On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 [email protected] wrote: > On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:12:32 EDT, Jeffrey Walton said: > > http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-19-libya_N.htm > > > Arab/US relations. I bet the Nobel Foundation would like its Peace > > Prize back. > > Which is more peaceful and moral, allowing a dictator to attack unarmed > civilians when you have the means to stop him, or stopping him even if it > doesn't involve just diplomacy?
What is the difference between a dictator attacking unarmed civilians, and a democratically appointed police force protecting the state from stone-throwing yobs? Or, to put it another way, in what circumstance is secession of part of a country from the other part, OK? Or should the other part fight to preserve the Union? Don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question. The difference is your point of view. > As far as "Arab/US relations" goes - I'll point out that *other Arab nations* > were > among the group asking the UN Security Council for action. And *other Arab nations* are noticably doing ... nothing at all. Even though they have prefectly capable air forces of their own. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
