>
>>That's totally contrary to anything I have ever thought of as just
>>war theory. A causus belli is first of all an affirmative act, not
>>an omission. Omissions may be culpable, but they are not acts of
>>war, which is what a causus belli requyires, an act. Besides, you
>>can't even say the T regime had any special relation or
>>responsibility to the US, which refused to recognize it, put it
>>under sanctions, and generally treated it like an enemy.
>>
>>jks
>
>And where were you on 9/11? If that is not an "affirmative act," I
>don't know what is.
>
Brad, you are being obtuse. You said that refusing to volunteer information was a causus belli. It's not. You are changing the subject. Now, if AFghanistan had attacked New York and Washington, that would be a c.b. But it didn't. At worst it "harbored" those who apparently did. So, you are apparently justifiying a war against people who didn't commit an affirmative act, so far as we know, by shifting your basis for the attack from (a) refusing to give information to (b) doing something done by a "guest," as is convenient. Is taht how you reason at Berkeley? I'm glad I went to Michigan, then. jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp