<HTML>Hi Derek
First lets not forget that many Afghans are dependent on 'western' aid - although I understand that most of the agencies have had to leave now.
Self - defence is legal under international law. There is no shared world view on morality - all nations operate in their self-interest - it has always been an amoral context. The principle of aiding a country faced with the threat from a foreign power (as the US did to Afghanistan) is the basis for NATO. This principle is not undermind if the US is seen to be acting in their perceived self-interest - again NATO also relies on this.
A pre-emptive strike is legal under international law in the pursuit of self-defence (as I understand it). The key point here is that NATO is operating under the banner of self-defence - not 'blinkered gung-ho, kick ass outlook on life' or 'to satisfy a bloodlusty desire for revenge'.
This is legitimately about self-defence. Why can't we legitimately and morally reserve our right to defend our way of life?
Claire</HTML>