Posted on 09/14/2002 5:32:18 AM PDT by Boonie Rat
LR isn't a "sacred cow", but what does attacking LR add to the discussion?
Boonie Rat
MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
We had much more than adequate provocation, if one uses the new "Bush" doctrine of evil people with evil designs on us attempting to acquire WOD. If one does not, then the Soviet involvement in Vietnam, Africa, Cuba, the Berlin blockade, and other places were adequate.
No, the point of the question is correct: we are choosing our enemies based upon their negatively correlated ability to strike back, with little, if any, reference to morality or even the interests of the US.
The premise is based on supporting the questions. The questions are all leading in that regard.
Paul worded the questions (poorly if you ask me), and the answers fell right into the trap.
I think one of the points made, and one of the questions asked but not answered, is why is Iraq step two? WE DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE OF THAT AND CANNOT PRODUCE IT. I feel much more immediate danger from Dearborn, MI and from the followers of Farrakhan in Chicago than I do from Saddam.
Even if I were to see evidence of involvement, I would ask, what's next after step two--whether the other countries get the message or not? Even if they do not and we take them out, then what do we do? Do we set up an American hegemony there? No, we cannot. Then what? Go after other Islamic nations or nations with large Islamic populations? Are we going to Indonesia? China? Even England and Germany? We are setting ourselves up for disaster, IMHO.
No, one of the main answers to the question of what to do is the immigration question--the very one that Pat Buchanan raised (BTW I voted for Bush, not Buchanan).
BTW - what was your MOS? I've seen your unit ID on all of your posts, but I still don't know your position within that unit.
This is where we differ. You believe if we do anything, we are heading for disaster. I believe if we do NOT do something, we are heading for disaster.
I will admit it would be much easier if a country had declared war against us rather than an idealogy, but we are in a war even if you can not see it.
There is a cancer alive in this world today called terrorism. For over 40 years, the nations of the world have treated these terrorist acts as a crime. The terrorist have a certain advantage when we treat it as a crime. They lose that advantage when we treat it as war.
The nation states in the middle east have been able to support terrorist with very little down side to themself. President Bush has put them on notice, no more.
What is step three you ask, I don't know but it is not too late for these countries to take themself out of contention for that honor.
So you wait for your "proof" I only hope it is not one of loved ones the die so you can be morally certain who to go after.
To: Boonie Rat
Resignation Letter of William S. Ritter, Jr. to the United Nations 26 August 1998
Dear Mr. Butler,
"...The Special Commission was created for the purpose of disarming Iraq..."
"...clearly indicates that the organization which created the Special Commission in its resolution 687 (1991) is no longer willing and/or capable of the implementation of its own law..."
"...Iraq has lied to the Special Commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems..."
"...the Iraqi leadership that has succeeded in thwarting the stated will of the United Nations..."
Sincerely, (signed)
Willam S. Ritter, Jr.
# 4 by John W
Iraq should hide it's weapons.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I still define a sovereign nation as being one that is "self-governing, and not ruled by any other state."
No government gave up it's sovereignity by joining the United Nations treaty organization. Member nations did not become junior partners, like the present States of our nation are subservient to the national government in Washington.
Why then does the United States ignore the requirements of our own Constitution, and go to war at the direction of a foreign power? Why then is Iraq expected to surender it's right of self-defense at the order of that same foreign power, the United Nations?
If our national government decided tomorrow to ban all weapons ownership, millions of private arms would immediately "disappear" from official view. That is an appropriate response to the tyranny of outlawing a basic right, the right of self-defense.
Just as an individual man has the right of defense, so a nation has that right.
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.
America had nukes in the early 40's and by 45 they had been deployed to devasting effect.
The Soviets did not not even detonate their first nuke until 1949. They fit your description of "inability to strike back" in the interim and for some time afterward yet we didn't strike.
Saddam Hussein is an irrational whackjob currently in possession of CB weapons and on the verge of Nuclear devices. He pays bounty to terrorists, his nation is on everybodys top ten terrorist list and this nation has been under attack by the radical Islamists since Jimmy Carter failed to act in 1980 with ever increasingly violent attacks culminating in September 11, 2001.
Hussein is just another skell in a long line of skells that needs to be dealt with now because the foothold that the radical Islamists and Arabists have established is a clear and present danger to America in general and my grandkids in particular.
Bush recognises the immensity of the situation, you and Ron Paul don't.
Thankfully, President Bush has the brains to recognise it and the balls to do something about it before it hits terminal velocity.
What a stupid argument. So you're saying that "sovereignty" is so sacrosanct that NO ONE can band together against a "sovereign" nation even if that nation represents a dire threat.
Okay, in that case, the United States was in the WRONG to joing the Allied Powers that "violated" Germany's sovereignty in 1918. Oh, and again in 1945.
C'mon, man, get yer head out yer ***.
Who is this Hornberger person? Anybody know?
For the same reason Japan and Germany had to, they lost a war and signed surrender terms that required them to do so. What is so hard to understand about that?
To:
How come "they" only use Ritter's opinion, and only his recent opinions at that, when there are more than one former UN Inspector voicing opinions on the Iraqi threat? Maybe because he's the only ONE "challenging the administration's thesis that Iraq is a threat to the United States" and the rest support the "administration's thesis"?
# 7 by Gumption
If every former and current member of the United Nations unanimously supported the hegemony of the U.N. over all the nations of the Earth, I would still say that our participation in the unlawful actions of the U.N. violate the Comstitution of our nation.
No nation gave up it's sovereignty by joining the United Nations treaty organization.
If all the WEAPONS INSPECTORS say Saddam still HAS WMD's, except one, why bellow the beliefs of that one to bolster your argument? Especially when you consider the fact that Ritter is the only one who received money from Iraqi sources.
Why then does the United States ignore the requirements of our own Constitution, and go to war at the direction of a foreign power? Why then is Iraq expected to surender it's right of self-defense at the order of that same foreign power, the United Nations?
To: exodus
What a stupid argument. So you're saying that "sovereignty" is so sacrosanct that NO ONE can band together against a "sovereign" nation even if that nation represents a dire threat.
Okay, in that case, the United States was in the WRONG to joing the Allied Powers that "violated" Germany's sovereignty in 1918. Oh, and again in 1945.
# 32 by Illbay
Sovereignty is so sacrosanct that NO ONE should be allowed to desecrate it.
Having allies is not a problem. Going to war by our own decision is not a problem. However, if England had declared that we were at war with Germany in WW 2, THAT would be a problem.
The United States went to war with Iraq at the ORDER of the United Nations, in violation of our own sovereignty, and in violation of our written Constitution.
I assume you're a libertarina so lets talk libertarian speak. Hussein put his name to contracts agreeing to certain penalties in return for a suspension of hostilities. He has fraudulently reneged on those contracts. Now, it is time to pay the piper.
What philosophy is it that you adhere to that looks favorably on men who lie, break contracts and murder indiscriminately?
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.