Russell Chapman wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
>
>>My answers:
>>
>>>#1: Country A supports terrorism against country B. Should country B be
>>>allowed to let its military strike back at country A?
>>>
>>Yes
>>
>>
>>>#2: If the answer to #1 is "yes", would this always be true, or only for
>>>certain countries B?
>>>
>>Always
>>
>
> But isn't this the heart of the problem? The CIA has been sponsoring terrorism for
>decades. They have supplied
> training and arms to so many groups in so many places. Even Bin Laden was trained
>and supplied by the CIA.
> Why is it so hard to take the next step and see why the CIA should cease and desist
>their operations of
> destabilisation and insurrection around the world.
> ( I can sort of understand in places like Panama, Haiti, Grenada etc where US
>security is involved, but Afghanistan
> and the Persian Gulf are a long way away from the US)
>
> Even if the CIA could be convinced to back off, US arms dealers will still have an
>active presence in the world's hot
> spots. The sad part is that the CIA will probably have a longer leash as a result of
>the bombings, when the bombings
> are (in part) the result of their activities in the first place.
>
I don't think the CIA or any other US agency should sponsor
terrorism or anything that can be construed as terrorism
anywhere, ever. I don't think we should sponsor
revolutionaries unless our allies and a majority of our
citizens concur. International weapons sales should be
strictly regulated (I have no idea what, if any regulations
are on the books). If we expect others to play by the rules
it is paramount that we adhere strictly to them. We have
_zero_ moral authority if we do not.
--
Doug
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zo.com/~brighto
