Napping objectors: David Limbaugh thinks opponents of invading Iraq should answer questions

Those most loudly objecting to an American military action to remove Iraq's Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction have been on the offensive. Isn't it time they answered some questions themselves?

The primary objection to the military option is the United States has no legal or moral right to attack Iraq – especially not unilaterally – without the blessing of the international community. The objectors are painting those advocating intervention as jingoistic cowboys who harbor a disregard for international law, the sovereignty of other nations and world opinion.

I wonder how you objectors would respond to some questions. If you believe we would be violating international law by attacking Iraq, then:

You can say that it's not up to the United States to enforce these resolutions. But what if the United Nations won't or can't? Are you going to entrust our national security to an international body that has contempt for the United States? Would you allow your enemies to baby-sit your children? How about if a serial killer were loose in your neighborhood?

Aren't some of you objectors the same ones who have mercilessly ridiculed our intelligence agencies and others for their failure to prevent the 9-11 attacks? When you know that Saddam Hussein is feverishly developing weapons of mass destruction, that he's willing to use them on people he hates – even his own people – and that he hates the United States, why do you prefer now that we not take preemptive action?

Let me ask you to consider something else. The Bush administration takes the position that a strike against Iraq is justified under international law as a matter of self-defense. If we had 100 percent proof that Saddam had or would soon have nuclear weapons and was going to use them against the United States, through terrorists or otherwise, would we be justified in attacking him? In other words, is it the level of proof that bothers you, international law or world opinion?

Regardless, on the matter of proof, shouldn't we err on the side of preventing another 9-11, especially when we do have strong proof, including that if Saddam had nothing to hide, he wouldn't have continually expelled the weapons inspectors? And, if you were reasonably certain that Saddam was going to unleash weapons of mass destruction on our people or our soil, would you be quibbling over the fine points of international law, much less world opinion?

It would be one thing for people to object to our invasion of Iraq if we had imperialistic designs – if we wanted to absorb the Iraqi nation or even steal her oil. But no one believes that. This is about self-defense, pure and simple. If we are correct that Saddam will unleash these catastrophic weapons against our allies or us, we have not only the legal right but the moral obligation to act before he does it.

As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld so cogently observed, America's task is to "… behave in a way that there won't be books written about why we slept."

I am still baffled by the self-proclaimed and therefore supposedly patriotic Americans who insist that we go on hands and knees and present proof (and therefore intelligence) to the U.N., most specifically the security council. I'm quite certain I am not the only one here who remembers that Syria, a known terrorist sponsor, sits on the council.

Someone, anyone, please ask Tom, and Dick, and Billary why we must ask terrorists for permission to wage a self-preserving struggle battle against terrorists.

Since when did America, a sovergn nation, have to ask permission from the rest of the world to defend itself from agression? Those who think we should seek UN approval are under the guise that the UN is the only authority in the world, and the United States must recognize their authority as world law.
What is good for America, will be good for America, dispite what the rest of the world thinks should be good enough for America. The rest of the world thinks Americans should lower their standard of living and be like them. But what REAL American would ever want to willingly live like a barbarian just because the barbarian knows no other way of life?
I agree with the Author of the article. Screw world opinion. We can do whatever we want, because we have the power to do what is right. But does our nation, as a whole, have the will to do what is necessary? We shall soon see.

The problem I have with all the talk of invading Iraq is that it is not well thought out i.e.what about Syria & Saudi Arabia both of these governments are not what you can call responsible adults by any objective standard ?

All I am hearing is that yes we can beat the snot out of the Iraqi military if we can't I want MY money back & somebody's head on a pike,but what then ?

A military occupation similar to that of Germany/Japan after WW2 ?

According to the White House after we destroy the government of Iraq it immediately becomes every one elses problem,the b*tch is in the detail that the rest of the world doesn't want to deal with the reformation of Iraq they also see that the Syrians & the Saudi's are still intact & the "DEATH TO AMERICA" madrassa's will go into overdrive while at the same time not getting the major reforms that these societies need .

None of what I have stated here should be construed to mean that I think that Iraq should not be invaded what I am stating is we have not done the planning to 1) mobilize the nation & industry of the United States 2)build up the forces of the United States so that they are able to handle taking the fight to all three of the major terror supporting nations in the region 3)have the various Euroweenie govt's aiding with the military occupation & reformation of the entire nation from the street commissioner to the head of state.

These things need to be done failure to do so will cause less than satisfactory results & will leave the region at a higher level of weirdness as Iraq will be smashed not rebuilt or at best reluctantly brought to a subsistance existance which will give rise to an even more virulent anti-western mind set . When I believe that the current administration has done the planning, has got some idea of what it's going to do 72 hrs after the start of hostilities when the vast majority of the Iraqi military has surrendered,that it has military government with civil support ready to go & take over the running of that country on the day to day basis i.e. making sure the lights stay on that the water works stays up & running that the phones have a dial tone that also means taking over & running the religious schools & make no mistake all those radical Islamist that are running around Europe organizing right now will start trying to get "cute" & the Euroweenies tend to have a problem in not being willing to tell them in no uncertain terms that anti-western behavior will get themdeported back to the MILITARY GOVERNED old country were such activities will get his silly a$$ shot dead.

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.