Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > Especially since she is completely ignoring that part of the libertarian
> > principle about non-initiation of force that mandates your right to
> > respond with force when you are initiated against first.
> >
>
> Please pay attention. We have unilaterally applied force
> illegally in many parts of the world to change many governments
> to our liking. Afghanistan is not the first nor is the current
> action the first time we have intervened in that country.
> Please give a slight benefit of the doubt if you don't mind. I
> am saying generally that no country has the right to interfere
> with another sovereign country accept under conditions of war.
> It is a matter of some contention whether that is quite what we
> have here and now or not. But it is not a matter of contention,
> afaik, that this is generally conceded to be a principle that
> leads to relative peace between nations.
>
> Afghanistan did not attack us. Terrorists did. No matter how
> you twist it, there is a bit of a difference.
The Taliban was the de facto government of Afghanistan, and is
considered to be only distinguishable from the al Qaeda by the fact that
the Taliban are exclusively Afghans and al Qaeda is generally
exclusively non-afghan. Al Qaeda has operated for years as the training
and security and foreign covert ops arm of the Taliban government, so
any action by them is an act of the Taliban government.
Trying to claim that the Taliban government was not responsible for 911
is like trying to claim that JFK was not responsible for the Bay of
Pigs.
Furthermore, the al Qaeda organization had declared war on the US many
years prior to 911, so your 'conditions of war' caveat entirely fits
these circumstances.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT