Replies

United Nation's resolutions should never be listed as the reason that the United States goes to war.

From Republican Congressman Ron Paul's article, "Another United Nations War?"

"... in going to war in 1991, (the first President Bush) sought and received UN authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this UN authority was adequate, and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War therefore was clearly a UN, political war fought within UN guidelines, not for U.S. security..."

"...Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S. has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of UN expenses. I contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly both in lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved..."

"...(our government) now says it would be nice to have UN support, but it’s not necessary..." "...The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U. S. Congress..."

**********************

If we're truly going to war for the security of the United States, we need a Declaration of War from Congress. So what's the big deal? Is it too much to ask, expecting our elected representatives to follow the law?

Saying "Iraq violated United Nations resolutions" isn't good enough, especially since the majority of members of the U.N. don't want us to enforce those resolutions with force.

Vietnam non-communist? News to me. Probably news to the 2-3 million Montagnards, Meo, H'moung, and "Degars" butchered by the "non-communists..."

1. The fundamentally simplistic analyses Paul offers of the Korean and Vietnamese wars do nothing to support his case.

2. There is a big difference between having UN resolutions as a reason for American policy, and having them as a pretext to achieve our own policy goals, consistent with the long-term security and economic interests of the United States. I have seen nothing to convince me that President Bush is not engaged in the latter course.

3. A hands off approach to foreign policy would have been wonderful...in 1916. The damage is done. We either accept the responsabilities we have since incurred, or reap far greater costs than 9/11 in the future.

Ron Paul ought to have been Woodrow Wilson's gadfly, not George Bush's.

"But no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a UN prerogative, and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress. "

Ron Paul is a bitter repetitious self serving fool. Congressional authorization has been discussed at length. Even if the 1991 authorization and cease fire’s considered expired, the two congressional authorizations and the year and a half public debate since more than satisfy the sprit, if not the letter, of the Constitution. And don’t say that the word "war" has to be inserted. This has been ruled on.

As far as his claim of a "rush to war" (over 12 years), that Iraq "has not aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us" (after firing on our jets and building WMD) or that we’ll have "expanded Middle East chaos" (after we forward deploy an attack force in Iraq), my dog makes more sense when he debates.

President Bush Sr. proudly spoke of "The New World Order," a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations

Bush Sr. never used the term "New World Order" to mean one-world government under the U.N. nor did he advocate one-world government under the control of the U.N. In fact I'm not sure I know of anyone who advocates that.

President Bush Sr. proudly spoke of "The New World Order," a term used by those who promote one-world government

Yeah, and "Free Republic" is a term used by people here to refer to an Internet forum. Does that mean that every time someone strings together the words 'free' and 'republic' they mean this forum? I doubt it; Benjamin Austin used the term "free republic" in 1819.

It is perfectly possible to speak of a "new world order" without meaning one-world government. One might simply mean that the old order -- whatever it was -- had been tossed out. If NATO goes down the tubes because of all this Frenchling behavior, we will have a new world order. That will not mean that the UN will take over, or even the French. It's too soon to say what it will mean.

I'm tired of Ron Paul acting like I'm too stupid to know what words mean. I wish he would go away with this "New World Order" crap. Yeah, there are people who want World Government. So what? They don't own the words, and "new world order" is not a brand name for any particular alternative. And it is insulting to everyone's intelligence to pretend that everyone who uses that term means the same thing by it. It's just three damned words.

The Declaration of War thing has already been litigated. Youse guys lost.

If Paul is as ignorant about Iraq as he is about Vietnam, that would explain a lot.

I admire Ron Paul for his willingness to think things through in his own effective way. I believe he is off the mark here, however.

If you accept his premises then it is all very logical, as usual. But he ignores the prevailing motivation for all of this activity, i.e. Saddam Hussein means to be the power broker in the Middle Eastern part of the world through force. He has shown no compunction about punishing his own countrymen who oppose him. He disregards the murderous acts of his sons who emulate him. It is even likely that he will unleash biological and chemical agents on his own turf, to the detriment of his own people. Ron seems to ignore all of these factors in this article.

Ron Paul, total wack job on foreign policy.

Ron Paul would have ragged on Thomas Jefferson about the Barbary Pirates, too.

You Texans, which I was as a boy-growing-up, should be proud of that man representing you. I wish there were more like him.

Thanks for the ping to this thread. Sorry for the late arrival - like coming to the Alamo a couple of days late but I see that you made a gallant stand.

After reading through all the postings I see the old human condition of convoluted justification in play - I like what is happening so it must be all right - and there is precedent for it. As has been pointed out there seems to be selective appreciation for respect for the law and judicial rulings- some like wars and intervention but not Roe v. Wade for example.

A good illustration of the matter at hand is a parent scolding a child to which the child replies "but his sister did it the other day and she didn't get in trouble" or "My friend Johnny's parents let him do it" or the universal "everybody does it". Then there is the old parental question "if everybody jumped off a bridge would you jump too?"

So some here say that congress authorized force against terrorism after 9/11(or cite the war powers act) so therefore any military action the president takes is legitimate and no declaration is needed. Well I never consider writing a blank check to anyone, not even a good friend, just isn't wise. We have heard plans for months now about a much wider war than Iraq is in the making - to quote a Stratfor article the from other day - "Wolfowitz -- and President George W. Bush -- simply don't want to lay the long-term cards on the table at this time. They would rather be accused of attacking Iraq without reason than being viewed as being engaged in a long-term, well-thought-out campaign against other countries in the region.". To add weight to this conclusion all one has to do is recall the president's speech the other night at the AEI. He plainly stated that the Arab countries are on notice that they will restructure their forms of government, restructure their foreign policy and restructure their domestic civil rights according to our designs or they will be the next Iraq. Another quote from the Stratfor article -"There also will be other troops based in Iraq -- not reporting to the occupation commander, but reporting to a war-fighting commander whose primary responsibility will be for operations outside of Iraq." Not to base my premise on this one article, these matters have been long talked about in print and on TV for many months now - the point is such a large scale war, series of wars if you will and long term occupations are of such grave consequence that they should be openly debated in congress and in the country. To do otherwise is way too similar to the Roman Senate giving up the republic.

In regards to the UN and world government conservatives have long been opposed to such notions as they perceived the UN to be a power over our sovereignty and therefore unconstitutional. We now see these conservatives lovingly embrace the concept of global government because they see the US and not the UN reigning supreme. In fact the UN has been a tool of the US all along. Before we rejected it but now the same product is repackaged and we love it. Interesting.