Answers to Ron Paul's Questions on Iraq From an Opponent of the War

Lew Rockwell ^ | 9/14/02 | Jacob G. Hornberger

[Lizard_King]

The leading nature of the questions really undercuts the points they may otherwise have made...

The reason this sounds so smooth is that it ignores many contextual issues, imho. For example, if we were dealing with America under President Jefferson in the 19th century, then these constitutional arguments would hold a lot more water. In post Civil War America, the constitution is, for better or worse, a formality at best. The fact is our government does fight wars that are not in the interest of self defense, whether they set up a situation that allows for congressional "approval" (a la Wilson in WWI) or simply bypass the process altogether (Kennedy, LBJ, etc).

Also, I DO think the source matters, especially when Scott Ritter's bizarre situation is in play.

The long and short of it now is that those that are interested in defending the constitution had better pick their battles a lot more wisely than those in the foreign policy forum, because there is a century+ worth of precedent for ignoring the constitution or abusing it in the foreign policy forum. In foreign policy, the real question is whether our unconstitutional, not-for-self-defense acts will be to our benefit in terms of long term goals (Korea), if they will just be a difficult conflict fought poorly (Vietnam), or if, indeed, we are involving ourselves in a conflict where it does not really matter who won (Gulf War...I think Saddam attacked Israel in a pr move to please the masses, and given the precedent we had set for cold, rational dealings with him in the past, he would have been much easier to deal with than the bloody Saudis. But Bush I, for better or worse, saw an opportunity to show the world we were going to clean up the "mess" we helped create, and somehow we were thrust in the position of defending people that despise us against an erstwhile ally).

The de jure test for recognition of a government was an invention of Wilson's, back in the day, and one selectively applied as a pr measure ever since then. I honestly don't care who they are ruled by so long as he sells us oil at a reasonable price and keeps them from crashing airplanes into our buildings. Has Saudi Arabia more definitely failed to be in line with our interests? Yes. But I think we have an opportunity to get rid of a really complex situation in Iraq right now, and then phase III should involve the rest of the Arab world.

Now, Saddam has no reason to work with the US again. Indeed, we have set things up, between Bush I and Clinton, so that we have little choice but to flatten him, and then work on Saudi Arabia.

I apologize for any lack of fluidity in these statements, as I am still a little rattled in the head after an afternoon at the shooting range.

[M. Thatcher]

Just as an individual man has the right of defense, so a nation composed of men has that right.

You are an idiot. Iraq was defeated in a war. The victor dictates the terms of surrender. A defeated nation has NO "right of defense." ZIP. ZERO. NADA.

Did you know that Japan cannot have a military? Or is your understanding of history as deficient as your understanding of "rights."

[Clinging Bitterly]

> Iraq should hide it's weapons

Well yeah, after it's own interest, it should be expected.
But after the gulf war, Iraq did agree to cooperate with the UN for what was described in the media as "weapons inspections". And if you want to agree with what the infamous William S. Ritter said in the earlier days of the program, Iraq reneged on the agreement (and by appearance, that allegation is true, Ritter's more recent statements notwithstanding).

> Just as an individual man has the right of defense, so a nation has that right.

A nation does not posess rights as an individual would, it's people do. It's people can empower it's government to protect national interests, but in Hussein's totalitarian government, it isn't exactly playing out that way, is it?

Even if it were, Iraq and all the other involved sovereign nation parties agreed to a contract knowing full well that the possibility existed that we would be right where we are today.

I'm no fan of the UN. I hate much, if not most of, of the things this organization stands for and proposes, and I would just as soon see the US out of it and it's headquarters removed from our soil, but to me it just doesn't violate libertarian principles that we and other sovereign nations have cooperated as we have in this matter, to find Hussein's actions and statements to date to be a danger to our own interests on many levels.

Mideast stability and it's effect on the oil economy is an entirely legitimate interest, if you want to boil it down to that.

Dave in Eugene

[stylin19a]

Uh-oh Re: #4....This from the IEAE web site - 9/15/2002

Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions Relating to Iraq For nearly four years,the Agency has not been in a position to implement its mandate in Iraq under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 and related resolutions. Since December 1998 when our inspectors left Iraq, we have no additional information that can be directly linked without inspection to Iraq's nuclear activities. I should emphasize that it is only through resumption of inspections that the Agency can draw any conclusion or provide any assurance regarding Iraq's compliance with its obligations under these resolutions. In May and July of this year, I participated in two rounds of talks between the United Nations Secretary General and Iraq. I do hope that Iraq will be in a position soon to accept the return of inspectors and that the resumption of inspections will take place without delay. This is clearly in the interests of both the international community and Iraq itself. The Agency remains prepared to resume its verification activities in Iraq under the relevant Security Council resolutions at short notice.

What else is not accurate with this ? So much for the premise.

[stylin19a]

Agh.......It's IEAE=IAEA...and they do have OTHER inspections, called safeguard inspections, verifying stocks of nuclear material ALREADY sealed under IAEA safeguards. The safeguarded material is low- enriched, natural, and depleted uranium.

[hoosierham]

Terms at gunpoint are not binding ?

When you surrender because you no longer have hope of winning, you ARE at the mercy of the victor. Only in relatively recent times has being on the losing side not meant execution or enslavement for life. The U.S. has been a very merciful nation since 1900. The record of the American Indian Wars is how it used to be done.

Now I have been one of those calling for an official declaration of war, and admit to having overlooked the surrender terms. What is unusual is to leave the same leader in charge after his losing a war. Be that as it may, IF Saddam Hussein agreed in treaty to dispose of, and not acquire more WMD, THEN his violation of those terms is grounds for a Declaration of War. So the justification is there. Still, I would rather he had surrendered to the Allies sans U.N. , because this is another step in the U.N. acquiring supranational authority.

Remember that the U.S. of A. could be outvoted by the myriad little socialists, and could find ourselves at war with the U.N. ! Actually, the U.N. has been making war on American values for 60 years and using our money to do it.

[jwalsh07]

The War Powers Act is un-Constitutional. Congress does not have the authority to delegate ANY legislative power to the Executive branch.

The War Powers Act is the law of the land whetehr you like it or not. If you think it's unconstitutional, then you should have Ron Paul challenge it in court. He, at least, has standing to do so.

And the reason I didn't provide a link is because some folk just need the truth right between the eyes. Like you for instance. :-}

You can scream all you want about this and that being unconstitutional but I don't want to hear you say again that the Congressional Authorizations are not legal because it's a lie. They are the current law of the land.

[jwalsh07]

Keep shouting, Mr. Goebbels. It has been working. But you had better shout louder: it is working with less and less Americans.

Gobble this pal.

[Ragin1]

OOOh, you knock me out with your catcalls. Now prove your allegations.

What?? You offer no basis for your "thesis", now you run on home to the RHP, where you belong.

[Doc On The Bay]

yes, when you've just got your "ass kicked" & lost a war of aggression!! doc

[harrowup]

Just as an individual is fully justified in lying and hiding his weapons, so a nation is justified in lying and hiding it's weapons from foreign invaders.

There is no civilization without law. There are a whole mess of bad-laws and confiscating privately owned weapons is one of them. It doesn't happen often...CA seems to have taken the lead in demanding some weapons be surrendered...and I would hope that is winding its way through the courts.

That said, the United States has not forced you to hide or lie ... unless you are a convicted felon ... on probation ... or parole and you desire to obtain a weapon.

The Iraqi regime has been on probation a long time ... and the world wants him to live up to the conditions of his parole ... and he doesn't want to...so, we are going to kick his ass into undifferentiated molecular soup just as the judge will do to you if you break parole.

We are just as sovereign today as we were when the United States signed its first treaty ... the only difference is that today ... the world is a quieter place because of the United Nations ... with a little help from its best friend, the USA.

Now, if you have neighbors, I suggest you moderate your position when it comes time to move the weeds from around your mailbox ... which just happens to be on your neighbors side of the road. Your weeds just might be his flowers... so talk to him ... and neither one of you has to give up any sovereignty to agree on how to tidy up the space.

We are about to tidy things up. I don't happen to agree that we should ... but we AND the UN have the right.

[Roscoe]

The War Powers Act is un-Constitutional.

Cite?

[Ragin1]

"People like you, in my opinion, have no right to the protection this nation affords you under the Constitution"

LOL!

What you really mean is, People like you, in my opinion, have no right to the protection this nation affords you, by the first amdt, because you dissagree, and have the balls to proclaim it. Therefore you should be shot by firing squad for your lawfull dissent.

No?

[Ragin1]

"A defeated nation has NO "right of defense." ZIP. ZERO. NADA."

Under what terms does a nation have no right of self defense? Another bullet in the head, eh?

[Ragin1]

"They are the current law of the land"

Drink up, the kool-aid is sweet.

A law by any name does not mean it passes the constitutional muster. Of course it's convenient when the said law keeps real topics from the media.

You really are simple and silly.

[Ragin1]

The War Powers Act. lol!

Use the head God gave you man.

[Roscoe]

The War Powers Act. lol!

That's your best attempt at a cite?

[Roscoe]

If you think it's unconstitutional, then you should have Ron Paul challenge it in court.

And trailer park "common law courts" don't count.

[Ragin1]

No Roscoe, you cite the legality, and please do cite a constitutional binding law, please.

[Ragin1]

Of course you would prefer the courts "definition" of constitutionality, instead of the founders, eh?