Let me explain this to you s-l-o-w-l-y: the point was not as to whether you would be happy to see Henry K turned over, but as to whether Chile would be justified in attacking the U.S. for harboring Henry K.
In that way, the analogy holds.
By the way, what evidence do you have the Taliban was really in a position to turn over bin Laden?
Given that U.S. ,military might could not reign him in, does it even make sense to say that the Taliban had the power to bring him in "dead or alive?"
putz.
--- Brad DeLong <jbdelong at uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> virgil tibbs <sheik_of_encino at yahoo.com>
>
> >they said they would turn him over if we provided
> >evidenc....and they said that they would turn him
> over
> >to an international court....the U.S. gov't
> refused.
> >
> >Moreover, does this mean that Chile is justified in
> >bombing U.S. cities until we turn over Kissinger?
>
> I would be very happy to see Kissinger on trial in
> Chile for
> conspiring to murder General Schneider. But how does
> one wrong make a
> second wrong right? Just because Henry Kissinger is
> not on trial in
> Chile does not mean Osama bin Laden has some kind of
> right to a
> sanctuary in Afghanistan from which he could launch
> terror attacks.
>
> This is such a stupid argument that I can't believe
> anyone makes it
> in good faith.
>
> In fact, only a truly malignant fuck could make such
> an argument.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/