I'm relatively new to the group and haven't posted much, so pardon me if I'm just repeating things for the millionth time.
To me, it seems that the NAP is very simple. The only way to adhere to it is to let someone attack you if they are determined to do so, then make them (and ONLY them) pay for that mistake. If we stopped playing policeman of the world, followed this principle and then made sure there was hell to pay in the fullest for anyone who in fact did attack us, what would we have to fear from anyone? To anyone using bin Laden and Al Queda as an example, I think that he is the safest man on the face of the planet. If our government really wanted him dead, he'd be dead, and with proof thereof. There is nowhere on Earth to hide anymore with the technology available and unlimited financial resources to buy the information we need to pinpoint the location of someone. If he was responsible for the murders of 3000 Americans on 9/11/01, why did we divert troops and money into a bogus war with a country that did not attack us instead of continuing to funnel every ounce of effort into tracking him down and killing him? Why has the supposed mastermind behind the first successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil become a forgotten sideshow? The bizarre actions of the Bush administration have made it impossible for me to ever again trust the government to adhere to using our defenses only in the rightful function of protecting its citizens. That dropped off the table completely when Bush's vendetta against Saddam became the focus of the "war on terror." ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
