That's nice. Tell it to South America. And wasn't the goal of Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden and not let help Iranians and Pakistanis go home? It was an unintended consequence, just like all the Iraq refugees were an unintended consequence. The only difference is that one is perceived as good and the other as bad. The million dead Iraqis were also an unintended consequence, is there any Afghan do-gooding that can balance those deaths out? What about narcotecture? Is narcotecture worth a million dead Iraqis?

And all that apologizing for the Empire and how we did some good that cancels out some bad, and yet the conflict still escalates. But hey, if we keep dropping bombs and spreading freedom, there will be some good ununintended consequences of our actions, and hopefully they will balance out the bad unintended consequences. Sounds like a great way to conduct policy. Even if the good and bad don't balance out, Americans who feel conflicted about their Government's role in the world will balance it out in their heads, and then some.

It can be summed up even simpler for use in this blog area. It is when a government uses force or coercion to make innocent people do what they would not otherwise do of their own free will.

Free will doesn't matter much if there are no options to choose from.

The Merriam Webster dictionary has lots of definitions of the word "intervene". The one applicable to the example I gave would be this one:

3 a: to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification b: to interfere with the outcome or course especially of a condition or process (as to prevent harm or improve functioning)

There is no force or coercion involved in our work in the countries I named. In point of fact, everyone must sign explicit, country-approved consents. So unless you consider imminent death through lack of available treatment "coercion" (after all, Bill Gates has been killing people by forcing them to accept mosquito nets for some time now), then blanket statements are innapropriate.

The point of your rant is...?

Do you enforce your help at the point of a gun? Would you, if you felt the natives did not "see the light"?

The bit about "country-approved informed consent" should answer this.

India, while participating in our efforts, and accepting funding (in part) to do so, refuses to allow research samples (as is its right) to be exported for the testing that is done to answer the needed questions. Instead of bombing or shooting, the investigators have chosen to train Indian scientists and make the technology available so that they can collaborate by doing the research themselves.

Absurd.

I think decentralization would benefit the world

Unless decentralization involves not being able to adequately protect you from the white people you are so afraid of. But there I go again being black and white with the assumption that a Federal Government big enough to protect you will be too large to stop from "protecting others".

If only I lived in omooex's shady gray world, that way I too could have my cake and eat it too. Oppose intervention abroad while relying on it to quell your domestic fears. Being an ideological hack like omooex has its benefits. At least ondelette is consistent in his support of US intervention. omooex is just a hack who will rail against the establishment until a moment of truth, then he'll defend the narratives of the status quo and contradict himself in order to look informed and passionate and cool.

To show the utter absurdity of your moral math word problems.

I am more than a little stunned from reading this article. Today I watched a Rachel Maddow expose of Mr. Obama's speech outlining his hopes for a new "legal regime" that will be legal because "we" will make laws making the heretofore unthinkable both legal and commonplace.

Who will dare to challenge this presidential viewpoint without fear of "indefinite detention"?

Is saying you disagree the threshold? Is writing a letter of concern the threshold? Is posting to a blog the threshold?

What subjects will be forbidden? Will Michael Scheuer's remarks on Fox News yesterday suggesting that "only a terrorist attack can save us" cause him to be merely reprimanded or indefinitely imprisoned? Who decides? Who is the new "legal regime"

Will the indefinitely detained be tortured, or is indefinite detention torture enough?

Lets look forward with both fear and trembling. It appears our country is no more.

Who will dare to challenge this presidential viewpoint without fear of "indefinite detention"?

Received from the ACLU today:

Dear ACLU Supporter,

There are no two sides to the debate over indefinitely detaining individuals without charge or trial.

Indefinite detention means allowing the government to imprison people for an unspecified period of time without charging them with a crime and without holding a trial.

That would fundamentally alter the character of our democracy. It would also gut the very meaning of the Fifth Amendment which guarantees due process. In short, it would be a human rights disaster.

The ACLU has been gearing up for a big legislative battle to stop any and all proposals to create a new system of indefinite detention. But now, news reports reveal a more immediate threat.

According to an article in the Washington Post last week, a strategy is taking shape in the White House that would authorize indefinite detention -- not through legislation, but with a presidentially signed executive order. And just hours ago, the president's press secretary said they would now go through Congress. One thing is clear: the Obama administration is seeking the power to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or trial.

What is also clear is that whether through executive order or legislation, indefinite detention is un-American.

You and I have to respectfully urge the President to make sure that idea never sees the light of day.

The key to stopping dangerous ideas is to act decisively right from the start. In the weeks ahead, it’s going to be up to you and the ACLU to lead a sustained effort to stop indefinite detention. And we can’t wait until this dangerous proposal is issued -- especially not when the President is being pressured by advisors within the White House to immediately sign an executive order.

We need everyone who believes in the Constitution and the American system of justice to let the President know that preserving our values and the rule of law is a top priority.

It goes on a bit more. Link @ sig to sign on and, if possible, give a contribution.