> Personally I'd welcome some sort of intervention by one of the three-letter agencies - this time it could be actually for a good cause. Have you ever read a

> Personally I'd welcome some sort of intervention by one of the three-letter agencies - this time it could be actually for a good cause. Have you ever read a book by Hannah Arendt called Eichmann in Jerusalem? The whole point of the book is the sheer banality of evil -- that the bulk of evil is not the sensationalist stuff that makes up movies, but its boring, bureaucratic machinations and tacit complicity of civilians under the regime. So all I can say about your idea is it is at best naive and at worst cynical. First of all, it's naive because it supposes that military intervention ever works when that flies in the face of history showing that nation-building (especially of the American sort) never works unless it's the kind that comes about indigenously -- if it was so easy to fix problems, why has American military intervention post WWII been an almost complete failure? Second of all, it's cynical because it's easy to support such ideas when you're not the citizen who has to suffer through the consequences if things get worse. What would be your response if your idea simply doesn't work? "Better luck next time?" This isn't a game.