I think Ravi is right. You are papering over some significant differences and making unfair assumptions about folks like us who suported the idea of a non-unilateral police type action under some international auspices.
Play fair.
-Chip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of ravi
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 12:35 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Terror Inc.
>
>
> Dennis Perrin wrote:
> >
> > But what would be an "appropriate international police
> response"? I mean, if
> > it meant going in and ridding the Afghans of the Taliban,
> would that upset
> > you? I've seen plenty of people say they'd support a
> "police action" but
> > they never say how it would differ from what the US did.
> >
>
> it would differ in that the US wouldnt be doing it, to point out just
> the obvious though non-trivial difference - i believe its non-trivial
> because a whole lot of differences would spring out of that
> (the efforts
> of the multi-national forces in somalia could possibly be an
> example of
> these differences).
>
>
> > I think that those who bleat about "police actions"
> > and conducting "criminal investigations" are blowing smoke,
> 'cause when you
> > get right down to it, they seem to prefer that nothing be done.
>
>
> thats just your belief and should count for nothing in a
> logical debate,
> just as my belief that anyone espousing your position is potentially
> acting out of a sense of revenge.
>
> if not lawful action on the basis of some accepted standard,
> what else?
> might makes right? ends justify the means?
>
> --ravi
>
>