Since I have never advocated war, accusing me of warmongering is merely another ad hominem attack. It is irrelevant what payroll Saddam was on as well as where he got WMD. That is a Red Herring of the Left. Just as it does not matter that Iran has or is developing nukes. What does matter is what governments actually do and the threats they make, e.g. using WMD in battle or threating to drive sovereign nations into the sea. Saddam did have an obligation to disarm based on the cease fire his governemnt agreed to. The US is also a signatory to UN treaties for which we have obligations. The wisdom of these treaties is quite questionable, but, these are the agreements this country has entered into. This repeated statement that one must wait for American soil or ships to be attacked is suicidal. There is absolutely nothing; noway, nohow; in Libertarian philosophy or the Constitution which requires that any nation wait around for an attack rather than act on a credible threat. Obviously, you, Paul Ireland, believe there never was a credible threat. Many other leaders, thinkers, and citizens disagree. You could have just as easily said that the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, and extremist Wahabbis were no credible threat on 9/10/01. You would have been wrong. Taking action against a dictator who has used WMD in the past is not unreasonable nor un-Libertarian. A contract at gunpoint is illegitimate. A cease fire agreement between an aggressor and a victor is. The rest of the contries with men fighting and dying in Irag would disagree that the US is 100% responsible for the war. It would absolutely matter if Saddam took over the entire Middle East. It is simply suicidal and isolationist to watch an expansionist dictator go rampaging and think 'Its not my problem.' It didn't work when Hitler did it. It didn't work when the Soviets did it. It only leads to larger body counts and delays the inevitable reaction required. It is like liveing in Compton and watching the Crips and Bloods trashing the neighborhood and saying, "They haven't come to my house." It is only a matter of time.
None of this is justification for the way Bush has specifically handled foreign affairs. I have many problems with what he's done. I am merely refuting the suicidal propaganda which keeps being repeated. --- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As usual, your war mongering has taken over reason in your position. > > 1. The only WMD Saddam had or used were given to him when America put > him in power and he was on the CIA payroll. Any weapons he did have > were long gone since before America's unprovoked and illegal invasion > of 1991. > > 2. It doesn't matter what weapons he did or didn't have, he was under > no legitimate obligation to disarm for the UN or the U.S. Iraq is a > sovereign nation and doesn't require the permission of the UN or the > US to develop or have any weapons they choose. > > 3. Saddam didn't invade America. The only legitimate provocation to > use the U.S. military is a direct attack on American soil or ships. > Unless you can prove that Saddam sunk the USS Nimitz or dropped a bomb > on Detroit, you have no provocation for using the U.S. military. > > 4. The United States and the U.N. (not Sadddam) created embargos, and > prevented food, medicine, and other supplies from going to Iraq. > America did this after launching an unprovoked, unwarranted, and > unconstitutional attack against Iraq, and forcing them under duress to > sign an illigitimate agreement. If someone puts a gun to your head > and forces you to sign your pink slip over to them, the contract isn't > valid. > > 5. Whether or not Saddam tortured his people, bombed them, raped > them, or mass murdered them is irrelevant and does not constitute a > valid provocation to use the U.S. military. > > 6. Whether or not Saddam invaded Kuwait or every other nation in the > middle-east is also irrelevant and doesn't constitute a legitimate > provocation to use the U.S. military. > > 7. The oil for food program is irrelevant. Neither the U.N., nor the > U.S. has any authority to make "no fly" zones, to force Iraq to > disarm, to force them to comply with inspections, to blow them up, to > control what they import or export, etc. > > The United States alone started the war in Iraq and is 100% > responsible for each and every single death and injury associated with > it including the 200,000 who were starved to death, those who died in > the two unprovoked and illegal wars, those who die at the hands of > insurgents, those who died in Spainish and English train bombings, > those contractors who were beheaded, the soldiers, etc. > > It wouldn't matter if Saddam actually had 100 nukes. That wouldn't > make Saddam a threat. In fact I wish Iraq had nukes back in 1980. It > would have stopped America from invading without legitimate cause. It > wouldn't matter if Saddam took over the entire middle-east and invaded > every country there mudering every single person on his way. That > still wouldn't be a valid cause to use the U.S. military. > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Geof Gibson" <geofgibson@> wrote: > > > > As usual, your facts are somewhat mis-stated. > > 1) Saddam had WMD. They were used against the Iranian military in the > > '80s and against his own people in the '90s. Traces of same were > > found in 2003-04 after he was deposed. > > 2) Saddam invaded a sovereign nation. That is provocation. The UN, > > of which The US is a treaty obligated member, was asked to help > > Kuwait. Our decision to participate in no way justifies hating nor > > threating the US or it's citizens. > > 3) Saddam starved, tortured, and bombed his own citizens. He did > > these things directly, as well as indirectly through his embezzelment > > of the Oil for Food program, along with France, Russia, and Germany. > > The USA has, by far, the cleanest hands on that score. > > > > Saddam and Saddam alone is responisble for the state of his country. > > He had years and years of opportunity to be straight with weapons > > inspectors, rather than play Musical WMD sites. He could have also > > stepped down at any time and lived a comfortable existence in Syria, > > Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, amongst other places. > > To blame the US for Saddam's hatred is enabling dictatorship. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > > > Saddam didn't have weapons and only threatened America after we > > > launched an unprovoked war on them in 1991, forced them to sign an > > > illegal treaty under duress, starved 200,000 Iraqi people to death and > > > kept them from life saving medicines, bombed them daily for 12 > > > straight years, etc. > > > > > > He had every right to threaten America and to hate America. But his > > > threats weren't credible, and had no weapons. Attacking Iraq for > > > making threats would be like blowing up Santa Catalina Island because > > > someone there said they hate America and they think it should be > > > destroyed. Santa Catalina poses no less of a danger to America than > > > Iraq did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], <boyd.w.smith@> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Paul <ptireland@> > > > > > Merely having weapons does not make one a threat. > > > > > > > > Absolutely true, but also absolutely besides the point. Having > > > weapons and saying that you will use them is. Making people believe > > > you have weapons and then saying that you will use them is. Saddam > > > did not just have or make people believe he had the weapons, he said > > > that he would use them. Indeed he did use them at a prior time and > > place. > > > > > > > > BWS > > > > > > > > > > Correct as far as it goes. But what about threats MADE with > > weapons > > > > > that are reasonably believed to be HELD by another party. > > Saddam was > > > > > reasonably suspected to have WMDs and DID make threats to use > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
