Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!greg
From: greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <924@harvard.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-May-86 11:42:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: harvard.924
Posted: Mon May  5 11:42:06 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 8-May-86 05:38:48 EDT
References: <157@unido.UUCP> <720@ark.UUCP> <170@westpt.UUCP> <1120@erix.UUCP> <908@harvard.UUCP> <1145@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Reply-To: greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg)
Organization: Harvard
Lines: 27
Xref: linus net.followup:5215 net.politics:14844

In article <1145@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> karate@ukc.ukc.ac.uk (NCG) writes:
>In article <908@harvard.UUCP> greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) writes:
>>Funding IRA terrorist is not the policy of the federal government, the
>>state of New York, or the city of New York.  No building in New York
>>is by any stretch of the imagination a training camp or command center
>>for the IRA terrorists.
>>
>
>...so the Nicaraguans are entitled to bomb only specific buildings in
>the USA in retaliation for American funding of the contras.

This conclusion follows from two assumptions:

1)  The Israeli doctrine on retaliating to international terrorism is
the correct one.

2)  Funding the contras is an act of international terrorism.

Very few people believe both assumptions.  If you believe both of these
assumptions, then I guess yes, the Nicaraguans are "morally entitled" to
bomb the United States.  However, the Israeli doctrine assumes that the
retaliating nation is more powerful than the terrorist organization under
attack.  Since this is not true for the US and Nicaragua, bombing the USA
would be a grossly ineffective policy.  It is not clear to what degree a
government is "morally entitled" to follow any disastrous policy.
-- 
gregregreg