Mike Lorrey wrote:
> John Clark wrote:
> > Samantha Atkins <email@example.com> 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.
> 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.
> > >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.
> She is only spouting the relativist leftie part line.
I will not be speaking to either one of you. It is not worth
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT