So, let's say a Mexican terrorist attacked China.

[otherlander]

The leader of a terrorist organization in Mexico sent his followers into China and they blew up a building and thousands of innocent Chinese civilians died horrible deaths. China asks Mexico to help them catch the terrorist leader, and Mexico agrees.

But it turns out that he's not in Mexico anymore. He's fled into America. And our government knows where he is, but he has business connections. So when China asks our government to hand this guy over to them, our government don't cooperate. Would that then justify China carpet-bombing us all into oblivion?

[last1standing]

1. So a Mexican man walks into a Chinese restaurant....

Sorry, couldn't help it.

But in answer to your question, I'd have to say yes, they have that right. By withholding access to a person who has essentially declared war on China we would be in effect declaring war on China ourselves. Now there's the question of feasibility at play. Does China want to attack the US knowing that it would lead to the destruction of the entire earth? Let's hope we never find out.

[SoCalDem]

2. and he orders a Moo-Goo-Gai-Taco?

[last1standing]

3. LOL! The sad thing is that actually sounds good. :)

We could start a restaurant called P.F. Chico's. :rofl:

[lvx35]

4. Where is the line?

if he kills thousands? hundreds? tens? one?

[MADem]

5. We owe China a kazillion dollars, and then some

If they wanted you, or me, or both of our beating hearts on a warm, bloody, plate, in exchange for some debt relief, they'd get it. I mean, fuck that democracy or "to the republic, for which it stands" shit, when the GOP is making deals.

They own a big chunk of us.

As do the "let's summon Dick to answer for his bad behaviour" Saudis.

Carpet bomb? We'd roll out the RED carpet, first....

[buddysmellgood]

6. It would justify some sort of action. Hopefully there would united world support

behind China and hopefully China would exhaust all other options before using military force. One would hope the first response would not be carpet bombing.

[LynnTheDem]

7. Yes.

According to the current "president" of the United States.

[GreenZoneLT]

8. Carpet bomb with what?

China has no long-range, land-based bombers capable of reaching the U.S., and no aircraft carriers. They have a small number of ICBMS with sufficient range, but a nuclear first strike would lead to massive U.S. retaliation, leaving China as one big glass crater. So it's a moot point.

Silly premise, anyway. How's a Mexican terrorist leader going to have business connections in the U.S.? What terrorist movement in Mexico would have a beef with China?

[xchrom]

9. ever come across the word hypothetical?

[otherlander]

10. When I wrote this...

the point was to discuss what justifies invading a country, and I didn't have specific details of a terrorist organization in mind. But now that you ask, could I see a situation in which our government would have such connections? Maybe. If Mexico elected a leftist leader and our government felt threatened, I could see them deciding to send in one of their SOA thugs. Why would his group attack China? I don't know, but our thugs have a way of not staying as US-friendly as we'd planned. See: Osama bin Laden. I could also see some sort of drug-money deal similar to Iran-Contra happening.

Maybe it's possible, maybe not. But that wasn't really the point. I just thought that using a hypothetical example would turn into less of a shouting match than "Was America justified in bombing Afghanistan?"

[treestar]

11. According to right wing logic, yes they do

But the Right Wing does excel in the double-standard department. And the self-centered department. They'd have an excuse why innocent Americans should not be carpet bombed due to the actions of other Americans, period, let alone just for hiding a Mexican. They are not responsible for the actions of other Americans. Muslims, Chinese and Mexicans, however, are individually responsible for the actions of other Muslims, etc.

Cynical, but when you examine the opinions of the average American, even including Democrats, you have reason to conclude this. Americans are humans who have rights, non-Americans do not "enjoy" these "privileges" of having justice applied to their case.