Replies

“He opposed the invasion of Iraq because there was no evidence of Iraqi WMD,”

“And yet, the Security Council did not support our invasion.”

This statement doesn’t even make sense. Both the U.S. and U.K are permanant members of the council and both supported it.

“Our foreign policy should never be subject to the approval of or the veto of the Security Council. “

Unless it fits your template? You later falsely claim that the council didn’t authorize the action as a basis of your arguement.

“Again, you resort to the “authority” of the Security Council. So if you do so as the basis for war against Iraq and regard them as the arbiters of the peace, then the entire Iraq adventure, following their rejection of our requests for authorization, was illegal and Bush, Cheney, Powell and our military leaders are all war criminals.”

Operation Iraqi Freedom was authorized by the council via the resolutions. So your statement is ficticous. Which means that your accusation of war criminals is not only ficticious as well, but absurd. You cannot specify how Ron Paul would have enforced Saddam’s commitments to the cease fire agreement in regards to terrorism. In fact, you’ve shown you won’t even go near that one, and instead use false claims and misdirections. You falsely claim that the council rejected authorization to enforce the resolutions (which is absurd). Your claim directly contradicts the actual multi-national legislation of the council, which is reiterated in 1441, [Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)].

“You cannot appeal to their authority and then deny that it is legitimate when they deny authorization for their goofy treaty protocols.”

Here you appearently reiterate your false claim regarding authorization. Since the council authorized ‘all nessisary means’ to enforce the resolutions, how would have Ron Paul ensured Saddam’s complaince to the resolutions in regards to terrorism (as I predicted, you cannot answer this question)?

Actually, it was Saddam’s obligation to verifiably destroy the unaccounted for WMDs. But once again, you are using misdirection. Ron Paul opposes Operation Iraqi Freedom, amoung other reasons, because there was no declaration of war, yet he suppports intervention in Afganistan without a declaration of war. You have demonstrated you cannot address this double standard. You use WMD red-herrings instead.

Saddam said he destroyed it. The inspectors complained but the Security Council did not authorize war on that basis. Try again.

I wish you would stop bowing and scraping to the U.N. It's like debating some Euroweenie. Who even cares about the United Nations to begin with anyway? Well, except liberal globalists, normally called Democrats.

Unless it fits your template? You later falsely claim that the council didn’t authorize the action as a basis of your argument.

What? The Security Council most certainly did not authorize our invasion. Britain's eighteenth resolution did not pass. It needed 9 of 15 votes and it only had four supporters so it was withdrawn. We invaded shortly after, well, after diddling around with Turkey (the Xlinton-elevated ambassador there was that idiot who just helped Hitlery by writing her that nasty letter) while Kofi Annan whined it was all illegal. Of course, that was only his opinion. Under the charter, only the Security Council can decide if it was illegal. So it was unauthorized because we didn't have the votes to get it authorized and China/Russia/France/Germany didn't have the votes to condemn it since we and Britain would have just vetoed it anyway. And for that, we stalled our invasion plans for months.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was authorized by the council via the resolutions.

It was not. Why do you think the Eurohordes protested so insanely? They thought they'd finally gotten us to submit and play by U.N. rules. Well, we then proved that we played only by the "rules" if they led to our desired results. That's why the Eurohordes were so furious. And it has damaged our reputation abroad, far worse than a simple unilateral invasion which is what we did in the end.

We should never deal with the U.N. We should not fund it. We should expel it and its corrupt members from our soil. I can't grasp how anyone fails to grasp it. Our participation at the United Nations actually caused far more problems than if we'd just invaded unilaterally. And our soldiers suffered for it because we allowed them to stall us for months until the very hottest season of the year. For that matter, it gave Saddam a lot of time to hide things he didn't want anyone to find, time to liquidate people he needed to silence. Waiting for months is always a mistake in war.

You cannot specify how Ron Paul would have enforced Saddam’s commitments to the cease fire agreement in regards to terrorism.

I'm not sure precisely how Ron Paul would view the peace accords. Obviously they were worthless since they subjected our actions to the vote/veto of the Security Council which we then proceeded to defy anyway (the defiance part was about the only good thing that resulted since it undermined confidence in the U.N. all over the world so that part actually turned out well by sheer accident, at least to anyone who is an American patriot).

If RP was convinced Iraq posed a threat, he would simply ask the Congress for a declaration of war. If he believed there was a credible and imminent threat, he'd simply attack Iraq. In no case would he consult with the United Nations. In other words, pure unilateralism under the Constitution.

You falsely claim that the council rejected authorization to enforce the resolutions (which is absurd). Your claim directly contradicts the actual multi-national legislation of the council, which is reiterated in 1441, [Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)].

You apply those selectively and completely out of context. The earlier resolutions applied to GW I in the restoration of the Kuwaiti monarchy and authorized members (the U.S. and Britain) to maintain a no-fly zone and other measures.

If you were actually correct (and not spinning complete fiction), then there was actually no reason whatsoever even to go to the United Nations for authorization. But you're wrong, of course, and that is why Britain dragged us in there and let them waste our time and actually made our diplomatic position much worse than if we'd just invaded unilaterally to begin with. The entire United Nations effort was a disaster. And yet, we continue to support them. It's nuts.

Here you appearently reiterate your false claim regarding authorization. Since the council authorized ‘all nessisary means’ to enforce the resolutions, how would have Ron Paul ensured Saddam’s complaince to the resolutions in regards to terrorism (as I predicted, you cannot answer this question)?

No, I'm disputing the false assertions of someone who all too happy to cede our sovereignty to the United Nations. However, you fail to grasp what was and was not authorized and have to resort to GW I resolutions in which the Coalition was specifically predicated upon avoiding regime change and destabilization of the region (the current situation BTW). And you try to use that in order to justify the 2003 invasion for the purpose of regime change.

As for me, as with Ron Paul, the United Nations is irrelevant, dangerous and corrupt. So Ron Paul would have no interest in a U.N. resolution. He would simply act directly if Saddam posed a threat to the United States.

As for the terrorism Saddam was rewarding by subsidizing the families of Pali suicide bombers, you are dangerously close to saying that our invasion of Iraq was conducted solely to benefit Israel and depose Saddam as a sponsor of Pali terrorism within Israel. Or is that actually what you are saying? And as I recall, we only discovered that one big Pali terrorist after we invaded, not before. I think Saddam was paying a subsidy of around $18,000 USD to some (not all) families of suicide bombers. Other families were paid by Saudis and others. If your memory is better, fill in the numbers or quote a source.