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

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

[Boonie Rat]

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

by Jacob G. Hornberger

In the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002

From Representative Ron Paul, Texas.

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won't be asked – and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

Hornberger: Yes.

2. 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?

Hornberger: Yes.

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

Hornberger: Yes.

4. Is it not true that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

Hornberger: Yes. Also, former Marine and former UN Inspector Scott Ritter is openly challenging the administration's thesis that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year?

Hornberger: Yes.

Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

Hornberger: That fact doesn't support an attack on Iraq, making it easy for U.S. officials to forget it.

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism?

Hornberger: Neither the president nor Tony Blair have produced any evidence to contradict that conclusion.

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

Hornberger: Yes.

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

Hornberger: Yes.

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

Hornberger: Yes, but U.S. officials don't criticize their allies, even when they are headed by non-democratic, brutal military thugs.

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?

Hornberger: What better way to divert people's attention away from the chaos in Afghanistan and the failure to capture Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar (remember him? He was the leader of the Taliban and a prime suspect in the 9-11 attacks) than to attack Iraq? And you can't deny it's a brilliant political strategy to galvanize wartime "support-the-government-and-the-troops" patriotism right around election time.

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States – and who may again attack the United States – and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

Hornberger: Good question. Here's another one: Why was the FBI spending so much time and resources spying on bordellos in New Orleans and harassing drug users prior to 9-11 rather than pursuing the strong leads that pointed toward the 9-11 attacks?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US – and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

Hornberger: Yes. The U.S. government's attack will engender even more hatred and anger against Americans, which will engender more attacks against Americans, which will engender more U.S. government assaults on the civil liberties of the American people. As Virginian James Madison pointed out, people who live under a regime committed to perpetual war will never be free, because with war comes armies, taxes, spending, and assaults on the rights and freedoms of the people.

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

Hornberger: It's convenient to compare any target of the U.S. government to Hitler in order to make people emotionally negative toward the target. That's why federal officials called David Koresch Hitler before they attacked the Branch Davidians, including (innocent) children, with deadly, flammable gas at Waco. Remember that Hitler took over Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia and then had the military might to fight on two fronts against the Soviet Union, France, Britain, and the U.S. Iraq, on the other hand, has invaded no one in more than 10 years and, in fact, invaded Kuwait only after U.S. officials failed to give Saddam (their buddy and ally at that time) the red light on invading Kuwait. By the way, notice how they never refer to their targets as a "Joseph Stalin" even though Stalin was no better and possibly much worse than Hitler. The reason they don't is that Stalin was a friend and ally of Franklin Roosevelt and the U.S. government.

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress?

Hornberger: Yes, but since the Congress abrogated its constitutional duty in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Granada, Panama, and other invasions, interventions, and wars, the president and most members of Congress believe that the declaration of war requirement has effectively been nullified, which is similar to Pakistan President Masharraf's unilaterally amending his country's Constitution to give himself more power.

Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion?

Hornberger: No. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be obeyed regardless of public opinion. In fact, the Bill of Rights expressly protects the people from the visisitudes of public opinion. The Consitution prohibits the president from waging war without an express declaration of war by Congress. That's why both Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt could not intervene in World Wars I and II without a congressional declaration of war.

Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

Hornberger: No. The supreme law of the land – the law that the American people have imposed on their federal officials – is the U.S. Constitution. We the people are the ultimate sovereign in our country, not the United Nations.

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

Hornberger: I have not seen it, but it would not surprise me. As history has repeatedly shown, public officials in every nation consider it proper and useful to lie as a way to galvanize public support in favor of the war that they're determined to wage. Decades later, when people are finally permitted to view the files, the records inevitably reveal the falsehoods that led the people to support the wars. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which Congress enacted on the request of President Lyndon Johnson, comes to mind since it cost the lives of 60,000 men of my generation in the Vietnam War, including some of my schoolmates at Virginia Military Institute.

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

Hornberger: I didn't know that but it wouldn't surprise me. But when was the last time you saw high public officials worry about the welfare of American GIs? Vietnam? Somalia? VA Hospitals?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

Hornberger: It's impossible to know how many American casualties there will be, and you could be right about thousands of American casualties, given the urban fighting that will have to take place. On the other hand, American casualties could be light given the U.S. government's overwhelming military might and tremendous domestic dissatisfaction in Iraq against Saddam Hussein (many Iraqis will undoubtedly view American forces as liberators, given Hussein's brutal, dictatorial regime). From a moral standpoint, we should not only ask about American GI casualties but also Iraqi people casualties. After the Allied Powers delivered the people of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and East Germany to Stalin and the Soviet communists after World War II, those people suffered under communism for five decades, which most of us would oppose, but who's to say that they would have been better off with liberation by U.S. bombs and embargoes, especially those who would have been killed by them? I believe that despite the horrible suffering of the Eastern Europeans and East Germans, Americans were right to refrain from liberating them with bombs and embargoes. It's up to the Iraqi people to deal with the tyranny under which they suffer – it is not a legitimate function of the U.S. government to liberate them from their tyranny with an attack upon their nation.

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a $100 billion war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

Hornberger: Federal spending is now out of control, which means that taxes are now out of control because the only place that government gets its money is taxation, either directly through the IRS or indirectly through the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. My prediction is that they'll let the Fed do it, so that President Bush avoids blame for raising taxes and so that U.S. officials can blame inflation on big, bad, greedy businessmen who are "price-gouging." When you add the costs of the war and foreign policy in general, including foreign aid and bailouts to corrupt foreign governments, to the federal "charity" and pork that the members of Congress send back to their districts in an attempt to buy votes to get reelected, it doesn't portend well for the future economic well-being of the American people. After all, let's not forget how Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Empire – he made it spend itself into bankruptcy.

19. Iraq's alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

Hornberger: Yes. And since these are UN resolutions, doesn't that mean that only the UN, not a specific member of the UN, has the legal authority to enforce them?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

Hornberger: I have no reason to doubt that this is true.

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

Hornberger: I didn't know this but nothing surprises me anymore.

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

Hornberger: Absolutely, and what does it say about the U.S. government's commitment to the rule of law?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharraf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

Hornberger: The U.S. government's commitment to democracy is a sham, evidenced not only through its support of brutal non-elected dictators who follow its orders but also through its support of ousting democratically elected leaders who refuse to follow its orders, such as Chavez in Venezuela or Allende in Chile.

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 – including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

Hornberger: I read a New York Times article on this just the other day. At the risk of modifying my statement above about not being surprised by anything anymore, I was stunned to learn that U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were supporting Iraq when it was using chemical weapons against Iranians. From a moral standpoint, how low can they go? And how hypocritical can they be?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran?

Hornberger: This is during the time that Saddam was a buddy of the U.S. government. I wonder why they're not just offering him money again to re-become a buddy, as they do with other dictators, such as Masharraf, the brutal army dictator who took over Pakistan in a coup and who was a strong supporter and close friends of the Taliban.

Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

Hornberger: No, it's highly hypocritical but it's effective with respect to those who refuse to believe that their federal government has engaged in wrongdoing overseas.

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

Hornberger: Yes, and wasn't that the preferred pretext of the Soviet Union when it committed acts of aggression during the Cold War?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

Hornberger: Good question.

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

Hornberger: I suggest that we form a "Suicide Brigade" for all men over 40 who support sending American GI's into foreign wars. Their mission would be to blow themselves up on enemy targets, thereby bringing the war to a quicker conclusion. They've already lived their lives anyway, and their suicides would be helping to save the lives of younger American soldiers. My prediction: Not one single "hard-charger" will volunteer, but I would oppose drafting them into "service."

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

Hornberger: There is no moral argument. And here's one back at you: At what point does an unprovoked attack against a weak nation that kills innocent people go from being "war" to becoming murder?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

Hornberger: It doesn't, but we are now experiencing the consequences of permitting U.S. officials to ignore the Constitution for decades, especially with respect to the declaration of war requirement. Question back to you: Did you ever think you would live in a nation in which one man has the omnipotent power to send an entire nation into war on his own initiative and the omnipotent power to jail any American citizen in an Army brig for the rest of his life without the benefit of trial or habeas corpus?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

Hornberger: Yes.

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

Hornberger: Absolutely. We are learning that our Founders were right – that an unrestrained federal government is highly dangerous to the best interests of the American people. That's the reason they required a Constitution as a condition of bringing the federal government into existence – they didn't trust unrestrained government and intended the Constitution to protect us from unrestrained government officials.

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and – not coincidentally – we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

Hornberger: Absolutely true, and such false and fake resolutions as the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" are shams that have prematurely snuffed out the lives of tens of thousands of American GIs.

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

Hornberger: Yes, but the brutal Army general who took over in a coup and who recently unilaterally amended his country's Constitution without the consent of the people or the Parliament, is now doing what Washington tells him to do, and that's the difference.

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

Hornberger: Because they're afraid to take individual responsibility, both politically and morally, for their actions. This way, they can straddle this fence – if the war goes well, they can claim credit and if it goes bad, they can blame the president. It's called political and moral cowardice, a malady that unfortunately has pervaded the U.S. Congress for many, many years.

September 14, 2002

[Lizard_King]

Well, were it up to me, foreign policy would be dealt with in a very realpolitik "clean out potential threats as quickly as possible", and return us to a position where we can focus more on being a sovereign nation rather than being the world's overseer, which is tiresome and unprofitable. I think a Bush policy involving decisive action on a grand scale is far preferable to UN "mediation" or Clintonian low-level attrition. The purpose is not to send our enemies a message. The purpose is to kill them.

That said, I think our constitutional battles need to focus on domestic issues, where there is absolutely no utilitarian or moral grounds for the expansion of most legislation. I think hate-crimes legislation has been swept into the background when it should be in the foreground of conservative attacks...it is one of many small steps in turning the "right" to freedom of speech into the "privilege" of freedom of speech. Same goes for asinine gun regulations, such as the banning of types of weapons based on propaganda that they are scary, or the numerous registration and consumer harassment laws currently in place.
I think the foreign policy problems of the last century are a symptom of the root problem: the domestic disregard of the constitution, with its root in the conduct of Presidents (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, etc), Congress, and the activists-in-judge's-clothing that often pass for Supreme court Justices. It begins with education, with making people aware that the constitution is there to limit government, not the people, and that our contract has been broken by the Federal Government many times over.

I think rhetoric about the Rule of Law makes for pleasing sounds, but we have to get there in a gradual process before we begin demanding a Jeffersonian standard of government. This is not compromise, I think, but pragmatism and a recognition of how far adrift we are now.

So to summarize a long and excessively verbose post, I think we've got to focus on changing the law at home; right now, if we behave in a constitutionally adequate manner abroad, we'll get creamed. Fix it first, then stay out of it.

On a side note, I would give a lot to hear just one candidate from any party (anything is possible, right? The Democrats were once the "free trade" party) make a single reference to the constitution, ever. As in, if I am elected, I will strive to make state legislatures more than local fiscal appropriation bodies; to ensure that (gun, speech, etc) laws are not arbitrarily put in place in violation of the Constitution on the fiat of a new governor/senator/president; that when laws are made, I will question those putting them forth until they are forced to speak what they actually intend to accomplish with that law. Guess that is a pipe dream these days.


Oh, and a final aside...I think if Saddam Hussein was merely interested in remaining in power, he would have handed over what the inspectors wanted. He's got something up his sleeve, and I would be entirely unsurprised to learn of his complicity at any level in world terrorism. If he is up to his neck in anti-Israel terrorism, it follows logically that there must be involvement in anti-American terrorism. I don't want to wait until 9/11.2 rolls around; I don't think any number of "I told you so's" would be worth a tinker's damn if and when it occurs.

[Lizard_King]

Actually, a large part of the reason for the existence of that clause is the belief of the Japanese, after their experience at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that war had changed radically from something that was manageable to something that explicitly held the annihilation of humankind in its grasp.

Mind you, I am not arguing that it is unreasonable to demand that a defeated foe disarm; I just don't think that the reason you implicitly give for the Japanese constitution saying that is so cut and dried.

[Lizard_King]

I think what he meant was a military authorized to wage war, which the Japanese military is not as it is restricted to retaliation and prevented from almost any form of intervention abroad (hence its reluctance on peacekeeping missions).

[dcwusmc]

Nor was I attempting to bully. It seems to me that those who have NOT been to war and are in no danger of being sent there are the biggest champions of sending kids off to die. WRT Vietnam, nope. It is my personal example of civilian "control" being perverted by unelected bureaucraps who are not under the microscope of Congress.

A grand example of how this works to get people killed unnecessarily is the adventurism of Billy Jeff Klowntoon. He had service people in well over 100 countries on totally bogus "missions" with more coming home in bodybags than we lost in Gulf War 1 (that's hyperbole but not TOO inaccurate). He was a draft-dodging non-hacker and became an armchair commando of the first water.

This chancellor whatever seems far too ready to go to war to be in danger of having to go himself. Not to mention the dearth of hard evidence that Saddam was involved in 9-11. I agree he should go, just on GP. BUT there are better ways to do it...

[Clinging Bitterly]

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

That's a good principle as applied where a government is forcing a contract upon an individual citizen against his will (as occurs in the US every day), or where England comes and imposes it's law upon the colonies, but the situation with Iraq is is an entirely different level of interaction because of the way we view what took place in the months before before the agreement was made.

In the logical progression of things, Iraq initiated the exchange of words that began the negotiations that culminated in this "treaty". It could have, at any time, left the negotiating table and continued as a fully sovereign state, but it did not.

It's hard to imagine a civilized world where nations don't, from time to time, form coalitions or make agreements with each other in order to achieve or preserve some desired level of comfort (usually economic, but not always). It is equally hard to imagine that those agreements would not have some mechanism of enforcement that could include consequences upon a party that is perceived as unilaterally breaking the agreement.

The opinion as to the validity of international agreements will vary from one perspective to another. At this level, there are just no absolutes. But in the end, each party desires to prevail. At this stage of societal evolution, we try to work these thing out first through diplomatic channels, then through military force. But there is always the threat of force, even where no agreement exists. Such is the human condition.

Dave in Eugene

[Isle of sanity in CA]

From my earier post..."Take you're Hanoi Jane Ass Kissing self somewhere..."

I just had a "Whoa! Did I write that?" moment rereading my earlier post. This was way over the line and I sincerely apologize for saying this. I still do not agree with what you have said, but will try and keep remarks like that out of the discussion in the future. END-OF-APOLOGY, Disagreement to follow..

It seems to me that those who have NOT been to war and are in no danger of being sent there are the biggest champions of sending kids off to die.

I don't believe this is true. I still 'hang-out' with friends that are still active duty and there is ALOT of support within the military for attacking Iraq.

WRT Vietnam, nope. It is my personal example of civilian "control" being perverted by unelected bureaucraps

As I said earlier, I wasn't there. BUT, alot of Vietnam vets I've talked with weren't upset about civilians deciding IF to fight, but when politicians began getting involved with telling the military HOW to fight and tying the militarys hands behind it's back. This is a very important distinction.

A grand example of how this works to get people killed unnecessarily is the adventurism of Billy Jeff Klowntoon

A bad apple. Reagan wasn't former military. Bush isn't former military(not counting guard). Roosevelt wasn't former military.

I think we agree on whether Saddam should be deep-sixed(yes), but differ on how and why probably. As for chancellor, for all we know he(she?) could be one of the most decorated soldiers in history. This is the internet. You could be an 18 YO hooker in Belgium for all I know... My point is that it doesn't matter. Deciding on whether to go to war isn't a soldiers prerogative it's a citizens prerogative. Never has been, never should be.

[Isle of sanity in CA]

BTW, I think it's common FReeper courtesy to add somebody to the 'to' list if you mention them in your post. The exception would be when you know the person's there looking but you just want to piss them off by talking about them in front of them.. ;-)

[Cultural Jihad]

And just why is Lew Rockwell a sacred cow? Is it because the LP (and the source in particular) is even further to the left than Daschle regarding national security and generally in alignment with Tariq Aziz?

Exactly. lewrockwell.com could post that the sun rose this morning, and I would have to walk outside to independently confirm it. It has zero credibility because it is an ideologue website.

[blaster88]

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.

What a crock. There are about 198 countries, plus or minus, in this world. About a handful can "strike back" at the US if we go to war with them.

If our sole criteria were the inability to strike back, we would be invading Costa Rica and Burundi and Greenland and the other 180 plus that wouldn't be able to strike back.

[blaster88]

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

Hornberger: Yes.

While this appears on lewrockwell, the questions themselves were posted in the Congressional Record by Congressman Paul. Hornberger, an LP candidate, has decided to answer them. Paul entitled these questions "Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq"

This particular question has many facets. First of all, I wonder why a Libertarian is concerned that the United States is not abiding by a treaty to which it is not a party. The Treaty of Westphalia was signed in 1648 well before the founding of the United States. It was signed by the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of France - institutions which no longer exist.

This very notion of the "Bush doctrine" going against the precepts of Westphalia was pointed out by Henry Kissinger. And it is of course a conscious decision on the part of the Bush administration to do just that.

Also, the Treaty of Westphalia specifies:

The Emperor shall likewise declare, That within the Investiture of the Dutchy of Mantua are comprehended the Castles of Reygioli and Luzzare, with their Territorys and Dependencys, the Possession whereof the Duke of Guastalla shall be oblig'd to render to the Duke of Mantua, reserving to himself nevertheless, the Right of Six Thousand Crowns annual Pension, which he pretends to, for which he may sue the Duke before his Imperial Majesty.

Should we be abiding by that, too?

[blaster88]

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

Hornberger: Yes.

Umm, no. The point is that so long as Hussein is in power, we can be sure that Iraq is attempting to get WMD. Whether we are inspecting or not. That is why "regime change" is the goal. We CAN be more sure of the WMD status in Iraq with a democratic government there.

[jammer]

Wait. ROFL. That was exactly MY point. The problem with your argument is that we don't dislike Costa Rica or Greenland and that they don't control a resource we need. If they did, we would do a regime change. Ability to strike back is NOT the sole criterion and I never said it was. I said it was ONE of the criteria and I said that it was the reason George Kennan formulated the containment policy--the Soviet Union COULD strike back. I stand behind my "crock".

[dcwusmc]

Apology accepted... I had ignored the rhetoric...

I have not said there isn't support in the services for kicking Saddam's nasty ass... I know there is. And that's fine, it should be kicked up well past his shoulders. What I am saying is that it's my experience that the BIGGEST and most strident cheerleaders are those who know it won't be them.

I have no issues with civilian authority directing us where to go and who to kill when we get there. That's how it's set up. My issue is and has been that CinC and the pentagon civilians need strong Congressional oversight because of the issues MacNamara came out with in his book. He KNEW we could not win the war, he knew why this was so, yet he did NOT inform anyone and stop the killing of 58,000-plus of our young men and women, not to mention the ones who lost legs as a friend of mine did, or were otherwise maimed to no purpose. This kind of civilian control we do NOT need... more later.

[blaster88]

Once again, this is what you DID say:

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.

If you didn't mean it, why did you post it? You say we are choosing enemies based on how easy they are to beat rather than on our interests or even morality.

That whole oil thing doesn't play because we are "friends" with Egypt and Jordan, who are oil-less, and not friends with Iraq, Iran, and Libya, who have plenty.

Saudi has oil and should be easy to beat. Same with Venezuela. Or Russia.

Why aren't they in our sights?

Maybe it is something else?

Like national interest? Or morality?

[jammer]

You neglected to point out the preceeding three paragraphs. I said it and DID mean it: we seem to be picking and choosing enemies to attack inconsistently. You pointed out some countries who are "friends" and I've said nothing about them. To expound, we have a body of enemies. Of those, there are 3 classes. We attack only those who cannot strike back effectively. We do not attack those who can. And we finesse those who are not as bitter. I honestly do not see the controversy in that statement. And the point of the question asked by one of the posters was exactly that.

[jwalsh07]

My issue is and has been that CinC and the pentagon civilians need strong Congressional oversight because of the issues MacNamara came out with in his book. He KNEW we could not win the war, he knew why this was so, yet he did NOT inform anyone and stop the killing of 58,000-plus of our young men and women, not to mention the ones who lost legs as a friend of mine did, or were otherwise maimed to no purpose. This kind of civilian control we do NOT need... more later.

Well said and point taken. McNamara and Johnson suck.

[ivegotabrain]

Thanks for the ping, exodus. It was informative reading.

[L.N. Smithee]

The US and the UN gave Saddam over half a year to move his forces out of Kuwait. He didn't. So, let's hear the conspiracist view: Why didn't he?

[meenie]

Even the administration has admitted that they don't know if Sadaam has nuclear weapons. They need to get into Iraq before he has the chance to make some nuclear weapons.

My advice to you would be for you to start observing some news instead of using your funtioning testicles to make the decision on political considerations. Funtioning testicles don't affect reasoning unless you are interested in sex.

[Illbay]

Your theory does nothing to explain why so many women of my acquaintance support going after Saddam.