Posted on 09/14/2002 5:32:18 AM PDT by Boonie Rat
No man may be told to surrender his right of self-defense, not even if he was convicted of a crime.
To: exodus
You would allow guns in prison????????
# 46 by Gumption
Of course not, Gumption.
Prisoners are not free men.
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because
we know it cannot retaliate - which just confirms that there is no
real threat?
Iraq (or any other vicious raghead country working with terrorists) can retaliate and we have a huge hole and 3,000 dead in NYC to
prove it.
13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?
Hitler was a big man on the world stage with small weapons; Hussein is a small man with (potentially or actually) big weapons. The similarity is in the mentality -- natural born killers.
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not
initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
We don't know whether Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack or
not and to say that he could not initiate aggression against us in
plainly nonsensical.
33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared
war and - not coincidentally - we have not since then had a
clear-cut victory?
Gulf War, Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
That is almost too silly to answer.
Why then is Iraq expected to surender it's right of self-defense at the order of that same foreign power, the United Nations?
To: exodus
You're forgetting the agreement that Iraq signed after the Gulf War. If Iraq proved that it had no (weapons of mass destruction) nor program to develop such, the sanctions would be lifted and Iraq could rejoin the family of civilized nations. Iraq doesn't want to do this, of course, because Hussein is a lawless thug. He's got to go.
# 48 by sinkspur
Hussein was left in power.
As sovereign of his nation, he has the responsibility to protect his subjects. To protect his subjects, he MUST have weapons. For weapons to be effective against the armies of another nation, they must be "weapons of mass destruction."
If Hussein needed to go, the time to do it was during the previous illegal war, not in a new illegal war.
Had alleged Libertarians of Ron Paul's (yellow) stripe been in charge during the Civil War, we'd be a divided nation which ultimately got carved up and occupied by monarchial empires centered in Europe.
Had alleged Libertarians of Ron Paul's (yellow) stripe been in charge during the First World War, a German Empire would span Europe, and be looking to expand into the Americas by now.
Had alleged Libertarians of Ron Paul's (yellow) stripe been in charge during the Second World War, we'd have capitulated to a nuclear armed Germany by 1944 or 1945.
Yep, Libertarians and their allies on the far loony right have one goal - the utter destruction of our society and the freedom we do enjoy at the bootheels of foreign conquerors. Guess that would give them a lot more to whine about.
29E10V81P
HOOAH!
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.
I gotta take my girls to soccer now and watch them kick a ball around in no particular direction. I'll check back later.
Twisted logic eminating from a basic false premise.
Please - don't consider yourself in the ranks of Americans - you don't deserve the honor.
Disgusting.
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."
I've said before, and will continue to say, "Far-Right, meet Far-Left. Far-Left, meet Far-Right."
They are made for each other.
That is a time-tested liberal ploy against conservatives.It is beneath any Freeper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.