France Surrenders!

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Good counterargument!

Hey, just showing some compassion for people who, ultimately, are more right than the ones shooting at them.

Try it sometime.

How am I labeling them as "less than human beings"? In any case, YOU are certainly labeling Iraqis as "less than human beings", with the implication that we should be able to bomb them with impunity.

"Bomb them with impunity"?
Are you on crack? I thought you didn't believe in gun control. If someone started shooting at you, would you just ignore it and run away.

Oh yeah, it's you. yep.

Legally, according to a cease fire, maybe. In the spirit of the US Constitution, certainly not.

Bull****. Our Founding Fathers ran the government in ways against "the spirit of the constitution" all the damn time. And I'm going to believe the people who had say in the creation of the constitution (Madison, Hamilton, and to a lesser degree Washington and Jefferson) over some ***** from Austin.

What you have to remember, though, was that the cease fire agreement was just as immoral as the entire Persian Gulf War was.

How so? A tiger was set out of his cage and we put him
back in, with the understanding we would be aloud to look around said cage to make sure he didn't have a chisel or something to break out. Immoral in no way.

So you want to go kill Iraqis, huh? And that's not even in self defense, either.

I can think of one who deserves to be sent to a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prision for the rest of his life. His sons wouldn't be out of place there either.

Unlike in, say, Afghanistan where there was a substantial military force actively opposing a (dare I say it?) evil regime, there is none here. What does this mean?

Leads me to conclude that those who are armed really couldn't care less if they are ordered to gas a village.

Self defense? Maybe not. I would call it justice though.

So why in the **** are you allowed to say you want to go kill Iraqis (innocent Iraqis, at that), in their own country, but I'm not allowed to say those same Iraqis should be able to successfully defend themselves against aggression?

According to dictionary.com....

aggression

\Ag*gres"sion\, n. [L. aggressio, fr. aggredi: cf. F. agression.] The first attack, or act of hostility; the first act of injury, or first act leading to a war or a controversy; unprovoked attack; assault; as, a war of aggression. ``Aggressions of power.'' --Hallam

So, no you aren't allowed to say that. That's slander. You are lying. The United States was not the one, and, believe it or not, still is not the aggressor.

What authoritarian mother****er said that?

Confederate Lt. General A.P. Hill.

[David Floyd]

Hey, just showing some compassion for people who, ultimately, are more right than the ones shooting at them.

How is some Air Force officer in an F-16 more "right" than an Iraqi conscript?

If someone started shooting at you, would you just ignore it and run away.

No, I wouldn't be provoking them in the first place. If I decide to declare a no-walk zone on my neighbor's front lawn, and patrol it vigorously with an assault rifle, and forbid my neighbor from buying guns, and shoot at him anytime he tries to walk on his lawn or obtain weapons, I probably deserve to be shot at by him.

Our Founding Fathers ran the government in ways against "the spirit of the constitution" all the damn time.

Very true. They certainly did.

They did not, however, make it a habit of going around invading and shelling whomever they pleased.

And I'm going to believe the people who had say in the creation of the constitution (Madison, Hamilton, and to a lesser degree Washington and Jefferson) over some ***** from Austin.

Oh, well, if we are bringing Washington in it, wasn't it him who advised us against "entangling alliances"?

How so? A tiger was set out of his cage and we put him
back in, with the understanding we would be aloud to look around said cage to make sure he didn't have a chisel or something to break out. Immoral in no way.

I'll concede that Saddam Hussein was a tiger if you concede the United States was a T-Rex who was basically responsible for the Cold War, invaded countries at will, tested and used chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons on civilians or in civilian areas,
and overthrew democratically elected governments throughout the Caribbean (and elsewhere) at will.

Saddam gassed the Kurds? Well, that was certainly bad. And I might just give some credence to your arguments if you were consistent with them, and admit to me that the US was in the wrong for dropping the atomic bombs and firebombing Japanese and German cities, and that FDR, Truman, LeMay, and various other people responsible for those actions should have been charged with murdering civilians and executed.

I can think of one who deserves to be sent to a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prision for the rest of his life. His sons wouldn't be out of place there either.

Maybe so. And if you have a way to get them to enter the US, commit a crime on US soil where the US has jurisdiction, and then arrest them, you can send them to prison.

Until then, you're gonna need a stronger argument to convince me it is OK to murder Iraqi conscripts and civilians.

Leads me to conclude that those who are armed really couldn't care less if they are ordered to gas a village.

Right, because the US never slaughtered civilians

\Ag*gres"sion\, n. [L. aggressio, fr. aggredi: cf. F. agression.] The first attack, or act of hostility; the first act of injury, or first act leading to a war or a controversy; unprovoked attack; assault; as, a war of aggression. ``Aggressions of power.'' --Hallam

So, no you aren't allowed to say that. That's slander. You are lying. The United States was not the one, and, believe it or not, still is not the aggressor.

Seeing how Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and US aggression against Iraq were two distinctly separate matters, your definition simply proves my point. The US committed the first act of war against Iraq, not the other way around, and it was an entirely unprovoked attack, at that.

Confederate Lt. General A.P. Hill.

Ah, now I have a name for the authoritarian mother****er.