Unilateral action is entirely justified. Al Qaida attacked the US. The Taliban not only fails to try to control Al Qaida or prevent them from using their territory, but actually supports and protects Al Qaida and allies itself with Al Qaida.
You miss my point. Do you support the use of force - GOING TO WAR - against one country by any other, when the first has an unfriendly regime and is probably sheltering someone possibly and allegedly responsible for terrorist acts? (Bearing in mind that given the state of Afghanistan the Taliban, it seems, are in little position to control Bin Laden even if they wanted to).
Or is it OK when the attacking country is stronger?
Or is it only OK if it's the US doing the attacking - but it's OK for the US to 'shelter' whoever it likes?
BTW, the US harbours known and wanted terrorists against Western democracies and has refused to extradite them - even given warrants and proof. Fact. It's done so for IRA bombers in the 80's. For ETA and extremist Israeli terrorists, now. US government officials - congressmen, senators - have spoken for them and backed them.
Also this attack was deadly on a scale that none of the IRA attacks have ever been.
Oh, right. So there's a minimum death quota now before you can act against terrorists? "Oh, Mr Khadaffi, your men killed less than 1000 when they took down Pan Am 179, that's not enough for any reprisals so we'll let you off with a caution?"
LOL. Yeah.
The blank cheque you are giving is for any government which thinks it's strong enough to remove any other. All it needs is for the second to harbour someone hostile to the first, and refuse to extradite them without what it considers satisfactory proof.
Think about it... |
