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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-341 next last
To: First_Salute
To: exodus
If tomorrow, a "nuclear bloom" should appear over Tel Aviv, what should be the response?
# 39 by First_Salute

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

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.

51 posted on 09/14/2002 7:54:09 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: exodus
I don't know why you pinged me to this thread. If you thought that I might lend some support to your position, you are sadly mistaken.

Gumption's comment #34 sums up my viewpoint perfectly. Perhaps you should read it again.

52 posted on 09/14/2002 7:54:30 AM PDT by Scuttlebutt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Iraq did the dirty deed after our state department gave the green light.

I really don't care what king we purchase our oil from.

53 posted on 09/14/2002 7:55:54 AM PDT by Ragin1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Ragin1
Blah, blah, blah.
54 posted on 09/14/2002 7:57:54 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Pretty vile.

The political spectrum is a circle. In reality, the far ight comes around to meet the far left and is virtually indistinguishable.

They're idiots, and Paul is an idiot.

55 posted on 09/14/2002 7:58:20 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Pretty vile.

A perfect summation of this thread. I need a shower, I'm outahere.

56 posted on 09/14/2002 8:00:40 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: exodus
Are you really that dense? 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.

Besides, Ron Paul loves the UN these days - what do you have to say about that?

57 posted on 09/14/2002 8:02:18 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Ragin1
Iraq did the dirty deed after our state department gave the green light.

At least you admit that Iraq DID the deed.

If 2 of your neighbors were arguing over where their property line started, and they came to you and said "do you think my property starts at the tree line or at the big bush?". And you responded by saying "hey, that is none of my business." And then one of your neighbors attacked the other one and took over the others home, and killed everyone inside, would that mean you gave the green light to the aggressive party?

58 posted on 09/14/2002 8:04:20 AM PDT by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
You may want to brush and gargle, your beginning to mumble like an idiot.
59 posted on 09/14/2002 8:05:23 AM PDT by Ragin1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
No nation gave up it's sovereignty by joining the United Nations treaty organization.

To: exodus
"...lets talk libertarian speak. Hussein put his name to contracts agreeing to certain penalties in return for a suspension of hostilities. He has fraudulently reneged on those contracts. Now, it is time to pay the piper. What philosophy is it that you adhere to that looks favorably on men who lie, break contracts..."
# 40 by jwalsh07

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

An agreement forced upon one of the parties has no force in law, and is void.

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..

60 posted on 09/14/2002 8:06:29 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Gumption
Only if my neigbor pays me to defend said property. (of course I'll have to tax the hell out of my family to provide said defense if the neigbor doesn't provide the funding)
61 posted on 09/14/2002 8:08:32 AM PDT by Ragin1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

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 posted on 09/14/2002 8:09:50 AM PDT by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Gumption
No man may be told to surrender his right of self-defense, not even if he was convicted of a crime.

To: exodus
You would allow guns in prison????????
# 46 by Gumption

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

Of course not, Gumption.

Prisoners are not free men.

63 posted on 09/14/2002 8:10:00 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Boonie Rat
Paul and Hornberger are off the reservation with this BS dialogue.

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?

Iraq (or any other vicious raghead country working with terrorists) can retaliate and we have a huge hole and 3,000 dead in NYC to
prove it.


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?

Hitler was a big man on the world stage with small weapons; Hussein is a small man with (potentially or actually) big weapons. The similarity is in the mentality -- natural born killers.


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


We don't know whether Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack or
not and to say that he could not initiate aggression against us in
plainly nonsensical.


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?


Gulf War, Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic


America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)

64 posted on 09/14/2002 8:13:26 AM PDT by JCG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exodus
It is hard to re-write history when there are people alive when it occured. The United States went to war against Iraq because the UN ordered us to?

That is almost too silly to answer.

65 posted on 09/14/2002 8:15:21 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Why then is Iraq expected to surender it's right of self-defense at the order of that same foreign power, the United Nations?

To: exodus
You're forgetting the agreement that Iraq signed after the Gulf War. If Iraq proved that it had no (weapons of mass destruction) nor program to develop such, the sanctions would be lifted and Iraq could rejoin the family of civilized nations. Iraq doesn't want to do this, of course, because Hussein is a lawless thug. He's got to go.
# 48 by sinkspur

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

Hussein was left in power.

As sovereign of his nation, he has the responsibility to protect his subjects. To protect his subjects, he MUST have weapons. For weapons to be effective against the armies of another nation, they must be "weapons of mass destruction."

If Hussein needed to go, the time to do it was during the previous illegal war, not in a new illegal war.

66 posted on 09/14/2002 8:16:40 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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.

Had alleged Libertarians of Ron Paul's (yellow) stripe been in charge during the Civil War, we'd be a divided nation which ultimately got carved up and occupied by monarchial empires centered in Europe.

Had alleged Libertarians of Ron Paul's (yellow) stripe been in charge during the First World War, a German Empire would span Europe, and be looking to expand into the Americas by now.

Had alleged Libertarians of Ron Paul's (yellow) stripe been in charge during the Second World War, we'd have capitulated to a nuclear armed Germany by 1944 or 1945.

Yep, Libertarians and their allies on the far loony right have one goal - the utter destruction of our society and the freedom we do enjoy at the bootheels of foreign conquerors. Guess that would give them a lot more to whine about.

67 posted on 09/14/2002 8:19:48 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: 11B3; CIB-173RDABN
...what was your MOS?

29E10V81P

HOOAH!

68 posted on 09/14/2002 8:24:10 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: exodus
How will we know who attacked Israel with that nuclear weapon?
69 posted on 09/14/2002 8:24:13 AM PDT by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; Ragin1
To: Ragin1
Iraq "aggressed" against Kuwait, amongst others, of course..."
# 50 by jwalsh07

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

Iraq "aggressed" against Kuwait, amongst others, with the full knowledge and support of the United States.

Saddam Hussein even asked permission of the United States ambassador to Iraq, and waited for her to give that permission BEFORE attacking Kuwait.

70 posted on 09/14/2002 8:25:04 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Your history is correct, except that we didn't have nukes in the early '40s. And, if by "situation" you mean Saddam's being a bona fide threat to the U.S., you are again correct: I do not recognize any immensity of the situation. Just repeating over and over canards about "verge of nuclear devices" does not make it so. Keep shouting, Mr. Goebbels. It has been working. But you had better shout louder: it is working with less and less Americans.
71 posted on 09/14/2002 8:26:03 AM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: exodus
not even if he was convicted of a crime.

I gotta take my girls to soccer now and watch them kick a ball around in no particular direction. I'll check back later.

72 posted on 09/14/2002 8:28:35 AM PDT by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: jammer
Jammer stated:

"We had much more than adequate provocation, if one uses the new "Bush" doctrine of evil people with evil designs on us attempting to acquire WOD."

If the potential aquisition of WOD was the major criteria your theory may have had some validity. The flaw in this statement as well as the original article is the motivation for first strike application of WODs against US by the different entities. USSR motivation and thus restraint was/is about power and control. Mid Eastern motivation is about destruction of western culture. Thus one can be rationaly delt with and prevented (in most cases) whereas the other is inevitable and carries devastating consequences. I.e., Machavelli (sp?) versus Mohamad, political versus religious fanaticism...
73 posted on 09/14/2002 8:29:31 AM PDT by Abogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Boonie Rat
Discussion of the premise of the article welcomed.

Twisted logic eminating from a basic false premise.

74 posted on 09/14/2002 8:30:15 AM PDT by evad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jammer
What are you raging about? Goebbels? Comparing someone who is interested in the safety and security of the lives of Americans with Goebbels?

Please - don't consider yourself in the ranks of Americans - you don't deserve the honor.

Disgusting.

75 posted on 09/14/2002 8:30:57 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; Ragin1
Is any contract legal and binding, signed from the wrong end of the gun?

To: Ragin1
Absolutely. More libertarian speak: ...They were repelled and pursuant to the Rules of War signed an unconditional cease fire that contractually obligated them to certain requirements. They committed fraud by not living up to those agreements and are not the subject of non initiatory force because they initiated it in the first place.
# 50 by jwalsh07

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

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."

76 posted on 09/14/2002 8:31:41 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
In reality, the far ight comes around to meet the far left and is virtually indistinguishable.

I've said before, and will continue to say, "Far-Right, meet Far-Left. Far-Left, meet Far-Right."

They are made for each other.

77 posted on 09/14/2002 8:32:41 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: jammer
Who are you equating with the Nazi,Goebbels?

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

78 posted on 09/14/2002 8:32:53 AM PDT by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Scuttlebutt
An agreement made under duress has no force.

No man may be told to surrender his right of self-defense, not even if he was convicted of a crime.

No nation may be told to surrender it's right of self-defense, not even after losing a war.


43 posted on 9/14/02 9:41 AM Central by exodus
79 posted on 09/14/2002 8:33:50 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

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 posted on 09/14/2002 8:35:27 AM PDT by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
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.

81 posted on 09/14/2002 8:42:43 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
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.

82 posted on 09/14/2002 8:43:56 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

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 posted on 09/14/2002 8:45:19 AM PDT by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: John W
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.

84 posted on 09/14/2002 8:48:07 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Boonie Rat
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...

85 posted on 09/14/2002 8:53:05 AM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
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.

86 posted on 09/14/2002 8:54:19 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: John W
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.

87 posted on 09/14/2002 8:54:34 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: John W
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.

88 posted on 09/14/2002 9:12:01 AM PDT by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
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.

89 posted on 09/14/2002 9:22:09 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: meenie
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.

90 posted on 09/14/2002 9:24:17 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: exodus
Then, like now, the United States requested a resolution of support. The UN did not ORDER us to defend Kuwait.
91 posted on 09/14/2002 9:24:32 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine; Ragin1
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.

92 posted on 09/14/2002 9:26:49 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
(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.

93 posted on 09/14/2002 9:34:18 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
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.
94 posted on 09/14/2002 9:37:59 AM PDT by Alabama_Wild_Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: John W
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.

95 posted on 09/14/2002 9:53:18 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
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.

96 posted on 09/14/2002 10:00:13 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN; Boonie Rat
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.

97 posted on 09/14/2002 10:09:55 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: exodus
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>

98 posted on 09/14/2002 10:14:06 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator; Boonie Rat
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.

99 posted on 09/14/2002 10:22:04 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
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...
100 posted on 09/14/2002 10:25:14 AM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-341 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