ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Vic, > > > > 1.) Your three sentences are not coherent. Please proof read > > them. But I think I know what you are claiming: to advocate the > > expansion of liberty; yet the details of it indicate > aggression. > > so what?? why should you not agress against people that are > antithetical > to liberty??? > > ---------------- > Yes, you are correct; you would be "aggressing". And therefore > you should not do it for several reasons. Firstly, because you > have not specified the persons you charge; OR even specified the > charges (other than being "antithetical to liberty"); let alone > provided habeas corpus or due process or fair trials or even > evidence of crimes.
there is no habeas corpus nor due process nor such a thing as fair trials between countries. there is no taking anyone in a foreign country that is hostile to us, to court. I really have no idea why this red herring is even brought up in this discussion. the only option is to apply pressure at a national level, sanctions etc and if that fails use force to get the outcome you want. so again I am asking why is one country not allowed to agress against another that which holds an ideaology that is antithetical to freedom. and why is agression against a country that is engaged in killing some minority not allowed? Vic 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
