Absolutely. More libertarian speak:
Iraq "aggressed" against Kuwait, amongst others, of course. They were repelled and pursuant to the Rules of War signed an unconditional cease fire that contractually obligated them to certain requirements. They committed fraud by not living up to those agreements and are not the subject of non initiatory force because they initiated it in the first place.
I really don't care what king we purchase our oil from.
The political spectrum is a circle. In reality, the far ight comes around to meet the far left and is virtually indistinguishable.
They're idiots, and Paul is an idiot.
To: Ragin1
Iraq "aggressed" against Kuwait, amongst others, of course..."
# 50 by jwalsh07
Iraq "aggressed" against Kuwait, amongst others, with the full knowledge and support of the United States.
Saddam Hussein even asked permission of the United States ambassador to Iraq, and waited for her to give that permission BEFORE attacking Kuwait.
Is any contract legal and binding, signed from the wrong end of the gun?
To: Ragin1
Absolutely. More libertarian speak: ...They were repelled and pursuant to the Rules of War signed an unconditional cease fire that contractually obligated them to certain requirements. They committed fraud by not living up to those agreements and are not the subject of non initiatory force because they initiated it in the first place.
# 50 by jwalsh07
Any agreement that calls for the disarming of any man, or any nation, violates a basic right, the right of self defense.
It is not fraud for a criminal to defend himself, not even if he's the sovereign of a nation defeated in war.
Rights take precedent over any "rule."