On May 11, 2005, at 7:56 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:31 AM Wednesday 5/11/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 10, 2005, at 8:57 PM, JDG wrote:
At 04:43 PM 5/10/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
And myriad possibilities in between, as well as assistance to NGOs,
economic
intervention by businesses and much more. Reducing such issues to
either-or
choices doesn't feed hungry people.
The choice is between taking direct action to help people now, or
taking
indirect action that *might* work, or *might* buy the killers enough
time
to "finish the job" before anyone stops them.....
... direct action that *might* help people now, or *might* plunge them
into a morass off killing and lawlessness that is far worse than what
they face now ...
Are you so sure that direct action is the answer? If so, what form
would
that direct action take? Air- dropping food pallets to get past the
guys
with guns? Or did you have something in mind that would involve more
guys
with guns?
So what sort of non-direct action do you think would have a high
probability of getting the food past the guys with guns to the people
who need it (and insuring that the guys with guns don't take it as soon
as the delivery trucks have pulled away from the making the delivery,
or
something like that)?
I have never presumed to propose any specific action.
I merely questioned the certainty of my listmate's assertion that
"the choice" is between presumably successful direct action and
presumably unsuccessful indirect action.
Dave
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
