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

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

[Neets]

Kudos to you Roscoe...wonderful job in making it difficult for some people to argue the "facts"!!!!! Bravo!!!!!

[Ragin1]

buzzword, catch phrase. I'm sold. Sign me up.

When does the daily 10 minutes of hate start?

[Roscoe]

"Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate – which just confirms that there is no real threat?"

How many Americans died at the hands of terrorists on 9/11/2001?

[CIB-173RDABN]

For our society to survive, we MUST return to the Rule of Law.

Interesting choice of words. Let us say your side prevails in the argument and we can not move against Iraq without Congress Declaring War.

Further, let us say for polictical reasons, the Democrats block such a declaration.

Further, President Bush decides not to go in to Iraq without the Declaration of war.

Further, Iraq now has time to complete it research and construction of several nuclear devices. Having been in our cross hairs once,he decides it is better to use them then wait.

Several American cities are destroyed.

But the good news is, we followed the letter of the law as you see it.

Personally, if you must take on this fight, I would prefer you concentrated on any number of unconsitutional items rather that one where if we fail to act may cost us dearly.

[Ragin1]

Your definition of "facts" please?

[exodus]

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

To: exodus
"...The victor dictates the terms of surrender. A defeated nation has NO "right of defense..."


# 122 by M. Thatcher

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

Any nation nas the right of self-defense.

Even a defeated nation.

[Roscoe]

When does the daily 10 minutes of hate start?

9/11 didn't really happen? Doublethink.

[Neets]

Stop confusing him with over 3,000 statements of fact Roscoe..that's fair...

[Ragin1]

That overstepps the limits of the constitution, by supplying the what if as a fact. Did Saddam attack? No. Do we have the constitutional right to intervene with the problem of Kuwait's soveriegn status? By the constitution, I don't see it. I can see the logic, but not the legality.

[Roscoe]

As part of its terms of surrender, Iraq agreed to eliminate all of its weapons of mass destruction.

[Ragin1]

Saddam is now responsible for 9/11?

Maybee some Kurds in the northern part, but I don't think it was Saddam.

[Ragin1]

As part of its terms of the big gun show, Iraq agreed to eliminate all of its weapons of mass destruction.

[M. Thatcher]

So why, genius, did the U.S. not allow a defeated Japan to arm itself? HMMM? Why is a Japanese military SPECIFICALLY BARRED BY THE JAPANESE CONSTITUTION?

Any guesses?

[Neets]

It is alleged that he did give OBL some $$ back in the late 90's....I would be SURPRISED if he was NOT involved in it one way or another...either directly or indirectly...so yes, I'd say he share some resonsibility.

[Roscoe]

As part of its terms of the big gun show, Iraq agreed to eliminate all of its weapons of mass destruction.

Its invasion of Kuwait failed.

[Ragin1]

Christ Neets by that definition, we are responsible for BinLadens actions by giving him his start.

[Ragin1]

No Roscoe, Iraq took Kuwait, and would have sold us it's oil, then we took Kuwait, and then we gave it back to Kuwait. (or did we?)

[Roscoe]

No Roscoe, Iraq took Kuwait

What a villainous euphemism for their invasion of Kuwait and the murders, rapes and pillaging that followed.

[exodus]

Iraq should hide it's weapons. Just as an individual man has the right of defense, so a nation has that right.

To: exodus
"...after the gulf war, Iraq did agree to cooperate with the UN for what was described in the media as "weapons inspections..."

"...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?..."
# 123 by Dave in Eugene of all places

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

After the Gulf War, Iraq was FORCED to agree to disarmament. An agreement compelled under threat of force is not a valid agreement.

Without citizens, a nation doesn't exist. A nation IS its citizens. Thus, any nation has rights by virtue of it's citizens possession of rights. A nation's rights are the collective rights of it's people.

A nation's military is nothing less than the collective right of men to protect themselves. A disarmed nation is defenseless, unable to protect it's interests.

In the case of Saddam Hussain, WE left him in power. We left him in power knowing that he was a dictator. A dictator is sovereign in his nation, just as a king is. Either governmental system, Dictatorship or Monarchy, is just as valid a government as our Republican system.

If Hussain's subjects want to overthrow him, it's their right. It's none of our business, and most of them would shoot us if we tried to interfere in their lives.

[Ragin1]

Any more catch words you can apply? Want to refer them to our own country taking the west?