What gives the nation the right to go to war against a perceived threat when that nation has not taken direct action against us?
What gives the community the right to lock someone up just because they stated that they are going to kill someone and have taken steps to be able to do so? This one is actually a close relative to the first. I guess in the protesters eyes, Iraq cannot be attacked until enough Americans have died. Not only that, but if they should die, Saddam would have to go on TV, in english, on a US network and confess that he has not only developed nuclear weapons, but he has made them available to terrorist groups. Otherwise we would not be justified in attacking him at all.
Related Questions
- How can any one nation improve its ability to counter the threat from existing biological weapons without being perceived, by other nations, as acquiring an enhanced capability to deploy such weapons?
- What gives the nation the right to go to war against a perceived threat when that nation has not taken direct action against us?
- Does the right to dissent include the right to question the nation in a democracy?
