Both the USA and Australia have in recent months claimed they have the right to pre-emptively strike other nations. Clearly this is better than waiting for the other guy to hit you first, if you know they are going to. So, we're dealing with the rights (or wrongs) of a nation to harm other sovereign states which they view as a threat.
Does Iraq have the right to pre-emptively strike the USA, given the USA's massive military build-up in their region? I know most will say "no". But why not?
Please give me something better than "might is right".
Sure they have the right to strike first, and then die horribly.
12-24-02, 01:35 AM
sort of like the 58,151 first-strikers mixing with the top soil in vietnam
12-24-02, 01:51 AM
Okay, I believe it's not "might is right", you've got that wrong. It's every nation asking every other nation "what have you done for me lately?" and, "what are you doing for me tomorrow?". This yields a few nations (in our apparent reality) which have significant juice. The more juice and savvy a nation has, the more they can influence the policy of their neighbors who are ...
why do I bother? it is utterly pointless. Adam, you should prepare the hords. Please, run the world. Disarm everyone and everything and then close your eyes and don't pay attention when you're being ass-raped by those you thought loyal. In all truth, it seems like a good idea that everyone should be able to get along. I wish we could but it is insane to think it possible, at least any time soon and it is probably just some higher order biological function that we haven't figure out yet or some crap. Oh, I suppose maybe you're trying to lull the masses into a coma such that you may overtake their mindless bodies, massing an army with which you can overtake the world! If so, sorry if I'm messing it up for you. I'll just move out of the way here and... yeah. Okay, on you go, evil plan.. riight.
12-24-02, 10:29 AM
For a change I agree with Mr. G.