[SPORK] Gordon, please help us out, here...

JS Kelly jskelly@jskelly.com
Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:16:31 -0800 (PST)

interestingly, using gordon's (and w's) logic -- we would seem to be in
afghanistan illegally. 

if the logic of "that which has not been officially nullified is
legitimate" holds true 

then the 1988 geneva accords -- which i don't think have ever been
nullified -- explicitly state that the US is not allowed to interfere in
afghanistan's internal affairs (and neither is the USSR).

we legitimize our actions in afghanistan on the basis of un resolution
1368. but all that it says is that terrorists and sponsors of terrorism
"will be held accountable." not how, and not by whom.


On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Jeff Bone wrote:

> On Sunday, Mar 23, 2003, at 22:23 US/Central, Gordon Mohr wrote:
> >> What exactly is your position on the current situation?  Particularly:
> >
> > On the one hand, why does my position matter?
> Curious (a) what it is, and (b) whether you'll go on record, rather 
> than just opportunistically scoring "debate tokens." ;-)
> > So anyone who believes Gulf War I was legitimate should find the
> > current conflict legitimate as well.
> Not wanting to debate you, but I respectfully disagree.  I, for 
> example, supported Gulf War '91, but oppose this one.  The differences 
> are quite clear, at least to me:  we were countering an act of invasion 
> in '91, in part at the request of the victim nation and its neighbors.  
> Here we are initiating an act of invasion despite the request of the 
> victim nation (duh!) and its neighbors.  Then we had a real coalition 
> and broad international support.  Here we have a sham coalition (we're 
> supplying almost all the men and material) and weak international 
> support (3 of every 4 nations in the world representing 4 out of every 
> 5 people in the world oppose our current action.)  Etc.
> ---
> Still not sure you addressed most of those questions, but I tried.
> jb