[Texaggie79]

[philosofy123]

Good post. Saudi Arabia, through its funds and ideology, as well as egypt through its know how, were the two nations that caused us harm. The leadership in these two countries MUST be held responsible for causing a trillion dollar loss to our economy. Before we go hit on Sadam, because he is an easy target, we must take on the difficult ones, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran!!!!

[Argus]

Who the hell is Ron Paul and why should I care what he thinks?

[TheDon]

Be wary of libertarians discussing foreign policy.

[Hugin]

We, on the other hand, have bombed them, taunted them by flying military jets in their airspace, and starved them with economic sanctions- all for more than a decade.

We have done no such thing, Saddam has. Under the sanctions he could sell oil and spend the money on food and medicine, as long as the UN conrrols the money to make sure it doesn't go to rebuilding his military. He has refused claiming that would be an "insult to the Iraqi people". He is callously killing his own people as emotional blackmail so that fools like Ron Paul will pressure for sanctions to be ended. He has not only rebuilt his 13 palaces destroyed during the Gulf War, but built 26 new ones. Meanwhile his WMD programs and connections to terrorist groups are well documented.

Saddam is a clear and present danger to both the US and out allies, even if Ron Paul is too blind to see it. Thank God George Bush isn't.

[mrsmith]

"we must follow the Constitution and require that the President secure a congressional declaration of war "

Maybe he's just ignorant and doesn't mean to lie.

American politicians have really deteriorated since Adams and Jefferson passed away, now they'll say anything for money.

[911]

Remember, Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.

I'm having a hard time getting a handle on this whole "initiation of force" principle. Maybe some libertarian would be kind enough to explain it to me.

Let's say I get into an altercation with someone at a bar, and he threatens to punch my lights out. In a libertarian society, at what point am I allowed to hit him? Does his threat, if delivered with sufficient seriousness, constitute the requisite force? Or must I let him take the first swing? If I duck and he misses, may I consider force initiated, or do I actually have to let him hit me first?

[VRWC_minion]

We should also remember that the congressional resolution passed immediately after September 11th, which I supported, authorized military force only against those directly responsible for the attacks-

Liar

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched
against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its
citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to
self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these
grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of
international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts
of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements

(1) Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the
Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the
meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[rightwing2]

Yet I remain convinced we should be very cautious before we send troops and bombs into Iraq. It's simple to point out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, but it's not so easy to demonstrate that he poses a threat to us. We should also remember that the congressional resolution passed immediately after September 11th, which I supported, authorized military force only against those directly responsible for the attacks- and there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq played a role in those attacks. This leaves me with two serious concerns: first, the near-certainty that this coming war will be undeclared, and hence unconstitutional; and second, that such a war does not serve our best interests. First and foremost, we must follow the Constitution and require that the President secure a congressional declaration of war before he proceeds against Iraq...Constitutional questions aside, we have to ask ourselves quite simply whether it serves any national interest to invade Iraq.

Remember, Iraq has not initiated aggression against us. We, on the other hand, have bombed them, taunted them by flying military jets in their airspace, and starved them with economic sanctions- all for more than a decade. We haven't done these things out of humanitarian concern for Kuwait, we've done them because we want to protect our oil interests. Yet these actions have harmed the people of Iraq, not the Hussein regime. If anything, our policies serve to generate support for Hussein, who uses American aggression as a convenient scapegoat to deflect attention from his own oppression. Sadly, we've made him a martyr in Iraq and much of the wider Muslim world, alienating many otherwise pro-Western Iraqi moderates in the process. I question the wisdom, and the necessity, of once again traveling 6000 miles to pick a fight with a third-world Muslim nation that is simply not threatening us.

I fear that we are about to embark on an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Iraq that is exceedingly unwise and fraught with unforeseen consequences. This war will have nothing to do with US national security or Iraqi aggression. It will, however, make us all less secure by antagonizing millions of Muslims.

The brilliant counsel of this great man, Rep. Ron Paul, the unquestioned conservative leader of the House of Representatives is completely in harmony with the foreign policy advocated by our noble and wise founders. Paul is articulating an America First foreign policy on Iraq advocated by an even more famous and renowned conservative champion, Pat Buchanan, in his acclaimed and scholarly book on American history and foreign policy, A Republic, not an Empire. Together Rep. Paul and Pat Buchanan are providing principled leadership for America First conservatives against the War Party in the White House led by neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz that say we must attack every possible threat country in the world beginning with Iraq before they even have the capability to attack us. This is the policy of unprincipled one-world government NWO imperialism and must be repudiated by conservatives throughout the country especially those in positions of leadership in Congress if we are to remain a free, independent and sovereign republic.

[NMC EXP]

I'm always amazed that Congress is quite willing to simply give away one of its greatest powers, especially when it spends so much time otherwise trying to expand its powers by passing extra-constitutional legislation.

Ron Paul is right. Congress has divested itself of Constitutionally mandated responsibilities via legislation (federal reserve), by ommision (war declaration), and delegation (pass a vague outline, and let the bureaucrats actually write the law).

This left the congresscritters with so much time on their dirty little hands they cannot help but barge into areas prohibited to them by the Constitution.

Regards

J.R.

[GOP_1900AD]

Every time Ron speaks / writes, he moves further from any semblance of nationalism or true Conservatism. Back when he first started out, he was a Conservative with a healthy dash of Libertarianism. Now, he's an anti-nationalistic, anarchistic, utopian who would rather see the US cower in our corner of the world until someone nukes us than to compromise his Libertarian utopianism with the harsh realities of a geopolitical jungle where naive isolationism always leads to reactive and belated defensive war without adequate preparation. We were lucky there were no ICBMs or other serious projection capabilities in the late 1930s - early 1940s. If the same scenario gets repeated now, we're so hosed. Hey look, I can fully comprehend the appeal of Libertarianism when it comes to domestic issues, busy body legislation, taxation and regulation of business. But when it comes to geopolitics, the Libertarians need to get out of the way and let the big dogs play through!

[Dec31,1999]

We haven't done these things out of humanitarian concern for Kuwait, we've done them because we want to protect our oil interests.

I don't see how boycotting their oil is in our interest.

[IceGirl2]

I am sorry to interrupt this thread--but I keep asking for help to LOG OFF and no one, including Mr. Robinson, will reply!

What is going on? Please let me know how to log off.