We've had this discussion before. Laws don't command unconditional respect.
> technically part of the lw of the land in the US, since it is party of the UN Charter, > that no nation may use force except in self-defense if actually attacked,
Gee. What a wonderful charter: if a government decides to brutalize it's own people, it'll do so with the knowledge that forcible intervention from outside isn't going to ensue.
> and not even then if you can go to the UN first. But I am not in tune with
> new thinking that allows civilized nations to impose theie ways on those
> sitting in darkness, or did Maek Twain say that about our attempt to
> liberate the Philippines from Spain domination?
Bullshit. As I said before, the regime that would follow Saddam's would almost likely be less of an imposistion upon Iraqis than Saddam's regime itself.
> Maybe it is not such new
> thinking after all. There was a name for it once, started with an "I," but
> it escapes me just now. Fortunately, our elections are marvelously
> democratic...
Care to actually deny that our government is actually a much closer apporximation of democracy than Iraq's?
> Jesus Christ, Brad, are you trying to give liberals a bad name?
One could ask the same of you and leftists.
-- Luke
>
> jks
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com