Posted on 09/07/2007 8:18:27 AM PDT by april15Bendovr
Ron Paul refuses to declare war against Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq.
We have made it clear here at Free Republic that there is irrefutable documentation showing Saddam's WMD program and links to Al Qaeda under this section on the website
PreWarDocs
Ron Paul continues to appease our enemy.
I am officially posting a declaration of war against Ron RuPaul here at Free Republic on behalf of patriotic Americans who support our troops mission in Iraq.
Every one of them? You really believe that?
Every one of them that wants America to lose to the terrorists.
“Sorry, This would have been accurate if we had the UN permission to break the truce. But we didn’t.”
Sorry. In international law, the UN’s “permission” was not required or needed for the coalition that placed, and obtained, the truce and its demands on Saddam to identify, within their sovereign rights that the belligerent, Saddam, had broken the truce in such a manner that the defendants of the truce, the coalition, no longer had to continue it for him.
The UN is not a sovereign or a sovereign entity of any kind. It is not “the world’s top ‘government’, in any manner.
Sovereign nations may place a course of remediation in international disputes to be conducted through the auspices of an international forumn like the UN, and they may conduct diplomacy regarding how well those remediation measures are or are not being obtained by that agency, but that course does not move their sovereign rights in demanding the truce be lived-up to, irrevocably, to that agency.
When a truce has failed as the one on Saddam did, the parties that obtained the truce, that forced that truce on the belligerent, give up nothing of their sovereign right towards the legitimate course, in international law, in the inherent meaning of a truce and the sovereign rights of its principals - resumption of the lull in fighting if the truce is broken. Anyone who thinks the UN stands above those rights does not understand international law.
Here's what Jim wrote:
In the future, you may want to read comments before responding.
I like Ron Paul’s constitutional stand on most issues but on the war he’s gone wacko. He’s allied himself with Hillary, Code PinkO, International ANSWER, all of the world’s socialist/communist organizations, et al, and the 9/11 Truther conspiracy wackos against America...
Then why would he want a declaration of war?
I respectfully disagree. The position is historically factual:
-----
Article I / Section 8 / Clause 10
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
*****
Law of Nations Emmerich de Vattel
§ 8. It is immutable Since therefore the necessary law of nations consists in the application of the law of nature to states, — which law is immutable, as being founded on the nature of things, and particularly on the nature of man, — it follows that the Necessary law of nations is immutable.
§ 9. Nations can make no change in it, nor dispense with the obligations arising from it. Whence, as this law is immutable, and the obligations that arise from it necessary and indispensable, nations can neither make any changes in it by their conventions, dispense with it in their own conduct, nor reciprocally release each other from the observance of it.
Trying to 'treaty' a sovereign into good behavior sounds like a wonderful idea, but the question becomes- When the 'treaty' was broken, why wasn't war declared?
-----
He did not have to place his sovereignty (his ability to act without international sanctions) under limits imposed from outside Iraq
As Vattel stated above, the laws of Nature and the laws of Nations are similar.
How can a sovereign treaty away something that he holds in trust?
It would be like you or I giving away our right to pursuit of happiness by contract.
Its not possible
-----
No, the reason we let Saddam get away with his actions for so long is that we put him there. I also distinctly remember the US considering Saddam a tolerable ally at one point.
Iraq-gate anyone?
-------
As a further historical note, the basis for Mideast 'stabilization' is this insidious piece of work passed in 1957;
Middle East Stabilization
Pub. L. 85–7, §§ 1–6, Mar. 9, 1957, 71 Stat. 5, set out as chapter 24A (§ 1961 et seq.) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, authorizes the President to provide economic and military assistance, and, if he determines it necessary, to use armed forces under certain circumstances to maintenance of national independence in the Middle East.
-----
Could someone point out the authorization for stabilizing a geographical area not even under Congressional control?
Or where Congress gets its ability to take an authority delegated to it and pass that authority to another branch?
------
BTW - I'd like to say a sincere 'Thank you' for your well reasoned post. It's greatly appreciated.
Ron Paul wants to go to war? That’s news to me (news to him too).
Check my correction in 219. And he has most certainly NOT allied himself, no more than conservatives have "allied" themselves with the likes of david duke.
Up yours.
So Ron Paul never asked for a declaration of war in Iraq, and whatever documentation there is to the contrary is fabricated?
Ron Paul will never, ever, ever, ever, ever be President of the United States. Not ever.*****
It seems to me that all the venom on this forum is coming from the Ron Paul haters.
Pat B had a lot of baggage in 96, but if he had got the Republican nomination that year, I think he would have defeated Clinton. Ron Paul has none of the baggage compared to Pat B. Now the “Powers” in the Republican party want to nominate another Dole, read Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, or McCain. They will get the same result, another Democratic victory.
The powers that be are always telling us that we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but they continue to dump on Ron Paul because of his stance on the war and foreign intervention. In all other areas, Ron Paul is talking about the basics of the Republican party, lower taxes, less government, more freedoms, etc. Of course when the Republicans had power, congress from 94 and congress and the presidency from 2000 to 2006, they didn’t do a d*mn thing to lower spending or make a smaller government.
He has just as much right to throw his ideas out there as anyone, and I still fail to see any good reason to draw a line in the sand around here. Every time that happens, there’s a huge divide drawn that suits no one. No I’m not a Paul supporter, but I’m tired of seeing this junior high b.s.
And what you’re asking people to do is spam forum threads with a picture, posting over and over. Not cool, besides being against the rules.
JMHO
This is pretty remarkable. Someone who wants to restore constitutional limits on government is a “domestic enemy” while those who would like to track american citizens like Fed-ex packages is the savior of the republic.
Hey, you made the claim. Sorry you can’t back it up.
Ron Paul is a dolt!
You people are fast wearing out what little welcome you had left.
*************
He asked for a declaration of war, knowing full well that it made absolutely no sense in a war on terror, and that it would let him off the hook on the issue. It's much like his handling of earmarks.
It's extremely comforting to know that the self-proclaimed enemies of Ron Paul are armed with such arguments. There is hope yet!
That a threat?
It was more than your asinine comment deserved but glad you’re comfortable with it.
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.