Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: exodus
Terms at gunpoint are not binding ?

When you surrender because you no longer have hope of winning, you ARE at the mercy of the victor. Only in relatively recent times has being on the losing side not meant execution or enslavement for life. The U.S. has been a very merciful nation since 1900. The record of the American Indian Wars is how it used to be done.

Now I have been one of those calling for an official declaration of war, and admit to having overlooked the surrender terms. What is unusual is to leave the same leader in charge after his losing a war. Be that as it may, IF Saddam Hussein agreed in treaty to dispose of, and not acquire more WMD, THEN his violation of those terms is grounds for a Declaration of War. So the justification is there. Still, I would rather he had surrendered to the Allies sans U.N. , because this is another step in the U.N. acquiring supranational authority.

Remember that the U.S. of A. could be outvoted by the myriad little socialists, and could find ourselves at war with the U.N. ! Actually, the U.N. has been making war on American values for 60 years and using our money to do it.

126 posted on 09/14/2002 4:08:36 PM PDT by hoosierham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]


To: hoosierham
To: exodus
"Terms at gunpoint are not binding ?

When you surrender because you no longer have hope of winning, you ARE at the mercy of the victor. Only in relatively recent times has being on the losing side not meant execution or enslavement for life.."
# 126 by hoosierham


*************************

I agree with most everything on your long post, except that, as I said, an agreement forced on one of the parties is not binding.

I agree that surrender terms should be followed if the vanquished party has any honor, even though the agreement, being forced, is not legally binding.

Requirements that you not attack your neighbor, that you pay restitution, or that you give up claim to territory are legitimate terms that an honorable sovereign would comply with.

However, to require the surrender of a basic right, such as self defense, is an un-acceptable burden on any man, PARTICULARLY if that man is the sovereign of a nation.

No honorable man would abide by such a "requirement."

204 posted on 09/14/2002 9:00:36 PM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson