Link it for us please
Yeah but wasn't the reason to invade Afghanistan more to rid Osama? I believe the taliban just used there power to the extreme, but it held order. Having made that statement why is it when our country or some other western allies go into a war it is always wrong? Yet when countries like Afghanistan are pretty much held hostage it is acceptable? I didn't say you said that I'm making a statement on the liberal side.
After 911, US said hand him over I believe... Taliban asked for evidence, US said F-you hand him over... and then attacked... while in September of that same year Haiti asked for extradition of Emmanuel Constant (covicted in absentia for attrocities) and was ignored. Does Haiti have a right to attack the regime in America? According to US actions - yes. Unless a different set of rules apply to smaller nations.
What did Haiti loose? Private Haitians! the WTC was a loss of people from around the world! now when does life mean less? Can't answer that one but the world is a very difficult place and it is never fair. Governments do things that will beneifit their causes domestic and abroad.QUOTE]
So what are you saying? Either governments have a right to attack nations that harbour terrorists or not... agree or disagree.
I agree because it is much larger than you and I. It has been this way since the beginning of time. I know protesting brings the issue out, but changing this is not going to happen. I'm not totally narrow minded but I've seen a few things and it seems that governments will use means to get what they want and not one government on this plant is exempt.
So is it okay or not to attack a nation that harbours terrorists?
And to your point - I agree, every nation must arm itself to the max to get any justice... so unbalanced application of law equals violent measures to achieve ends... making the world, what? Safer?
I should have been an arms dealer...sigh
You perceive the worst in my post. Are you above reality here? What are your expectations then? I know when in South America that the drug cartels clipped a bunch of people because the government was increasing pressure on the drug trade. So the government backed off and the cartels won for that period of time.
I see this as a real threat and you have to look at the big picture which would be the world and the objectives of any government. Deals are made everyday and they might not be poised for our approval but it is what makes this place go round and round.
Now you give me something to think about on a valid note here because I believe I'm in the ball park here.
alright. My opinion about harboring terror subjects.
If governments can't work out the details then maybe it should be fair game.
9/11 was more than just Americans that lost there lives it was more about our attack on our soil. But other countries were here and it was the center of the world economics. Afganistan knew they were harboring known terror subjects and maybe they were getting a nice check every month for that duty. We asked and we were denied and the world supported that mission and I'm speaking of that one first.
I can't agree that afganistan didn't know this guy wasn't dirty! He was using that contry to train terrorist, call it a bootcamp but they were lethal after completion of the training. He was kicked out of Africa because that country didn't want him there anymore, it was a cat and mouse game. they the afgan government opted to play silly and in the process got over thrown and in this case it was warranted.
That is like saying wipe the stupid sticker off my forehead...all the third world nations now are stupid, I think not and you know it as well.
You haven't given me your reply on this very question, I susect you were and are against such a deal.
But if your land was put into question because of a bloody attack what should those expectations have been?