|
|
Home - About - Join - Contribute - Contact |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© 2001 The Liberty Committee |
Posted on 12/11/2001 8:20:39 AM PST by BplusK
If this Iraq Resolution passes, then that means the Congress is authorizing the President to attack Iraq.
Point # 4 clearly identifies Iraq as being an aggressor against the USA. In this perspective, that would officially put Iraq among "those nations, organizations or persons the President determines have planned, authorized, committed or aided terrorist attacks or have harbored such organizations or persons." (according the language used in the Congress resolution authorizing the president to use force against terrorists after the September 11 attacks). In other words, after this Iraq Resolution passes, the President will have the definite freedom to deal with Iraq as he chooses.
Though I have a lot of respect Paul, libertarians are usually out of touch with reality, particularly as it deals with the military. Paul is of the same political bent as Harry Browne, who said the U.S. essentially deserved the September 11 attacks because of our foreign policy. Libertarians are merely conservatives who have same lack of grasp of reality as socialists.
Let me ask what is going on here?? Why is Paul objecting? (I'm not that familiar with Paul-heard about him of course, but what's going on??)
So what if we say that Iraq has committed an act of agression against the United States? It is not news.
Where is the "penalty" for such activity? What does the House propose we do about it? No words in this resolution.
But I'm not surprised. It's the same crowd that couldn't bring themselves to formally declare war after September 11.
Paul will no doubt trot out his proposal to issue "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" as he did when the war on Afghanistan was joined.
And, as with the previous proposal, Paul's "let's arm mercenaries" will go precisely nowhere.
All he needs now is a powdered wig, some black buckle shoes, and some short pants, and he can play "Founder."
No. I don't. Maybe that's because I know that if Congress meant that they would say that - or at least something along the lines of "the President is authorized...". No such language. In fact, absent such language, the President is authorized to do nothing.
This is pathetic.
Wrong reason to raid Saddam By Henry Lamb 12.10.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A resolution has been introduced in Congress to declare that Iraq has committed "an act of aggression against the United States..." by refusing to comply with U.N. Resolution 687. This proposed resolution is a twisted, and extremely dangerous, excuse to bomb Baghdad back to the stone age.
Saddam is a bad guy. If there exists credible evidence that he played any role in the September 11 attack on America, the President already has Congressional authority to get him. This resolution (HJRES 75), introduced by Lindsey Graham (R-SC), is absolutely the wrong way to go about unseating Saddam.
Iraq's refusal to comply with U.N. Resolution 687 is not an "act of aggression against the United States;" flying commercial jetliners into the World Trade Center is. If Saddam can be shown to have participated - even a little - bomb his butt into oblivion.
We cannot, however, hide behind a U.N. Resolution to do now, what another U.N. Resolution prevented us from doing when our forces were in Iraq the last time.
The United States military has but one purpose: to defend the United States of America. Its purpose is not to enforce U.N. Resolutions, nor to use U.N. Resolutions as an excuse to engage in warfare for any purpose other than the defense of our nation.
We certainly should have learned that lesson by now.
The United States needs no U.N. Resolution to activate our military; it needs an order from our Commander in Chief, supported by a Congressional Declaration - nothing more. When the United States, or its allies are attacked, we must respond. But we should never again respond with our military in order to comply with a U.N. Resolution.
Lindsey's Resolution would continue to submerge the U.S. military into the U.N.'s military aspirations. If there is ever to be a U.N. standing army, it should not include a single American.
President Bush has responded to the terrorists' attack brilliantly, so far. He has announced America's resolve, found friends to help fight the foe, and left the U.N. to do what it does so well - talk.
Lindsey would have us now seek refuge behind a U.N. Resolution. No! It would say to the world that we need a U.N. Resolution to authorize our action.
Saddam's refusal to allow U.N. inspectors, which is a violation of U.N. Resolution 687, is an extremely thin excuse for invading a sovereign nation by any military force, and no excuse at all for U.S. military action.
An invasion of Iraq by the United States would be an act of aggression, and condemned by the world, unless the United States had incontrovertible evidence that Iraq "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11...," as stipulated in the Joint Resolution which authorizes the President to wage the war on terrorism.
Until such evidence is in hand, or until Saddam commits some other act of aggression against the United States, we need to concentrate on the task at hand: destroying the likes of al Qeada, and shoring up our domestic defenses.
Lindsey's Resolution was introduced on December 4. It was fast-tracked, and is scheduled to be considered by the House International Relations Committee, Tuesday, December 11. Since the Committee Chair, Henry Hyde (R-IL) is a co-sponsor of the proposal, the measure is expected to sail through committee with little opposition.
Ron Paul (R-TX) is a member of the Committee. He will object, and speak in opposition to the Resolution. Ron Paul is one of the few members in Congress who recognizes the dangers of getting into bed with the United Nations.
The anti-Saddam sentiment, coupled with the anti-terrorist sentiment, could easily cloud considered reasoning by Congressmen who are eager to wind up the session and head home for the holidays.
This little two-page Resolution, if enacted in haste, could trigger a chain of events and pave the way to entanglements with the United Nations that reach far beyond Baghdad. As appealing as the idea of ridding the world of Saddam might be, it is not worth surrendering an ounce of our sovereignty, which we would do if we hid behind a U.N. Resolution to justify our military actions.
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), and chairman of Sovereignty International.
|
|
Home - About - Join - Contribute - Contact |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© 2001 The Liberty Committee |
We ought to give the Iraqis a nuclear device, that will detonate if it is reverse-engineered. It should be housed in a ballistic missile which can be controlled by the Iraqis via a Apple IIe.
Then when Saddam launches it toward the United States or its allies, we can declare war.
(Of course, the nuclear detonation codes would remain with GWB, and the nuke would not be armed.)
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.