Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've already explained that you are wrong as a matter of law, and that our own government rejects your position.
|
Through your "it's a debt" soliloquy? Four steps behind, son.
Quote:
|
So, without arguing that at further length, I take it that you agree that if we are supporting Kuwait's claims against Iraq relating to the invasion of the former by the latter, it's pretty shitty of our government to tell the torture victims to go pound sand?
|
To the extent that there were specific benefits taken into Iraqi society that remain to this day, no, those benefits need to be returned. However, yes, I do object to the measure of damages being supported in that instance. Just as I would support the affirmation of debt based on food purchases for the country, I would support the return of the looted value - but, I do not support holding the new Iraq financially responsible for the simple damage that Saddam did to Kuwait. Again, without a showing of benefit to the co-victims, I wouldn't make them pay. Hell, we let people and corps bankrupt out of debt for far lesser reasons.
