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)?
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
