Posted on 10/04/2002 8:37:02 PM PDT by Askel5
I must be Irish!
Yes ... as elucidated above.
Additionally, I believe the harping on the need to "nation-build" or liberate the Iraqis (as we liberated the Serbians) from their dictator all are indications that we are padding our case for war with elements absolutely outside the parameters of a Just War.
Finally, assuming we did invade Iraq on the basis of his being a dictator or engaging in the production of WMD, do we then have the backbone to pursue those who supported, sustained and supplied him with the cash, armaments, military advisors and bioweapons expertise that made him the threat he is?
Do we confront Russia?
Do we hold Russia accountable for their support of Saddam in the last war we now seek to "finish"?
It would seem unfair and inconsistent not to go to the source of Saddam's ability to threaten us.
Paul is talking convention warfare and Bus has stated several times that we are fighting a new and different kind of war. Does Paul have Attention Deficit Disorder?
Without a doubt, four decades of gramscian-marxist revolution has rendered many Christians a bunch of "peace and social justice" pansies who faint at the mere mention of any but the honeyed passages of Scripture (suitable for use to sweeten the sting of "Humanitarian" research on excess, already-been-killed human lives).
I simply have too much respect for my father and others in the military around whom I was reared to believe that politicians should be sending them into war based on "feelings" or some kind of nationalistics "social work" where we jump around the planet deciding which nations we'll Fix based on what Ziggy B believes is the pragmatic cluster of Self-Interest necessary to catalyze our "morality" in some areas but not others.
To wit ... Clinton's rushing into Serbia on the basis of as-yet unproven genocide while ignoring entirely the bodies that floated out of Rwanda like logs. A badass troop of boy scouts could have taken on the machete wielding savages killing thousands. I fail to see how we managed to pull out of a nation where desperate folks were BEGGING the UN Belgians to please kill them with machine guns knowing the certain horror and diabolically primitive deaths that awaited them.
Again, it's a matter of Consistency. If we are going to play the Self-Interest card ... by all means, let's play it and make no bones about it.
I see no reason to dress it up in terms of "moral" purpose ... particularly given the means we seek to employ in the process.
And what about this "new and different" type of war justifies a "new and different" type of United States?
These monsters have Catholics at the top of the list - and all of your theories involving Bushes and Kissinger won't change that.
The only thing that will wake you up is a suitcase nuke in Rome.
If we cannot win it with an absolute respect for and reliance on sound Christian principles, we have no basis taking on "Islam" in the name of Christianity.
The US is changing — for better or worse — every day. Yes, a "new and different" US is in the making, for better or for worse....with the help of average Americans. Don't let wishful thinking blind you.
I realize that our demographics are changing, we are a welfare state, we have abridged -- perhaps forever -- the so-called "God given" constitutional rights of our citizenry and have abandoned our Constitutional Republic in favor of the "democratization" model which communists have recognized for a century as the ideal means by which to exploit the "will of the people" in service of tyranny.
It's no secret I can't get past the shock and horror that is knowing we not only consider abortion to be the "vital" linchpin of our population control at home and abroad, but we now presume the right to make utilitarian best use of the "Excess" human lives we manufacture like widgets to supply the demand of the Economically Fit for children they can purchase to spec.
(Given the support of the director of the NIH for human cloning, I suspect that too shall become the law of the land soon enough.)
But regardless how many in this godless nation believe that truth is a matter of "Majority Rule", I still see no evidence that the Self Evident truths on which this nation was founded have changed ... which self evident truths included the fact that all men are created equal.
If I am blinded somehow to this inconceivable development, please point out for me the "new and different" self-evident truths on which our policies now are based so that I may get with the program as have you.
I would like them articulated as clearly as were the self-evident truths on which we based our original independence and claim to the moral authority to wage war.
Can you source his stand on the funding of Israel?
Yes. He has the traditional libertarian view:
Our policy of subsidizing both sides is ludicrous. We support Arabs and Jews, Pakistanis and Indians, Chinese and Russians. We have troops in 140 countries around the world just looking for trouble. Our policies have led us to support Al Qaeda in Kosovo and bomb their Serb adversaries. We have, in the past, allied ourselves with bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein, only to find out later the seriousness of our mistake. Will this foolishness ever end?
A non-interventionist foreign policy has a lot to say for itself, especially when one looks at the danger and inconsistency of our current policy in the Middle East.
I'd like to add another point. We currently plan to help North Korea build two nuclear reactors. Yet Bush called North Korea one of three nations in the "Axis of Evil", along with Iran and Iraq.
So we spend billions of dollars to invade one evil nation, Iraq, because it might have or soon acquire nuclear bomb material. Meanwhile we actively help another evil nation, North Korea, acquire nuclear bomb material.
Thanks very much for the link.
I am one of those who believes we are absolutely correct to apply to the Republicans the exact standards with which we so rightly excoriated the Democrats.
Why? Truth, by its very nature, does not change.
... you know something my friends, if we keep going the way we're going, persisting in the path that we have persisted in … then we, the very country that more than once in this century has saved the world from the shadow of the worst evils will no longer be there in the 21st Century to save the world from the shadow of evil.
And worse than that … we won't save the world from that shadow because we will be casting it.
We don't get it, do we? We are either going to continue to be the country that holds before the world those ideas and standards of godly justice and liberty and decency for which so many of our patriots died or we are going to turn into that power which plunges the world into a maelstrom of evil like nothing we have ever seen.
I frankly don't think that for American there will be a middle way. And that's the truth of it. And we are already at it. For we've had an administration that has aided and abetted and promoted and coerced the culture of death in every continent and toward every nation on the fact of the Earth already.
Using our capital and our money and our clout they have forced other nations to take the same ungodly stance toward innocent life in the womb that they take now.
So my friends, don't think that this is just some future that we are talking about. We are already far down the road toward the destruction of our republic, our conscience, our decency. The question isn't whether we will choose that road but whether we will turn back now before we pass the point of no return.
That's a noble ideal to aim for, but if you think it's a fact then just take a look at our Justice Legal System.
It wasn't Moyer's question I was criticizing. It was Paul's non sequitor reponse that was criticizing.
Paul avoids completely the dangers of WMD and terrorism in his answer to Moyers question. Moyers asks if Sadaam is planning an attack against the U.S. The SUBSTANCE of Paul's response is to only address the possibility of a Sadaam attack from his army, navy and air force leaving out the obvious -- WMD and terrorist attack.
MOYERS: Have you seen or heard anything from the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department or the White House to suggest that Saddam Hussein is planning an attack on the United States?
PAUL: No, I see nothing imminent. He doesn't have an air force. He doesn't have a navy. He can't even shoot down … he didn't shoot one of our airplanes down in twelve years … and his army is 1/3 of what it was twelve years ago. So, you know, this fictions that he's Hitler and that he's about to take over the Middle East … I think it's a stretch.
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.