> I was talking about the "dangerous" part. The "stupid" part of your comment was hardly worth addressing. The man is not stupid.
>
Well, my opinion is still on that side, and the fact that he gives such an impression reflects badly on him as a statesman, but yes, alright, he isn't so stupid as to necessarily reflect on his ability, regardless of how bright he really is. I think I've finally been convinced of that by this and other threads.


> How concerned our government was, I'm not sure. My cautious opinion is that it was not enough of one, because we didn't appear to be doing anything about it. But I know less about the complexities of world affairs than they do, and I don't know what discussions may have occurred behind closed doors. But it was *a* concern, to be sure, and I would be quite surprised if I were to learn that we weren't doing subtle sorts of things to address the situation that would have panned out in time. *shrug* I don't know.
>

Alright. If they were at least recognising the problem and presumably were considering in at least some vague sense solutions then that does make me feel a lot better about them.
With regard to the fact that they were active in supporting the Taliban as a buffer against Communism some time ago? I mean, is that correct? I've heard/read it in a couple of relatively believable sources and wouldn't expect it to be mentioned much, but that strikes me as an act that was most _unconcerned_ about the Afghani people if so.


>
> Why is there a problem with the former? If someone holds a gun to your son's head and says, "I am going to shoot your son," what are you going to do, and why are you going to do it? Hopefully the answer to the first question is that you're going to try and stop him. Now, is the answer to the second question, "Because if I don't stop him, he'll shoot my son" or "Because if I don't stop him, he'll continue to terrorize other people"? There's nothing wrong with either answer, but if you would call the former immoral, or even LESS ethical, I'll take exception to that. I'd call the former the MORE acceptable answer.
>
Because the implication the way it filters through here is that the analogy is closer to someone knocking on your door who looks dodgy and you shooting him because you think he might be trying to break in and shoot you. I'd claim that that is wrong. The fact that there is dodgy men wandering around with guns is a concern, sure, but... maybe the idea that there was people hiding in their house shooting at some who wandered past would be more likely to encourage such an act than otherwise? I think the analogy is breaking down there but I hope you can see what I mean.

> As other people in this thread have mentioned, governments are (or should be) representatives of groups of people appointed to look out for their own interests. It's "good" if they do humanitarian sorts of things, rescuing others from oppressive regimes and taking in refugees and so forth if they can, but their primary responsibilities are to the people that appointed them.
>
> While the oppression of the Taliban was a great concern prior to September 11th, darned right it became more of one after. So it should.


Yeah... I guess so. There's a wierd thought process of mine that keeps telling me that if something wasn't deemed important before, then it isn't after. It's pretty clear that that can't really apply here, if anywhere.

El "Changing _some_ preconceived opinions, slowly" Fishski