[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Cheap shots aside in the context of foreign relations what 'you believe is nessacary' could apply to bloody anything, its utterly silly and becomes contextually irrelavent.

Not really. It's the standard by which any person or nation will judge the need to defend themselves. And after it's over, they'rll be second-guessed by everybody else, and face the judgement of history.

Of course nations have a right to defend themselves with pre-emptive strikes, they are often nessacary...

My point exactly. And afterwards the actor will stand judgement as to the "necessity" of his actions, as Iseael did.

I've got an odd feeling were talking at cross purposes, you're off on another libertarian 'right to gun people down in the street for looking at you funny' rant and i'm talking foreign relations.

Seems to me the same principles apply in macro as in micro. No matter how much fun it may be to deal in lofty abstractions and call it "foreign relations", it still comes down to rather gritty interactions between real people.

I'm sorry you find the idea of armed law-abiding citizens so repugnant, but it's how we live here and it seems to work pretty well. I'm much more comfortable here than across the river where only the cops and politicians are legally armed.

If you don't distinguish libertarianism in general (and the right for law-abiding citizens to be armed, in particular) from "the right to gun people down for looking at you funny", there's very little ground for discussion of anything close to that topic. You simply don't seem to be able to picture anyone arming themselves without an endless TV-like bloodbath ensuing immediately.