Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank
this "protect ourselves" thing seems to invoke the american legal definition of self-defense as a blanket justification for violence. thing is, you can get by on self-defense if the other person HAS ATTACKED you, and you are in immediate life-threatening danger. an american judge will not, however, accept your actions as self-defense if you hurt or kill somebody because you thought he MIGHT have a weapon.
also: deferring to an international organization in matters affecting a foreign country's sovereignty is not ASS-LICKING. would you prefer to revert to the law of the jungle, in which it's open season for any country to invade & overthrow any other country for ANY crazy reason?
Bookmarks