Bryan Roberts
Guest
check out pg 14 of this thread.....2nd post from the bottom.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
strike on iraq
- Thread starter ElCubano
- Start date
check out pg 14 of this thread.....2nd post from the bottom.
Bryan Roberts
Guest
Originally posted by rs7
I guess once was not enough to have to read this. I would think it could have been read twice without being posted twice.
35 points. Some valid, some not.
Ron Paul is a great thinker? Unique? Gotta love these people that can think in black and white. Life must be so easy for them. I am envious of their bliss.
Peace,
Rs7
what simple thought(s) are you referring to??? sorry for the re-posting....i thought some might enjoy it whom hadn't seen it earlier.
Bryan,Originally posted by Bryan Roberts
what simple thought(s) are you referring to??? sorry for the re-posting....i thought some might enjoy it whom hadn't seen it earlier.
I did not mean they were "simple thoughts", I actually meant that they just seemed to be too conveniently aligned with the "no war" side of the argument. I think (as has been said) that some of his arguments make perfect sense, and some do not, and some are irrelevant. Sort of like Dotslash says.
And of course you are 100% right about Paul being a libertarian. I don't even know why he is designated as a Republican. But nonetheless, I think his intentions are well founded but his arguments are not particularly strong. I happen to agree with his basic premise....a war with Iraq would not be productive. Not now. But I may be misinformed. I have no access to our "intelligence".
But of course, the actual goal of a war with Iraq...deposing Saddam, is crucial. Or will be. As I said in an earlier post, this is a situation that will evolve into a nightmare or go away. But it won't stay in limbo like it is now forever. This guy is a dangerous man to the entire world. Do you not agree that he is a menace and a threat to our very existence? Do you think if attained nuclear weapons that he would be reluctant to use them?
The Soviet point...I think it was the first point of Rep. Paul...Mutually assured destruction and it's effect as a deterrent can only work with sane people in control. (point #2..it's only a matter of time as far as Iraq's ability to retaliate). Do you believe Saddam is sane? Did he not order the murder of his own family members? I don't know that even Hitler ever got blood directly on his hands. Saddam has, and he relishes his role as a murderer, an assassin and a butcher. He needs a sidearm to address his own advisors? He is like a caricature of himself.
Like I also said earlier...something's gotta' give. I don't envy those who have to make these decisions right now. I just hope they have the right information to make them.
Peace,
Rs7
ok, two specific issues with that Ron Paul stuff:
if you read that thing you posted by Ron Paul, you will notice several of his listed items are in reference to obeying the U.N. or not obeying the U.N., as if the U.N. were a true legal authority. The U.N. is not a country, and the U.N. is not the World Government like some people wish that it was. The U.S. has the absolute right to declare war on its enemies. Period. Anybody that wants to put the authority of the U.N. above the authority of the U.S. government, is wanting to give up sovereighnty. Period. Its a fact. Deal with reality.
The second issue is that he continues with the crazy idea that it would be an illegal war. That is just factually wrong. If he thinks the war is illegal when/if it happens, I hope that he takes it to court and the other lawyers mop the floor with him. He is just plain wrong, how else can I say it. Either you have read the constitution or you haven't.
if you read that thing you posted by Ron Paul, you will notice several of his listed items are in reference to obeying the U.N. or not obeying the U.N., as if the U.N. were a true legal authority. The U.N. is not a country, and the U.N. is not the World Government like some people wish that it was. The U.S. has the absolute right to declare war on its enemies. Period. Anybody that wants to put the authority of the U.N. above the authority of the U.S. government, is wanting to give up sovereighnty. Period. Its a fact. Deal with reality.
The second issue is that he continues with the crazy idea that it would be an illegal war. That is just factually wrong. If he thinks the war is illegal when/if it happens, I hope that he takes it to court and the other lawyers mop the floor with him. He is just plain wrong, how else can I say it. Either you have read the constitution or you haven't.
It is obvious that some people get a sick thrill out of being "subversive" and "radical", at least on a message board where it doesn't count. I hope that you people are not american citizens who watched the events of 9/11, and truly believe that the U.S. is the bad guy in this situation. That is just perverse, and it doesn't stand up to reason or the facts.
Bryan Roberts
Guest
as far as saddam is concerned the biggest complaint people bring up about him is that he gassed his own people. the kurds may occupy northern iraq but they are definitely his enemy. there is debate whether or not they were gassed by the iranians during the iran iraq war. the gas that was used is more likely to be in possession of the iranians. in regards to the dissidents, every piece of intelligence that was checked out when we had inspectors there came up empty. these people had a vested interest in the US doing the dirty work. as far as violating the UN resolutions there is another country that has and continues to defy more than Iraq does. there are definitely other leaders that are war criminals that we embrace like we did saddam at one time. and let's not forget April Glaspie's green light to saddam 12 years ago.
Bryan Roberts
Guest
you are 100% wrong in your assertion!!!! he never once says anything about giving up our sovereignty to the UN...please copy and paste the statement where he indicates that point.
and for your information, congress is the only US body that can declare war. i don't care what any of the chickenhawk pundits say.
and for your information, congress is the only US body that can declare war. i don't care what any of the chickenhawk pundits say.
George W is a bully just itching to pick a fight. As if killing a million Iraqis through bombings and embargos wasn't enough. If the US invades Iraq, American citizens will pay because the Islamic Fundamentalists will make the twin towers disaster look like child's play. Why can't the US pick on someone their own size? Better yet, why don't they hunt down the Al Qaeda who are in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
Originally posted by goldenarm
George W is a bully just itching to pick a fight. As if killing a million Iraqis through bombings and embargos wasn't enough. If the US invades Iraq, American citizens will pay because the Islamic Fundamentalists will make the twin towers disaster look like child's play. Why can't the US pick on someone their own size? Better yet, why don't they hunt down the Al Qaeda who are in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
Goldenarm,
These are precisely my sentiments... Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the true homes of terror, not Iraq... an attack on Iraq, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi women, children and other civilians, for the blatantly obvious reason of securing cheap oil supplies for the US consumer will merely confirm to the Islamic world and the non-aligned rational world that the USA is the true terrorist... as you correctly allude to, in the event of a non-mandated, illegal military operation committed against Iraq, the repurcussions on US territory will indeed, with a high degree of probability, make the twin towers attacks resemble a kid with a grazed knee as compared to the potential of a kid who just had his 4 limbs amputated...
The US policy makers must tread carefully, and must not endanger their population through foolhardy economic expansionism brought about through superior military technologies... remember, there were reasons for September 11, and the USA must avoid creating more reasons for more of the same... but I somehow doubt that the current administration has the foresight to look beyond the economic gains of securing control of the Iraqi oil reserves...
Candle