[LMB] Komarr and Rho Ceta (map)

Damien Sullivan phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu
Tue Jan 18 23:06:31 GMT 2011

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 07:17:40AM +0000, John Lennard wrote:

> In a  nutshell we have :
> A - - - - - [1] B [2] - enemies
> and Tel is arguing that A should defend itself at [1] not [2] for abstract
> political reasons based on contentious beliefs and partial or wrenched
> textev.

Abstract political reasons like self-determination, consent of the
governed, "no taxation without representation", and not conquering
foreign peoples.

> Quoting Tel to Gwynne -- "Bull". On this basis the US would need no
> deployments on non-US soil ... while it actually has, um, 140+  or
> thereabouts. The List rule prevents me going further, but this is not

Whether the US needs any of those for its national defense is debatable
but we won't here.  But I'll note that those bases exist with the
consent of the local governments, not as a matter of conquest.  Germany
and Japan were exceptions right after the way, but probably weren't 40
years later.

-xx- Damien X-) 

More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list