What an interesting thread. We have a ton of words telling us that the USA must "help" the poor Afghani by killing her and her babies. But when someone saying that claims that a "just war" demands invasion and occupation of another land then something has gone seriously wrong with the logic circuits of that individual.

Oddly, we have little squeaky voices piping in that some here are being "mean" and "nasty" to those who want to continue the brutal occupation. Well folks, it is "mean and nasty" to call for the USA to continue bombing the civilian population of a nation on the other side of the world that has zero chance of invading us and doing us harm. It is also "mean and nasty" to steal food from the mouths of American children to fund this "nation building" pipe dream of the interventionist fools.

Does anyone here know what a "just war" is? The very short version is that it must be as a "last resort", must be "winnable", and must be "defensive". The greatest sin of the Germans was said at the trials to be starting an "aggressive war".

It matters not if the UN is involved or if a thousand other nations are involved. The question you must ask yourself is why my in-law is asked to deploy and kill Afghani civilians at the risk of his own life and to the utter ruin of the poor of this nation.

By the way, the myth that "bad old mean people" drove away anyone from here is laughable.

.

.

.

Note One: Glenn, please don't conflate this letter with the others here who I happen to agree with. This is the only one out of me on this topic.

.

Note Two: Folks, this idea of a "just war" is easy to investigate using something called a "search engine". Try it. (don't just go to wikipedia for 4 minutes)

As always, the puppet governments we install in a client state has to be authoritarian to be able to rule the people. We demand it. (we pine for the days of the Shaw of Iran and other strong men like him)

As soon as the raid is over, the information should be made public as soon as possible.

By the way, prostitution should be legal.

I means what it says.

We should have no spies or foreign empire. In the case of an invasion, then military secrets could be keep until the war was over and no longer.

As soon as you cave in an say that the government should be able to do things in secret; you invite totalitarianism, brutality and other evils. Just say no to state secrets.

In a democracy, there is no reason to have any state secrets. The government is usually just trying to protect itself from embarrassment over incompetence when it uses the idea of state secrets.

On the other hand, sometimes it is not just the government trying to save itself from embarrassment. Other times the government is covering up real crimes, horrors, and pure evil.

Either way Glenn, there is no reason to allow the government to have secrets: it is "our government" after all. Why should my employees hide things from me. For Horace sake, don't hand me that "to keep us safe" crap; the government is your most dangerous enemy.

Now that was hilarious. I did not think the o-cow could do irony.

What adds? Are there some objectionable adds that get in the way?

Oh wait, I have used firefox for years and adblock plus for many months. I suppose it is working well.

By the way, it is a tad easier to read this mess if you zoom in on it a bit. (control +)

Unfortunately, I am forced to agree with that.

The difference in righty and lefty is who they want killed and who they want locked up. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right; or something like that.

“Our military, which swallows half of the federal budget, is enormously popular—as if it is not part of government. The military values of hyper-masculinity, blind obedience and violence are an electric current that run through reality television and trash-talk programs where contestants endure pain while they betray and manipulate those around them in a ruthless world of competition. Friendship and compassion are banished.” -- Chris Hedges

Amen, Chris, amen.

Come on now. A Lefty activist group is smearing the Heritage Foundation for being soft on crime? So says Radley Balko at Reason's hit&run blog.

Yes, you read that correctly. The liberal website Media Matters has posted a sleazy attack on the conservative Heritage Foundation that, frankly, reads like a press release from some law and order senator's office.

For background, Heritage has started a website called Overciminalized.com which documents and advocates against the mass criminalization of American society, from too many laws, to the over-federalization of law (which in most cases ought to be a local issue), to the arbitrary enforcement of the law and the overly broad powers given to prosecutors.

I think it's great that an organization like Heritage is giving these issues attention. You'd think a liberal organization like Media Matters would, too. Apparently not. The site today takes a cheap shot at Heritage for listing a series of bills related to child pornography and child sex trafficking under its "Legislative Watch" section. I don't know anything about Chris Harris, the author of the posts. But he owes a debt to the likes of Bill Bennett and James Q. Wilson, because he's stealing their shtick.

... more at link or click on sig

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/09/media-matters-slams-heritage-f