Samantha Atkins <firstname.lastname@example.org> Wrote:
>If you believe in sovereign states then it is not defensible to disrupt another
>state just because you do not like the way it is run.
A gang of thugs cuts a bunch of throats and takes power and Samantha Atkins
thinks that state of affairs is sacred and to oppose such criminals is somehow
against the laws of nature.
> The biggest stockpile of biological weapons in the world belongs
> to the US.
Not true and never was. The USSR biological weapons program was about a thousand
times bigger that the US program ever was and I say that without exaggeration.
The USA would measure biological agents by the pound, the USSR by the ton.
>More nations have been disrupted and had their
> governments forcefully destroyed and/or changed by the US using
> illegal means (our definition of terror) than any other nation.
More than Germany, Japan, China or the USSR? You really are a jackass.
>Most of the old Soviet nuclear weapons are still in Russia and there is
> good reason to believe that they are not totally well-managed and safe
> today. Are we then ethically required to forcefully go in an seize these
>weapons before they come to harm?
How can we be "ethically required" to do something that is impossible?
We don't have the ability to solve that problem militarily in Russia, we may
in other parts of the world.
> Do other countries have the right to demand that the US proves
> its intentions and the safety of its bio-weapons?
Read a book someday, the US has had no bio-weapons since 1972.
>Do we have the right [...] it is not defensible [...] Do other countries have
> the right to Do we have the right [...] no inherent right [...] Are we then
>ethically required [...]
You keep spewing out this crap, as if they had objective answers.
John K Clark email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT