Subject:
|
Re: The case for compensation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 May 2005 13:16:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1146 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
|
Given that, at Washingtons behest, Iraq had to pay war reparations after it
invaded Iraq, why should Washington not compensate Vietnams Agent Orange
victims?
|
Clearly youre not aware of the facts. The US companies that manufactured the
Patriotic Defoliant Agent Orange cant be held responsible because they were
only obeying the orders of the Commander In Chief during a time of Just and
Righteous War. And the US cant be held accountable because we were working to
defend the world against the cancerous spread of Communism, so anything we did
was in service to the greater good.
Besides, according to the companies, it hasnt been proven 100% without any
possibility of doubt, revision, or ambiguity, that every single birth defect,
from cleft palate to acephaly, was caused exclusively by their patriotic
chemicals, so they clearly cant be held responsible for any of them.
Jeez, Scott. You really should do your reading before you post this stuff.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply: | | Re: The case for compensation
|
| (...) Hmm. In that case, perhaps they could have called it "Agent Red White and Blue" rather than the rather un-Patriotic (spit) Agent Orange. (...) Im inspired by your cowboy president
I love shooting from the hip. ;) Scott A (20 years ago, 2-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | The case for compensation
|
| (URL) Given that, at Washington's behest, Iraq had to pay war reparations after it invaded Iraq, why should Washington not compensate Vietnams Agent Orange victims? Scott A (20 years ago, 2-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|