<HTML>Hi Duncan
>>But thats a moral judgment in itself - who is to say who those 'safe' countries for terrorism are? Do you include Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Colombia, Chechnya etc.? How about the US and the UK? And if you differentiate between them on what basis can you say that some acts of terrorism do not require military action but others do?
I'm not talking about a world policeman. I'm talking about legal self-defence and the treaty that we signed that said (under article 5) that an attack on one was an attack on all. Any action by NATO will be about this attack - or do you think that America <i>should</i> act as world policeman? I'm not seeing this as an enforcement of a global morality - I'm seeing it as self defence - protection from attack. The UN resolution also saw it in these terms.
>>I wonder if this had happened in London would we be on the verge of war right now? Would Bush and the American people be talking about US military intervention in Afghanistan? I personally don't think we would.
If we had invoked article 5 then they would have been obliged, as we are now, to treat it as an attack on them. But I take your point.
As an aside, it has become clear to me on the GH MB that there are still Americans who think that the IRA can claim some moral ground. On occasion they are the same Americans who feel outraged that anyone would mention American Foreign Policy as a cause for the attack in this discussion. In my view there is no justification for the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, nor any justification for the IRA's terrorists attacks on the British.
Cheers
Claire</HTML>
