Subject:
|
Re: The case for compensation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 May 2005 13:57:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1068 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
Given that, at Washington’s behest, Iraq had to pay war reparations after it
invaded Iraq, why should Washington not compensate Vietnam’s Agent Orange
victims?
|
Clearly you’re not aware of the facts. The US companies that manufactured
the Patriotic Defoliant “Agent Orange” can’t 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 can’t 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.
|
Hmm. In that case, perhaps they could have called it “Agent Red White and Blue”
rather than the rather un-Patriotic (spit) Agent Orange.
| |
Besides, according to the companies, it hasn’t 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 can’t be held responsible for any of them.
Jeez, Scott. You really should do your reading before you post this stuff.
|
I’m inspired by your cowboy president… I love shooting from the hip. ;)
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The case for compensation
|
| (...) Clearly you're not aware of the facts. The US companies that manufactured the Patriotic Defoliant "Agent Orange" can't be held responsible because they were only obeying the orders of the Commander In Chief during a time of Just and Righteous (...) (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
|
|
|
|
