John Clark wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.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.
>
> >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.
>
> >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.
Especially since the Russians are quite willing to ask us for help in
managing their nuclear stockpiles, since they cant afford to do it
themselves. The problem is that there are those in congress who think
that pork for their home districts is more important than nuclear
terrorism.
>
> > 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.
Furthermore, we have never used bioweapons, and have held steadfastly to
treaties we sign, quite unlike most any other nation.
>
> >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.
"There is no controlling legal authority"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT