America needs an enema...

[mmotyka at lsil.com]

Duncan Frissell <frissell at panix.com> 
>
>At 09:41 PM 9/30/01 -0500, measl at mfn.org wrote:
>>While I would *like* to think that your point is _completely_ valid and
>>all-encompassing, I'm afraid I can't :-(   Unfortunately, we are just as
>>interested in "liberating" everyone else (read: forcing them do do as we
>>please, but not necessariily as we do) on the planet.  The U.S. has a
>>rather intense ego problem.
>
>Actually that raises the interesting question-
>
>If we could do so without stolen money and without collateral damage, would 
>it be moral to invade countries and kill their governments to prevent the 
>oppression of their people?
>
>That is, since all governments violate people's rights and some violate 
>them more than others, would attacks on governments by outsiders be proper 
>(as internal revolution presumably is)?
>
>My poli sci prof once said "after the 'Revolution' of 1845 in England, the 
>Liberals imposed laissez-faire."  Can one impose non-imposition?
>
>Is it wrong to kill a government?
>
>Sic Semper Tyrannis.
>
>DCF
>
What does the concept of right and wrong have to do with it? 

I would say that a more relevant phrasing of the question is one that
needs to be answered on a case by case basis : is it possible to kill
that particular government?

What's in it for the aggressor? Access to rare earths, risk reduction, a
warm-water port, a Pepsi factory, supermodels? I doubt that any 3rd
party would incur the expense of killing an entire government completely
out of a sense of right unless that cost were extremely small - pocket
change, so to speak. 

Mike