Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Answers to Ron Paul's Questions on Iraq From an Opponent of the War
Lew Rockwell ^ | 9/14/02 | Jacob G. Hornberger

Posted on 09/14/2002 5:32:18 AM PDT by 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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: crackaddictwrites; drivel; gutlessappeasers; hatingamerica; lewsers; mindless; pedantic; spinelessness; stupid; unloving; wimp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341 next last
To: exodus
"The Air Force didn't start out as the "Air Force." It was a part of the Army. Later, when air combat became more important and more specialised, it branched off from the Army and was RENAMED "The Air Force.""

And, what was the Constitutional Authority for "branched(ing) off" the Air Force? I've checked the Constitution and I can find no authority granting Congress this power. Was this an unconstitutional ursurpation of authority? Shouldn't Congress have passed a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish this? How does Congress's actions here differ from the War Powers Act?

While we're at it, where is the Constitutional Authority for the United States to even have airplanes? Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not envision such a development. How about the Federal Aviation Agency? Is it Constitutional? Where in a "clear reading" of the Constitution are these things authorized?
301 posted on 09/15/2002 5:58:58 AM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Ragin1
That oversteps 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 sovereign status? By the constitution, I don't see it. I can see the logic, but not the legality.

You have two points here, first you take exception to my "what if" statements and second your claim that our assistance to Kuwait was unconstitutional.

I will grant you the "what if" scenario I set up was of the worse case type, but that does not make it any less valid.

Do you have any doubts that if Osama and his friends were able to get a nuclear device under the World Trade Center they would not have done so?

Do you have doubts that there are some working in that area attempting to develope weapon grade biological agents?

Do you have doubts that when the time comes they will use them against us?

If you do have doubts, there is no point to this discussion.

As to the second point. In this nation, it has come to pass (and not that I like it one bit, but that what is or is not constitutional has been left up to the Supreme Court. For you to say that something is unconstitutional does not make it so. It may be unconstitutional according to your reading and understanding of the constitution, but unless you sit on the Supreme Court, it does not matter.

(The only recouse I see it is we have is to elect conservative members of Senate who will in turn approve conservative Justices who will then be able to begin the reversal of the last 60 years.)

302 posted on 09/15/2002 6:54:06 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
You can use it..... I'm not hosting the image though. I don't whose website it's on.
303 posted on 09/15/2002 7:09:37 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: jammer
Well, at least the quality of your thought has gone up from the post I answered. You are now at the level FR has become with its goon squads.

Guys or gals like you are a joke. You call me a Nazi and when I tell you to eat sh5t, you lecture on the level of discourse at Free Republic.

The same exact tactic used by Clintonistas the world over. I stand by my original response.

Eat Sh5t.

304 posted on 09/15/2002 7:28:56 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
"Did you know that Japan cannot have a military? Or is your understanding of history as deficient as your understanding of "rights."

FYI..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/11/08/ret.japan.warships/

305 posted on 09/15/2002 8:13:25 AM PDT by aSkeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: exodus
"I'm saying that we are not in the middle of an emergency NOW. The emergency stiuation was over within days."

If it's all the same to you, I'll trust that decision to the people in charge of national security, not to you.

You are igonoring those points that you can't refute, such as the fact that the Congress isn't bound by the constitution to only enter our Armed Forces into a military conflict under the guise of a declaration of war.

Unless of course, you can show me that limitation in the constitution, or for that matter, any of these time limitations you seemed to have conjured up out of thin air.

BTW, this "emergency is over" attitude of yours is pretty amazing considering the fact that an active terrorist cell was just busted this weekend.

I guess we should all be grateful YOU'RE not in charge of national security.

Now, you continue to suggest, in spite of the voluminous amount of factual information that I have provided, that the president is acting outside his constitutional limits, but you do so without bothering to refute a single item I've posted.

That's called dodging.

That's also a win for me.

306 posted on 09/15/2002 8:33:21 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: exodus
You're now being a comnpletely dishonest debater, shame on you.

I have provided ample evidence of the Congress's involvement, and of their actions under the Constitution to conduct the current action against the terrorist networks threatening the security of the nation. And you continue to ignore that, trying desperately to somehow create the image of a president acting against the wishes of Congress, and the constitution.

Quit lying.
307 posted on 09/15/2002 8:40:41 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I apologize for wording my statement that way. I said, but did not mean, that you were J.G. I DO think you use that technique--endlessly repeating things that are not demonstrated by the evidence. The wording was extremely infelicitous.

But, I am extremely sorry to have said that--I certainly didn't mean you were a Nazi, even if my poor wording "said" that. Again, my sincerest apologies.

308 posted on 09/15/2002 8:41:27 AM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: timestax
bttt
309 posted on 09/15/2002 9:31:26 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: jammer
You go up a few rungs on the ladder jammer. I withdraw my crass comments as well. Have a good weekend.
310 posted on 09/15/2002 9:45:45 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: jammer
I DO think you use that technique--endlessly repeating things that are not demonstrated by the evidence.

After you have a good weekend, perhaps you can present some evidence of your claim. I'll be waiting.

311 posted on 09/15/2002 9:56:23 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: exodus
Answer the question you have been dodging all along. Show me the provision in the constitution that impedes Congress from authorizing the use of the US Military in anything other than a declared war.

And then, show me the reasoning you are using to arrive at the consclusion that whatever we're doing in Afghanistan has reached a satisfactory conclusion. Including the continuing search for bin Laden and the remmants of Al Queda.

Your simple allegation that "it's over" isn't sufficient.
312 posted on 09/15/2002 10:11:40 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: exodus
All you have to do now is to convince me, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that you are qualified to decide when this mission is over, and the end result achieved.

The reality of the fact is that Congress, has yet to pull financing of this operation, which tells me that they continue to support the president doing whatever he's doing. I am posting all sorts of information that refutes your claims, and all you have been doing is claiming that you can ascertain, from the comfort of your computer desk, when the mission is over, better than the people on the ground there.
313 posted on 09/15/2002 10:16:16 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: exodus
"Tell me the last time Congress authorized military action in Iraq."

"August 2, 1991, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill supporting the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Resolution 687. Senator Dole said the amendment was not intended to authorize the use of force by the President, and that in his view in the current circumstances the President required no specific authorization from Congress. As enacted, Section 1095 of P.L.102-190 states the sense of Congress that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution."


314 posted on 09/15/2002 10:21:34 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: exodus
> Our Constitution says that Congress has the war power. Let them exercise it.

Sure does. Congress can declare it - the War Powers Act says that too, but in the last 50 years, Congress has not done so, yet we have been in plenty of wars in that time.

Seems to me, if it were an exclusive war power that Congress has, and it really wanted to keep it, it'd take the issue to court and the court would rule so. This has not happened.

> I fully support a war of conquest in the Middle East, but I demand a LEGAL war.

There have been resolutions passed by Congress throughout history, saying it supported doing certain things that could fairly be characterized as acts of war, and so we have the usual word games that mean what we all know they mean. I don't like that any more than you do, but I don't lose sight of the fact that the political animal that inhabits Washington D.C. is an invertebrate species. Sometimes the right thing gets done in spite of them.

Dave in Eugene
315 posted on 09/15/2002 10:36:37 AM PDT by Clinging Bitterly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Isle of sanity in CA
How wonderful for you. If you had read my post and seen who it was directed at... but no, that was too much bother...

I guess I was such a disgrace that I was in the Marine Corps from 1967 to 1993... and then got kicked out in shame and dishonor.... I was in Vietnam, too, bub. Were you? When the armchair commandos sent 58,000 people to come home in bodybags to no discernible effect and purpose? When people like Bobby MacNamara KNEW we could not win, yet hid that information from Congress and the President... THAT kind of civilian control? Or the kind that WON WWII because they had respect for the people who knew what they were doing and gave good advice to the decision makers?

My comment was addressed to the alleged chancellor palpatine, whoever that is... but it holds true for anyone wishing to send our kids off to die at the whim of a politician, especially when there are other ways to deal with the situation whereby we need NOT get bogged down in a situation that will most assuredly drag on and last decades. That is about the last thing we need to do.
316 posted on 09/15/2002 11:08:10 AM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
I have already posted a suggestion for dealing with both Saddam AND the terrorists that could end the war in months, not years, and NOT continue the rape of the Constitution here at home. You might wanna check it out...
317 posted on 09/15/2002 11:09:01 AM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: exodus
The Marine Corps has always been a department of the Navy... the MEN'S department...
318 posted on 09/15/2002 11:28:08 AM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; Chancellor Palpatine
All of my earlier remarks stand. Your time in the Marines does not give you an free pass to be an bully in my book. I saw who your post was directed to. You thought that you could throw out the "I served, did you?" card on palpatine to shut him up. This is immoral. This is wrong. This is not honorable. Is it the Corps position that those who haven't served can not make decisions regarding war and peace?

BTW - I wasn't in Vietnam. I am too young. Are you now changing your position to say that if you haven't served in Vietnam your opinion doesn't count? I'm not buying 'bub'.

I get that you are bitter about what happened to you 30+ years ago. However, it's not an excuse for your bullying behavior.

319 posted on 09/15/2002 11:29:05 AM PDT by Isle of sanity in CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: exodus
>>Iraq should hide its weapons.<<

Encouraging Iraq to hide its weapons in contradiction of its agreement not to, and its agreement to disarm, is not a good thing—for anyone.

>>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." <<

Sovereign nations are sovereign—until they lose a war. When that happens then they become non-sovereign when the wining side rightfully imposes conditions on their continued existence. (Called “surrender terms” or “terms of the cease-fire.”)

War is the ultimate infringement on sovereignty. And Iraq, by engaging in actions that violated another countries sovereignty, lost a war and therefore lost its right to sovereignty.

>>No government gave up its sovereignty 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.<<

Indeed. I see you agree that the US can make its own decisions and act in its own defense—all without subjugating the US government to some supra-national organization, which, as you know, would be a violation of sovereignty.
320 posted on 09/15/2002 11:30:43 AM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson