<HTML>Hi Claire,
> 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 don't think America should act as world policeman but in this instance it appears that they (alongside the UK) will do as well as acting as the judge, jury and executioner. Isn't this exactly what bin laden has done? Decided the US is guilty of crimes against moslems and then acted in defence of them. Whether you are an international terrorist organisation or a free democracy that cannot be justified. Aren't we just saying "do as we say not as we do"?
> 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.
Have the UN given the US permission to wage war on Afghanistan yet?
> 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.
If you can understand the circumstances surrounding the struggle I gather you can accept terrorism. Presumably these people think terrorist attacks are acceptable or tolerable so long as they only act in foreign countries?
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.
I completely agree.
KRs,
Duncan</HTML>
