever seen put in print. Should be a bumper sticker:

Just Breakin' A Few 10,000s Human Eggs For Peace.

Endin' Lives To Save Lives.

Bombing Our Way To A Better Tomorrow For Everybody Except The Dead and Dismembered.

Sacrificing Your Life Whether You Like It Or Not For The Greater Good.

It's Only A War If We Can Blame It On The Non-Interventionists.