alister air writes:
> Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> >I don't fail to do anything about it.  I chose not to.
>
> Why?

I've tried to explain in previous thread, and again in this one.  (a)
I think most activists protest dishonestly; (b) I think such protests
validate the system that generates bombing situations, and it makes
that system stronger, and (c) I think I should spend my time trying to
change the fundamental rules.

> >Not at all.  Protesting against each case as it comes up is like
> >closing the gate after the horse has bolted.  The protests against the
> >NATO bombing did not stop the NATO bombing.  Protesting the Russian
> >bombing would not stop the Russian bombing.  Protesting in this way is
> >a waste of time and resources.  The structure has already taken it
> >into account and is prepared to deal with it.  The way to stop
> >bombings is to prevent the situations that lead to bombing.  That
> >requires changing the rules at the foundational level.
>
> But you're not apparently interested in changing the rules.  What
> are you doing to change them, apart from complaining that protests
> are "a waste of time and resources".  What would not be a waste of
> time and resources?

Redesigning the UN for a start.  Remove the veto power for one thing.

> >That's true, but I do have standards.
>
> You're doing a good job of hiding them then.

I'm not hiding them.  I've been very blunt.

martin