Posted on 09/10/2002 12:57:09 PM PDT by Zviadist
LOL.... the era of the US as over bearing nanny intent on bringing american style socialism to everyone whither they like it or not.
U.S. House of Representatives
I like him better all the time, he isn't afraid to ask real questions.
Honor to your son for being in harm's way. Problem is, until Saddam and others who are threatening us are effectively dealt with, we are all in harm's way.
Why didn't Daddy take out Saddamn? Guess I'm getting logical in my old age, humph!
Not if you think we should have taken out Saddam then, but shouldn't take him out now.
Which ones?
Hank
Perhaps we should've blown the USSR off the map, just to convince the rest of the world not to f**k with us.
No, We believe in the Constitution, unlike the GOP.
Seriously, Poohbah, not even Bush is keeping up the charade, and if you read his statements carefully, he's clearly left open the option of renewed inspections. Guess you'll have to put the war tom-toms back in the toy chest.
Fact is, a lot of Republicans are thinking twice about trading the devil we know--an aging, isolated despot who allows Christian and Zoroastrian worship and allows women to attend university, for the devil we don't--Kurds who are anxious to incite a secessionist war with their brothers in Turkey, Southern Iraqi Shi'ites who are anxious to implement a theocratic regime with closer ties to Iran, and a group of deposed generals, all sharpening their knives to see who gets to sleep in the Presidential Palace.
This is a lie. If you are resorting to lies to back up your position, you should instead retreat with honor...
Is that your final answer? LOL....it must be frightening to be so clueless?
No, it's no wonder. Your sins are forgiven, my son. Agree with your hindsight comment, but we're exhibiting a troubling pattern with backing out of conflicts.
Hopefully we'll actually deal with this one before it turns into a Hitler-sized problem with millions dead instead of thousands -- no thanks to people like Ron Paul and Zviadist.
You are correct and it (and the group-think propaganda) gets worse every day.
No (he asked "is it NOT true", not "is it true"). No. No.
Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year?
The government should have hired the researchers that forged evidence of the endangered status of the lynx to tie Irag into a conspiracy.
Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
That's discrimination! < /SARCASM >
You forgot about the serious ass-kicking we delivered to the cowardly Serbs...
Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
No; the reason why we didn't was because the Soviet Union did not demonstrate that they would necessarily use those weapons against the US. Morever, we WERE in a pair of shooting wars against the Soviet Union (secretly), and things were settled before those on either side decided to expand things beyond Korea or Vietnam.
Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
Again, no. Iraq, and its allies, have already demonstrated that they would (a) use these weapons and (b) attack the US directly. Morever, Iraq has refused to abide by the WMD conditions that it agreed to in the armistice that "ended" the Gulf War.
Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?
It is a matter of percentage. With the removal of Hussein, the likelyhood of Iraq's use of WMD (assuming that he doesn't employ them in his defense) is next to nil. With inspections, it approaches 50%. Without inspections or removal, it will be a certainty.
Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
Mohammed Atta and Saddam's right hand man met in Prague just for tea and crumpets? Do you need a notarized summary of the meeting from both participants?
Regarding where the hijackers came from, that makes my case for wiping out that entire area of the world, not just Iraq.
Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?
I haven't seen that retraction, though I have seen the allegations that this meeting did in fact take place.
Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?
Not quite. I seem to remember Saddam's army sweeping through just that area back in 1996, with no word since suggesting that the Kurds have regained control.
Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?
Congress expressly authorized the US armed forces to use force against Iraq in order to meet various objectives back in 1991. Those objectives have only been partially met, there has been no truce signed or ratified by the Senate to officially end those hostilities, and there has been no action taken by Congress to invalidate that authorization.
Morever, should Iraq be conclusively linked to the attacks on 9/11/2001, Congress again has expressly authorized the use of force against those forces that are linked to those attacks.
Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?
All the more reason to finish the Saddam regime.
Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?
Iraq does have the means to attack the United States in means that are "untraditional", which is the way that most enemies of the United States are limited to.
Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?
When President George H.W. Bush didn't press the attack into Baghdad, he did so because that was not necessary to gain assurances from Hussein to adhere to the conditions under which we would cease attacking. As Hussein has not adhered to those conditions over the last 11 years, there now is nothing left to do but remove Hussein from power.
Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
The relevant portion of the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have the power...(t)o declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water...." It does not say anything about "self-defense".
The last 2 major authorizations have properly set forth rules concerning captures on land. So long as the President follows the letter of an authorization, and said authorization is in force, he is within the Constitution.
Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
I am not aware that we are a party of that Treaty; therefore, that is a false argument.
Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?
That semi-truism is only applicable when both sides are civilized. In any case, the key phrase is "less likely", which means that war will still sometimes happen even between 2 very civilized societies.
Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?
Because there are 50 Democrats in the Senate who so abhor both the Constitution and our President that they will not allow the entire Senate to advise and consent on his selections for the judiciary, and given a choice between doing what is right for this country and <expletive deleted> (sorry for the vulgarity) the President, they will do the latter 10 times out of 10.
Now, a question for Rep. Paul. If he is so determined to not allow any further action against Iraq without further explicit Congressional approval, how about getting Congress to revoke both the 1991 Gulf War resolution and the 2001 War on Terror resolution?
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.