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

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

[exodus]

NOT a United Nations "resolution" ordering us to go to war. We are a sovereign nation. We act under OUR law, not at the direction of a foreign power.

To: exodus
"...Bush Senior busted his hump to put a coalition of allies together, and got that resolution out of the UN so we could go in with the support of international structures. The US wasn't "ordered" to go in by the UN..."
# 57 by Chancellor Palpatine

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

Bush Sr. should have busted his hump getting a Declaration of War from our Congress, instead of illegally delegating our war-making power to the United Nations.

A war only needs the approval of Congress. There is no need for the "support of international structures."

The United States went to war to enforce a United Nations resolution.

I have a problem with that.

[exodus]

To: exodus
"...Besides, Ron Paul loves the UN these days - what do you have to say about that?"
# 57 by Chancellor Palpatine

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

I would have to say that you're lying.

[John W]

Isn't this simply a matter of semantics?Had the resoltuions passed giving Bush congressional approval in 90-91 been declarations of war,you would have been ok with that?I don't think there is near as much "there" there as you think.

[exodus]

No matter what crimes Hussein committed, he is the sovereign of his nation, and is acting honorably when he collects weapons for the defense of his nation.

To: exodus
I think we run into some difficult problems when we attempt to apply the U.S. Constitution to brutal dictators such as Hussein.
# 62 by John W

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

The Constitution has nothing to do with the rights of men.

Every man alive, and thus every nation in existence, has the right of self defense.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

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."

How do you reconcile the above quote with your own admonition not to engage in ad hominem attacks?:

Attacks on the source discouraged.

You even underlined that part in your original article. Thomas Sowell once defined a bigot as someone who reserves rights for himself that he will not extend to others. Seems like cheap-shots and ad hominem attacks are your bigotry...

[CIB-173RDABN]

I was trained as Armored Recon. Served with the 17th Cav while with the 101st Airborne. But I must have undergone retraining on the flight to Viet Nam because upon landing I was reclassified as Infantry and sent as a replacement to the 1st/503rd Infantry Battalion 173rd Airborne. I spent a year OJT in Infantry, and upon reassignment found myself back in Armor Recon with the 82nd Airborne.

Hope this answers your question.

[exodus]

Bush Sr. should have busted his hump getting a Declaration of War from our Congress, instead of illegally delegating our war-making power to the United Nations. A war only needs the approval of Congress.

To: exodus
Isn't this simply a matter of semantics? Had the resoltuions passed giving Bush congressional approval in 90-91 been declarations of war,you would have been ok with that?I don't think there is near as much "there" there as you think.
# 83 by John W

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

It's a question of LAW.

Our law is based upon the Constitution. Any war conducted without following the strictures of the Constitution is illegal.

If Bush was my sovereign, I might disagree with his decision, but I wouldn't say that going to war on his decision alone was illegal.

Unfortunately for Bush, we live in a Republic.

[ex-snook]

Who are you equating with the Nazi,Goebbels?

YOU - That is a time-tested liberal ploy against conservatives.It is beneath any Freeper.

Nah it's not beneath 'any Freepers'. That's all some said about Conservative Pat Buchanan when they smeared Pat's America first positions as anti-Semitic.

Now that applies to this thread. Notice how all sorts of names are dragged across the road to avoid answering Paul's questions. Which obviously they won't - it means Ron Paul like Pat Buchanan tell the truth.

Iraq is either to hasten some Armageddon religious war or to capture the oil. What it ain't is about WMD or their women wear Burkas. What will threaten us more here are weapons of SMALL destruction ala Israel.

[exodus]

To: exodus
"...The United States went to war against Iraq because the UN ordered us to? That is almost too silly to answer."
# 65 by CIB-173RDABN

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

How do you think it happened?

Member States of the United Nations went to war with Iraq, AFTER a United Nations resolution, and after a United Nations set deadline had passed.

The United States did not declare war, the U.N. did.

[Illbay]

Time will prove if Bush is right.

What's to prove? Are you saying that Saddam HASN'T defied the agreements that we made, where the coalition that defeated him wouldn't stomp his *ss if he'd agree to monitoring?

Where the h*ll have you been?

Bush PROVED all he needed to prove in his speech before the U.N.; now even the putz-heads on NPR are admitting the guy's right: Saddam has defied and violated every agreement he ever made. He's a threat to us simply because he is going to ultimately be the means by which terrorists get the stuff they need to smuggle into the U.S. and wreak even more death and destruction.

People like you, in my opinion, have no right to the protection this nation affords you under the Constitution. Go to Europe, and leave those with functioning testicles here to do what has to be done, please.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Then, like now, the United States requested a resolution of support. The UN did not ORDER us to defend Kuwait.

[exodus]

To: Ragin1
"Had alleged Libertarians of Ron Paul's (yellow) stripe been in charge during the American Revolution, they'd still be arguing over "first use of force" when overrun by British troops..."
# 67 by Chancellor Palpatine

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

There is nothing in libertarian philosophy that decrys "first use of force" in time of war or emergency.

Self-defense encompasses a wide range of tactics.

[exodus]

(If a nuclear bomb is dropped on Israel,) the response should be a legal Declaration of War against the attacker of our ally, Israel. NOT a United Nations "resolution" ordering us to go to war. We are a sovereign nation. We act under OUR law, not at the direction of a foreign power.

To: exodus
How will we know who attacked Israel with that nuclear weapon?
# 69 by First_Salute

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

What difference does that make, First_Salute?

Certainty of the identity of our enemy isn't a requirement of the Constitution, only Congressional permission to wage war.

Whoever our Executive can convince Congress to attack, that's who we wage war on.

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

Watch Out !!

Saying things like that are, either, gonna get you banned or get you completely ignored...

....either one is a good thing !!

Just like ol' shrub said:
"...there's no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail."
- to labor department employees, Oct. 4, 2001.

[exodus]

Any agreement that calls for the disarming of any man, or any nation, violates a basic right, the right of self defense. It is not fraud for a criminal to defend himself, not even if he's the sovereign of a nation defeated in war. Rights take precedent over any "rule."

To: exodus
How are things going regarding the "rights" of the Iraqi people? You are calling for some traditional American rights to be applied to Saddam,how about to his "subjects" as you call them?
# 80 by John W

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

Rights are not the property of American men, rights belong to ALL men

I feel that the rights of Iraqi citizens are being violated. There's nothing I can do to help them, and those citizens would probably shoot me if I tried to interfere with their lives.

That has nothing to do with Congressional limits placed upon OUR government.

[exodus]

To: exodus
Then, like now, the United States requested a resolution of support. The UN did not ORDER us to defend Kuwait.
# 91 by CIB-173RDABN

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

When asked what gave them the power to attack Iraq, our leaders said, "U.N. resolution #so and so."

That is illegal.

The only legal reason is a Congressional Declaration of War.

[exodus]

To: Boonie Rat
"If Iraq was the only target, perhaps this article would have a point...Afghaistan was step one. Iraq is step two. If the other countries in the region do not get the message, then one of them will be step three.

We are at war..."
# 16 by CIB-173RDABN

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

WE are not at war. President Bush is at war.

If Congress wants to declare a war of conquest in the Middle East, they would have my full support.

Make it legal.

Have Congress DECLARE war.

[jwalsh07]

The only legal reason is a Congressional Declaration of War.

It doesn't matter how loud you yell, you're still wrong.

The War Powers Act of 1973

Public Law 93-148

93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542

November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

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

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a)

It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

SEC. 2. (b)

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

SEC. 2. (c)

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3.

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

REPORTING

Sec. 4. (a)

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1)

into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2)

into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3)

(A)

the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B)

the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C)

the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Sec. 4. (b)

The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.

Sec. 4. (c)

Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a)

Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

SEC. 5. (b)

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

SEC. 5. (c)

Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

SEC. 6. (a)

Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

SEC. 6. (b)

Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

SEC. 6. (c)

Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

SEC 6. (d)

In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SEC. 7. (a)

Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

SEC. 7. (b)

Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

SEC. 7. (c)

Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

SEC. 7. (d)

In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a)

Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--

(1)

from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or

(2)

from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

SEC. 8. (b)

Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

SEC 8. (c)

For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

SEC. 8. (d)

Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1)

is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or

(2)

shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.

CARL ALBERT

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JAMES O. EASTLAND

President of the Senate pro tempore.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,

November 7, 1973.

The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was

Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

Attest:

W. PAT JENNINGS

Clerk.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.

W. PAT JENNINGS

Clerk.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 7, 1973

The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was

Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative.

Attest:

FRANCIS R. VALEO

Secretary.

Acknowledgments

This file obtained from byrd.mu.wvnet.edu

Contributed by: "Andrew M. Ross" <aross@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>

[exodus]

To: Boonie Rat
"...like (Bush) did when he announced that illegal immigrants are nothing but an expression of 'family values'.
# 19 by A Vast RightWing Conspirator

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

I agree with what Bush said about the illegal immigrants coming here to work in America being an exercise of their right to seek a better live.

That doesn't give them leave to come illegally into OUR country to seek their right to a better life.

This is OUR home, and we aren't required to let people move in without our permission.

[dcwusmc]

Dr. Paul has some valid questions and Hornberger has some pretty fair answers... having said that, I still think MY solution would be the preferred one, in that it would be the least expensive to implement, it would NOT infringe on Iraqi sovereignty the way an invasion would and it will not be detrimental to our liberties at home... and it would have the side benefit of discouraging others from following in Saddam's footsteps...