Quote:
|
Are you saying a nation or person must actually be overtly attacked before defending themselves?
|
Um, yes. How can you be "defending" yourself if you are offensively attacking someone? That just make no sense at all.
Okay, so let me put it this way? I was taunted quite a lot in middle school (because I was a "nerd", a trait that in college has gotten much more positive remarks). Should I have been able to legally take my father's finely crafted baseball bat (or rifle?) and "defend" myself into his head? Because, you know, some of those kids taunting me sure looked like they needed a "regime change" from my "intelligence reports".
Quote:
|
The standard for the use of deadly force in self-defense by individuals here is only that they must reasonably believe that it is necessary to protect themselves from death or serious injury.
|
Well, I got beaten up quite a few times by those kids. (Damn you Eric Deamon!) Is that enough to justiy, say, killing them, a few by standers, and a few million dollars worth of infrastructure? When the US goes to war, they KNOW that there will be non-combatants killed, people who just happen to be there at the wrong time, but they were still killed by the US. Why doesn't the US own up to that? Why doesn't that play into desiding to start a war. (I learned a little Tae Kwon Do for confidence and started winning fights other kids started instead)
Is that enough, to get punched a few times? Why didn't we attack some country when the USS Cole got bombed? Or Montana when the OK City bomb went off? Okay, so I'm going a little over the top, but so is Bush and all these sheep following Bush into an old testament war. THAT WE (ths US) ARE GOING TO START!!!
Doesn't that strike a cord in you? Fuck oil. I'll ride my bike and work on hyrdogen.
Share the day,
Seer