03-14-2004, 12:22 AM
"I assume that you don't really accept the premise at all and are basically just trolling with it, which is why you got the response you got."
As I said, within the framework of this (absurd) declaration, since I cannot be for you, I must be against you. It's not from my perspective that I support terrorism; it's from Bush's.
"It means that if the policy applied to you, you would defy the U.S. It means that if you were the British Prime Minister in that situation, you would say "Sorry Mr. Bush, if one of my citizens wants to blow up London there is really nothing I can do about it." It means that you would rather side with the terrorists than help to solve the problem."
Does it mean the United States has a right to declare war on Britain based on this? I would certainly support the British side over the American if the USA, without any legal cause for going to war, invaded Britain because the British government failed to meet an ultimatum. To support that would be to radically rewrite the rules for what justifies a war. Now, for Britain to ignore the threat of London blowing up (killing what, 25 million people?) would be absurd. But it would be their problem to deal with, or an international problem at the most. It is certainly not the US' right to invade whomever does not agree with their policy, even if that policy concerns terrorism.
Jester
As I said, within the framework of this (absurd) declaration, since I cannot be for you, I must be against you. It's not from my perspective that I support terrorism; it's from Bush's.
"It means that if the policy applied to you, you would defy the U.S. It means that if you were the British Prime Minister in that situation, you would say "Sorry Mr. Bush, if one of my citizens wants to blow up London there is really nothing I can do about it." It means that you would rather side with the terrorists than help to solve the problem."
Does it mean the United States has a right to declare war on Britain based on this? I would certainly support the British side over the American if the USA, without any legal cause for going to war, invaded Britain because the British government failed to meet an ultimatum. To support that would be to radically rewrite the rules for what justifies a war. Now, for Britain to ignore the threat of London blowing up (killing what, 25 million people?) would be absurd. But it would be their problem to deal with, or an international problem at the most. It is certainly not the US' right to invade whomever does not agree with their policy, even if that policy concerns terrorism.
Jester