Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex
The 90% in question had their rights to self-defense violated by some foreigners and wish to send the government to retaliate.

More absurdities. Their rights to self defense were violated by their own government firstly. And more importantly than their right to carry firearms (which if protected might have resulted in a much different scenario than what occurred on 9./11) their national government failed them miserably. The one job it was supposed to do well (National Defense) if failed at.

Furthermore this was not 90% of the population who were affected. It was all of us. Every single one of us has been shown the folly of foreign interventionist policy at the expense of the homeland.

143 posted on 10/23/2001 4:38:50 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies ]


To: Demidog; Architect
Their rights to self defense were violated by their own government firstly

Of course not. The terrorists chose to attack civilians and their attack suceeded. There is no telling what line of attack they would have chosen if the environment of air travel were different. They were the party that initiated violence. Now, it is the right of every American -- because every American is objectively threatened -- to demand retaliation from our government. Some of us do, and some don't. But our government either retaliates or it doesn't -- it can't do 90%-10% split on retaliation. Thus foreign policy cannot go by percentages of consent, which is my original point. Hope that clarifies.

144 posted on 10/23/2001 6:59:19 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson