Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl
I guess the difference is that I base my actions/decisions on the facts at hand.
|
What facts are you talking about? All I think we have is speculation and what they say.
Quote:
|
And those facts say they don't have the weapons. But even if they did, I have no right to tell them they can't.
|
In general this is an interesting position you are taking with some implications that many would be very uncomfortable with. Basically, given your reasoning how would you justify any law governing behaviors that may put others at risk? How would you justify any non-voluntary requests by the UN?
Quote:
|
Only when it is clear that an attack is IMMINENT(sp?) would I take a pre-emptive action.
|
Ask 100 people to define when an attack is "imminent" and I bet you won't find many who agree. Also, "preemptive" action doesn't necessarily mean using violence - and nov-violent action can be as devastating with the same consequences of violence, i.e., cutting off medicine, aid, food and water can cause many to die without a single shot fired.