Check and mate or Freudian transposition? Really, read carefully what you wrote.
Do you propose war with any country with an obvious lack of respect for unalienable rights? Why not then the Chinese? Is the reason you don't their armament and population; i.e., military power? Oh, you moral fellow you!
Look, I am just as big a proponent as you of civic respect for unalienable rights. Hell, I quit my job and worked for three years without pay to write a book about property rights and environmental law. I simply think it an oxymoron to go about imposing civic respect for unalienaboe rights by force. Were there a substantial movement within Afganistan to defy the Taleban and revolt, I would obviously support that, but would you refuse if they executed adulterers? There are European governments that think our death penalty barbaric, as do I. Nor am I any liberal, but I do think we are being suckered into a war that we couldn't win. Thankfully, so far Mr. Bush has shown the proclivity not to waste our (thanks to Bubba) depleted armaments on this minor enemy, who could well be operating to sucker us into a strategically defenseless position against our far more formidable foes.
I think the correct moves, in this case, are to take off the head in Afganistan, help the Arab community in the US purge the traitors in this country, and set our theological community on the road of dealing with a major religion set on a course to implode. If you are not familiar with the fact that Islam has been exposed as a fraud by credible academics then you should take the time to read this.
If you would read my earlier post to you, you would see that that is exactly the reason. I said that the Taliban is a reasonable objective. We can take it out with limited involvement, due to the fevered hate for the Taliban by many native Afghan citizens. I said we should interfere when we can. We obviously can here, without sparking a world war.