Jonathan Cook wrote:
rw wrote:


1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?


I agree with 1-7. But if 1-7 are satisfied, #8 doesn't matter.
In any case we really don't mean "broad" (e.g., a simple majority
of the UN member countries), we really mean "most of the
countries we consider as 'important' friends"...which ends up
being a tiny fraction of the world.

These douche bags violated every single principle of the Powell Doctrine.

Jon.
PS: full freezer?

Nope. We scouted a perfect setup two days before the opener, but the
wolves drove the elk off. Now we've had a heavy snow and the hunting is
over -- our spot is remote and the trails are too hazardous. That's the
way it goes.



--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.