Posted on 03/26/2002 9:40:35 AM PST by H.R. Gross
I agree...here's two cents for the kitty...
Number 1: Bush doesn't need to go to congress first. He has the authority to wield the American sword in defense of the nation's national security. Congress could deny him funds, but only after a period of time. As for the U.N. it's clear Hussein is in violation of his ceasefire agreement. Third, the U.S. can be said to be in a defacto state of war with Iraq as it is. Those jets aren't firing toy arrows at Iraqi anti-aircraft sites and they've been in action for years.
Number 2: Iraq under Hussein is a clear threat to America's security. Just because the threat isn't one of invasion doesn't make it non-existant. He makes no effort to hide the fact that he wants to destroy America. The only question is how he plans to attempt it. Hitler didn't attack America either (although he did declare war) but America, through the lend lease act and cooperation with Canada played a fundamental supporting role before 1941. Smart nations take threatening aggressors at their word, they don't wait for the nukes to go off in their cities.
Number 3: Stopping a murderous madman in control of a country with a desire to make and use WMD before he has the chance is morally just. Period. Standing back and allowing him to commit mass genocide, attack an ally (Israel, etc) and then saying "well, we really couldn't do anything pre-emtively" is immoral.
Number 4: The arabs will posture and do nothing, especially if the result is quick and decisive. The Chinese will huff and puff, but also likely do nothing (unless the thing turns into a quagmire in which case Taiwan could come into play). I'd also argue that Iraq is a much more pressing problem than Iran. Iran at least is trying to make an attempt at letting it's people breathe a bit. And let's not forget that it was Iraq that invaded Iran, not the other way around. Iran may be ruled by some bad mullahs, but they have no stomach for a fight with the U.S.
Number 5: Arab nations will NOT rally around Iraq. As for an attack on Israel, Iraq may try it but it depends on how quick the U.S. can make work of them. Arab nations are NOT likely to attack Israel without gross provocation as they know it would be a losing proposition. Besides, the only nation still at war with Israel that shares it's border is Syria and the proxy Lebanon (i don't count the palis...Israel could make very quick work of them if she wanted to). Jordan and Egypt aren't going anywhere.
Number 6: The cost will be high, no doubt, but the Vietnam comparison is bogus. Ask yourself...how much would it cost to dig Manhatten out from a pile of radioactive rubble? Pay now or pay later.
Just my 2 cents, and of course, the advice is worth what you pay for it, eh?
Even if he did, it would not satisfy the rule of law laid down by the Framers of the Constitution.
He says that if he did have UN Authoritah, it still wouldn't be good enough.
I don't appreciate these scum like Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Dole abusing our system of representation. I don't need some big Washington personality to come into my state and claim to represent me.
Boy, we did some job on 9/11!
Sealing our borders will not protect us, since we know this will NEVER be done.
Pre-emptive, Pro-Active action is needed. If Isreal did not take the plant out at Osirik, who knows where we all would be.
It's nice and "principled" to stick one's head in the sand and hope for the best. Just talk to Neville Chamberlain or the Democrats during the Cold War!
I agree, and being in this situation, and unlike many other Libertarians, I support a military response to 9/11. Even though what happened could have been prevented, I don't beleive you can not respond to such an attack.
But I want clear goals and obectives.
I don't like the idea of fishing for a place with enough public approval to attack. Either we have a reason to attack or we don't. If we have a reason then go for it, the rest of the world be damned. We are a sovereign nation.
But we are playing a PR game here. We had justification and an objective for Afgahnistan. I'm not convinced we have justification for Iraq.
He is showing the lack of authority Bush is preparing to act on. Even though the UN thing is bs, it is still an option on the table.
Yep and Yes and yeah.
The liberals do it all the time and they are certainly not doing it for the good of the country, just for their own personal power. Conservatives are more in tune with the founders and with the things that made this country great. Just as Ronald Reagan had to go around Congress to fight the Communists in Central America so must we always fight the Communists in Congress. Do I like it that way? Not at all. I prefer Ron Paul's America but we have momentarily lost it and we must get it back.
There is good and bad and at the moment the other side, the Democrats and other socialists, are wrong and we are right.
During a Fox news segment on attacking Iraq, a gentleman made the comment that one reason Bush is pushing for a quick start to an Iraq war is because it could prove to be so unpopular as to cost Bush the 2004 election. Apparently, W believes the need to remove sadaam is more important than a second term.
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.