Berube

[dave dorkin]

Quite right Virgil. His unstated premise is that the
justification could be unilaterally decided by someone
over here in the US without having to actually argue
much less engage seriously in questions of
international law. 

--- virgil tibbs <sheik_of_encino at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> The real issue was whether the U.S. was JUSTIFIED in
> the use of force.  The points I have made, which you
> are ignoring, are (1) was the U.S. justified in
> using
> the force it did, and (2) did the U.S. make the case
> that it was so justified.
> 
> As for whether the people of afghanistan are better
> off..on what do you base the claim that they are, or
> more importantly, that they will be?  That is
> besides
> the fact that I never made that point.  
> 
> If the critereon for such action is whether the
> people
> of the nation are better off, then start bombing the
> white house now!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Brad DeLong <jbdelong at uclink.berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
> > >the issue is not whether we take them at face
> > >value...but whether the U.S. was justified in
> > bombing
> > >them back to the stone ages based on the unproven
> > >premise that they withheld him from the U.S.
> > 
> > Yet another person for whom the overthrow of the
> > Taliban is a *minus* 
> > for the people of Afghanistan.
> > 
> > Truly a malignant fuck indeed.
> >  Brad DeLong