humanities.philosophy.objectivism
back to index
From: Charles Bell
Date: Monday, March 17, 2008 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Six year Gallop poll on Muslim views of the west - in other news Peikoff/Brooke are FOS
On Mar 17, 8:49 am, Gordon Sollars
> In article
>
>
>
> > To repeat Charles Hill's statement on the matter -- something I have
> > had to say several times before here in hpo and in personal
>
> Charles is now repeating himself. The interested reader can simply go
> up the thread to see my reply to this. The argument that the U.S. was
> properly acting under UN authorization has been refuted by "accomplished
> men in the field"
Why do you not attempt to refute Hill's remarks on the subject rather
than what you say I am saying? The fact that the U.N. S.C. did not
ultimately authorize U.N. military response against Iraq does not
speak to the reasons why the U.S. did seek a military response under
U.N. sanctions. The same was true in 1998. The U.S. did not invoke
preemptive action but rather punitive-retaliatory action with respect
to the resolution of the War in 1991. Moreover, there was no U.N.
condemnation to U.S. actions in Iraq. In fact, it sought later to be a
part of the process.
Why do you not respond to U.N. S.G. Annan's remarks with regard to the
inevitability of unilateral action for preemptive self-defense of some
nations suffering from state-sponsored international terrorism?
