From: matus@matus1976.com
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 01:03:58 MDT
Paul Grant commented:
> I'm a bit busy prepping for a trip but I couldn't wait to answer this
> section :P
>
> > > Uh, just in case you didn't know, Kuwait was originally part of
> Iraq,
> > > Like Sudan was part of Egypt. In point of fact, Iraq refused to
> > > recognize Kuwait as an independent country until 2 years *AFTER* the
>
> > > gulf war. So as far as I'm concerned, Saddam didn't invade anybody.
> >
> > Amazing, so because Saddam, a murderous tyrant, does not
> > recognize a group of individuals who of their own free will
> > choose to leave his country and form their own, they are not
> > a legitimate country?
>
> You mean like the US federal government chose not to acknowledge the
> southern states
> right to succede? How is that any different?
>
>
I had suspected to receive such a comment and contemplented pre-empting it,
but alas I did not think such an objection would make it to the list. For
the answer to your question why the Southern States succession was not
legit, refer to my comments on moral states. Short form, a state based on
slavery is obviously not a moral one, thus its efforts to succeed from a
state not based on slavery are also not moral. Kuwait is clearly a less
oppressive and thus more legit state than Iraq, and thus its succession was
moral.
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 14 2003 - 00:57:14 MDT