> > > Still... How, exactly, does one draw the line? Suppose, for instance, that the entire population of a small Chinese city showed up in your town. 100,000 people, let's say. Well, they don't have freedom of religion in China, or a lot of other freedoms. So a migration isn't without cause.
> >
> > I think there's a fundamental difference between migrating for a "lack of freedom" and migrating due to an "oppressive government that will kill you if you look funny at something." Still, 100,000 Afghans all trying to immigrate at once does indeed present an interesting dilemma.
>
> I realize that the Chinese are our "friends" these days, but I would not be so quick to say that they merely have an "oppressive government."

I didn't. That comment was directed at the Taliban. But you are correct, that China's government is guilty of some pretty heinous crimes against humanity, and I don't think that problem should be ignored. But the Taliban is far worse, and that's all I was saying.

> ...I am curious if you feel it would be correct for the US to simply remove the Taliban by force...
>
> It is my understanding that the Taliban took control of the government by force and is in no way representative of the people there. Certainly this makes it more than a religious matter.

I do think it would be appropriate for the U.S. to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan by force, yes. However, I'm not so sure it wouldn't be perceived as a religious matter, or at least sold to the people by extremists as a religious matter, even though it clearly isn't. No matter what statements we make about our reasons, some will always see it as, "The United States is forcibly taking out of power these people that want to set up an Islam nation." We are not loved in the middle East, and we are feared for our power besides. Using it in this way would, I'm sure, start all kinds of nastiness. How much, I don't know. Whether it is right to remove the Taliban from power anyway, I do not know. Sometimes I'm glad I'm not in charge.