Should the U.S. assume our roll as tyrant killer?

[Iriemon]

Don't believe everything you read in liberal revisionist history books:

Pat Buchanan: No more undeclared wars!​

FDR "lied us into war because he did not have the political courage to lead us into it," Rep. Clare Luce blurted out in 1944.

The target of Luce's accusation was a president who by then had entered the pantheon alongside Lincoln and Washington. FDR's courtiers savaged the lady for maligning the Great Man, but few could credibly deny the truth of what she had said.

No matter the justice and nobility of America's cause in World War II, FDR had lied us into war. Even as he soothingly reassured the mothers and fathers of America ("I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars"), he was stoking war, and provoking Germany and Japan.

FDR lied about the secret war he had ordered U.S. warships to conduct against German U-boats. He lied about who fired the first shots when the U.S. destroyers Greer and Kearney were attacked. He lied about having discovered Hitler's plans for the conquest of South America and the Nazification of Christianity. No such plans existed except in the fertile and creative minds of British intelligence.

FDR sent picket ships out into the path of the Japanese fleet in the hope they would be sunk. He gave Lord Halifax secret, but unconstitutional, assurances America would defend His Majesty's colonies in the Pacific. He spurned a secret peace offer from Japan's Prince Konoye and issued a secret ultimatum to Tojo's regime on Nov. 26, 1941.

As Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary two weeks before Pearl Harbor, "We should maneuver them into ... firing the first shot." FDR was guilty of impeachable high crimes. But as Field Marshal Moltke told Admiral Tirpitz, as he ordered the German army to invade neutral Belgium in 1914, "Success alone justifies war."

And America succeeded absolutely. And with FDR's death on the eve of total victory in the "Good War" in 1945, people no longer cared how the war had begun. Yet, our politics were poisoned by Roosevelt's mendacity, as it would be by Truman's undeclared war in Korea ("a police action") and by Vietnam, when senators learned they had been deceived in the Tonkin Gulf incident.

Today, America is being stampeded into a new undeclared war, against Iraq. Thus it is a time for truth – a time for Congress to do its duty, and debate and decide on war or peace. We do not need to have our politics poisoned for yet another generation by the mutual recriminations of a War Party and a Peace Party in the aftermath of yet another undeclared war. Questions need answering.

Was Saddam involved in the massacres of Sept. 11? Was he behind the anthrax attacks? Is he harboring terrorist cells of al-Qaida? Is he preparing nuclear or bio-terror weapons to attack us? If the answer is "Yes," let Congress lay out the evidence before the nation and empower the president to take us to war.

Henry Hyde and Joe Biden, chairmen respectively of the House and Senate foreign relations committees, should assume their duty to the nation and history, and assert Congress' rightful role in the decision on war or peace. Both have said that they oppose a war on Iraq. But that is not enough.

On Sunday, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice seemed to assert that President Bush had the justification and right to take us to war against Saddam, should he so choose. But where did he get this authority? When did Congress cede it to him, or authorize U.S. attacks on the other Arab states on the War Party's enemies list?

While the United States could launch air strikes on Iraq at any moment, the ground troops needed for an invasion are not in place. And given the halving of U.S. forces since Desert Storm, it would take months before they are ready to march – time enough for reasoned debate.

Indeed, the semi-hysteria of the War Party suggests it does not have the evidence to convict Saddam of Sept. 11, and a war on Iraq is but the next move on the little chessboards of empire they carry about in their book bags. But a war on Iraq could ravage our relations with Britain, Russia and NATO; shatter the Afghan war coalition; inflame the Arab street; and destabilize our Arab allies, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Should the Saudi monarchy fall to a revolution as a result of an attack on Iraq, Bush would have lost the oil storehouse his father went to war to defend in 1991.

It's time for Congress to debate again Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Is it to be containment or war? If it is to be war, we have a right to know why, and to hold accountable those who take us into war. No more Munichs, no more Yaltas, Bush said. Right he is. But let us add:

No more undeclared wars. No more presidential wars

http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/11/26/22011.html

Note that Buchanan also believes that politics should stop at the waters edge this is a prewar article and after we got engaged in Iraq he now supports the war effort and denounces those who would call for a premature withdrawl.

Proves how much wiser FDR was than GWB.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Proves how much wiser FDR was than GWB.

what the hell are you talking about how so exactly?

 

[Iriemon]

what the hell are you talking about how so exactly?

FDR had the wisdom to understand that taking the US to war when the public , or at least a significant portion of it, did not want war, would have resulted in a divided public opinion and criticism from those who did not believe the US should engage in "Europe's war." So he use diplomatic and economic sanctions to pressure the axis powers.

When Japan attacked, and Germany declared war on us, public opinion was strongly behind the war effort.

Then FDR had the wisdom to declare war on the countries that had actually attacked and declared war on us, instead of attacking Spain, for example.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

FDR had the wisdom to understand that taking the US to war when the public , or at least a significant portion of it, did not want war, would have resulted in a divided public opinion and criticism from those who did not believe the US should engage in "Europe's war." So he use diplomatic and economic sanctions to pressure the axis powers.

When Japan attacked, and Germany declared war on us, public opinion was strongly behind the war effort.

Then FDR had the wisdom to declare war on the countries that had actually attacked and declared war on us, instead of attacking Spain, for example.

did Germany declare war on us in WW1?

Oh and by the way the U.N. did place economic sanctions against Iraq it only served to line Saddams and corrupt U.N. officials pockets through the oil for food program and didn't have any effect at all on Saddam but rather had the effect of starving millions of innocent Iraqi citizens, is that justice? Hell no it wasn't Saddam needed to go he was a threat to his own people and a threat to regional and global securtity and it was in our national interests to take him out.

 

[Iriemon]

did Germany declare war on us in WW1?

Don't think so. I know they did in WWII, we were talking about FDR.

Oh and by the way the U.N. did place economic sanctions against Iraq it only served to line Saddams and corrupt U.N. officials pockets through the oil for food program and didn't have any effect at all on Saddam but rather had the effect of starving millions of innocent Iraqi citizens, is that justice? Hell no it wasn't Saddam needed to go he was a threat to his own people and a threat to regional and global securtity and it was in our national interests to take him out.

Many would state that it was the US lead embargo and sanctions that caused the starvation. I don't believe there was mass starvation in Iraq before that, but I don't know.

The fact that a government is perceived threat to its own people does not justify the unilateral invasion by another nation, IMO.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Don't think so. I know they did in WWII, we were talking about FDR.



Many would state that it was the US lead embargo and sanctions that caused the starvation. I don't believe there was mass starvation in Iraq before that, but I don't know.

The fact that a government is perceived threat to its own people does not justify the unilateral invasion by another nation, IMO.

UMM U.S. embargo it was U.N. sanctions partner place blame were blame is due and if it wasn't for the corrupt U.N. officials and Saddam screwing over his people to build palaces the Oil For Food program would have worked and nobody would have starved.

Soveriegnty is much kinder to dictatorships than it is to Democracies,

Tell me sir, if Saddam took control of Iraq through force, ruled through force and intimidation, then how is it that the U.S. doesn't have the right to remove him by force?

Saddam Hussein was not a percieved threat he continually threatened his neighbors and the U.S.:

"[America] will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim mujahidin and all the honest strugglers in the world."
Iraq News Agency, January 30, 1991 (State-controlled)

"What remains for Bush and his accomplices in crime is to understand that they are personally responsible for their crime. The Iraqi people will pursue them for this crime, even if they leave office and disappear into oblivion. There is no doubt they will understand what we mean if they know what revenge means to the Arabs."
Baghdad Radio, February 6, 1991 (State-controlled)

"Every Iraqi child, woman, and old man knows how to take revenge...They will avenge the pure blood that has been shed no matter how long it takes.
Baghdad Domestic Service, February 15, 1991 (State-controlled)

Iraq Masses Troops Against Kuwait, October 1994
"Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?"
Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994

"[W]hen peoples reach the verge of collective death, they will be able to spread death to all..."
Al-Jumhuriyah, October 4, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[O]ur striking arm will reach [America, Britain and Saudi Arabia] before they know what hit them."
Al-Qadisiyah, October 6, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)

"One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands." Al-Quds al-Arabi, October 12, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)

Release of UNSCOM Report, April 10, 1995
"Although Iraq's options are limited, they exist...Iraq's present state is that of a wounded tiger. Its blow could be painful, even if it is the last blow..."
Al-Quds Al-'Arabi, June 9, 1995 (State-controlled newspaper)

Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996
"[The U.S.] should send more coffins to Saudi Arabia, because no one can guess what the future has in store."
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, June 27, 1996

Operation Desert Fox, December 1998
"If [other Arab nations] persist on pursuing their wrongful path, then we should — or rather we must — place the swords of jihad on their necks..."
Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999

"Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner...Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values."
Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999

"[Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti] blood will light torches, grow aromatic plants, and water the tree of freedom, resistance and victory."
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, January 26, 1999

"Whoever continues to be involved in a despicable aggressive war against the people of Iraq as a subservient party must realize that this aggressive act has a dear price."
Saddam Hussein, February 16, 1999

"What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds."
Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999 (State-controlled newspaper)

U.S.S. Cole Bombing, October 12, 2000
"[Iraqis] should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means..."
Iraq TV, October 22, 2000 (State-controlled)

The Attacks of September 11
"The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world."
Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001

"The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[September 11 was] God's punishment."
Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"The simple truth [about September 11] is that America burned itself and now tries to burn the world."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled magazine)

"t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)

"The United States must get a taste of its own poison..."
Babil, October 8, 2001

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
so you're an isolationist then? You don't support intervention to kill the tyrants in Sudan, Rwanda etc

I would support it if it were sanctioned by the UN Security Counsel.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I would support it if it were sanctioned by the UN Security Counsel.

So not only are you not an isolationist but you would prefer to put the soveriegnty of the U.S. military into the hands of the U.N.? :roll:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
So not only are you not an isolationist but you would prefer to put the soveriegnty of the U.S. military into the hands of the U.N.?

Not sovereignty. Just bi-lateral operations sanctioned by a world body. I don't think we have any right to go around the world telling other country's what's what within there borders. I'm also not in favor of letting any foreign body being in charge of American troops. Not opperationally speaking. And I'm certainly not in favor of any group of any kind going around with impunity.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Not sovereignty. Just bi-lateral operations sanctioned by a world body. I don't think we have any right to go around the world telling other country's what's what within there borders. I'm also not in favor of letting any foreign body being in charge of American troops. Not opperationally speaking. And I'm certainly not in favor of any group of any kind going around with impunity.

Tell me Billo what exactly is the difference?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Tell me Billo what exactly is the difference?

Between what and what?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Between what and what?

Between this: Not sovereignty. and this: Just bi-lateral operations sanctioned by a world body.

This would effectively take away the power of the United States government to decide when and if to use the U.S. military and would place soveriegnty of our military of the hands into the U.N..

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
Between this: Not sovereignty. and this: Just bi-lateral operations sanctioned by a world body.

This would effectively take away the power of the United States government to decide when and if to use the U.S. military and would place soveriegnty of our military of the hands into the U.N..

So what your saying is that it is OK to lie.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So what your saying is that it is OK to lie.

No what I'm saying is the day the U.N. has control over the U.S. military is the day I call for revolution!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
No what I'm saying is the day the U.N. has control over the U.S. military is the day I call for revolution!!!!!!!!!!!!

From the White Album or a remix? Let me know when you come back to reality and we will begin the debate.

 

[Iriemon]

No what I'm saying is the day the U.N. has control over the U.S. military is the day I call for revolution!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who has ever done that?

Wise men recognize that having the approval of an international body like the UN, or at least a multilateral consensus, provides legitimacy to a preemptive armed intervention. It enhances credibility for the action, and for the post invasion occupation, and helps diffuse the cost.

But I have never heard anyone propose that the UN take control over the US military.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Who has ever done that?

Wise men recognize that having the approval of an international body like the UN, or at least a multilateral consensus, provides legitimacy to a preemptive armed intervention. It enhances credibility for the action, and for the post invasion occupation, and helps diffuse the cost.

But I have never heard anyone propose that the UN take control over the US military.

You just proved my point you have the impression that the U.S. is under some obligation to ask the unelected officials of the U.N. who are representatives of tyrannical regimes for permission for the U.S. to use its military forces, if that isn't handing over sovereignty to the U.N. then I don't know what is.

 

[Iriemon]

You just proved my point you have the impression that the U.S. is under some obligation to ask the unelected officials of the U.N. who are representatives of tyrannical regimes for permission for the U.S. to use its military forces, if that isn't handing over sovereignty to the U.N. then I don't know what is.

No -- I just said it is wise to do so. When you invade unilaterally without multinational consensus, people are apt to think your invasion is not legitimate. Especially when the reasons you give justifying the invasion turn out to be wrong.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
You just proved my point you have the impression that the U.S. is under some obligation to ask the unelected officials of the U.N. who are representatives of tyrannical regimes for permission for the U.S. to use its military forces, if that isn't handing over sovereignty to the U.N. then I don't know what is.

When you're talking about the UN, you're talking about US as well. We are part of the UN. In fact, we have more control over the UN than every nation but five. And when we joined the UN, we agreed with Article 51. We ratified Article 51. In doing so, Article 51 became the law of OUR land. Then by attacking Iraq without meeting the requirements of Article 51, it became un-Constitutional. As well as a crime. Are you in favor of breaking the law?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

When you're talking about the UN, you're talking about US as well. We are part of the UN. In fact, we have more control over the UN than every nation but five. And when we joined the UN, we agreed with Article 51. We ratified Article 51. In doing so, Article 51 became the law of OUR land. Then by attacking Iraq without meeting the requirements of Article 51, it became un-Constitutional. As well as a crime. Are you in favor of breaking the law?

No sir our sovereignty has been given up and the fact of the matter is is that we are now prostrated before the U.N. . . . . **** THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Move West . . . . Revolution!!!!!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
No sir our sovereignty has been given up and the fact of the matter is is that we are now prostrated before the U.N. . . . . **** THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Move West . . . . Revolution!!!!!

We are only sovereign within our own borders. We do not have any right to be sovereign in someone else's country! Go find another planet if your set on ruling the world.

 

[stsburns]

We are only sovereign within our own borders. We do not have any right to be sovereign in someone else's country! Go find another planet if your set on ruling the world.

Name some people who have tried the world Oh mighty brain! You will need more than just Hilter. Go!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

We are only sovereign within our own borders. We do not have any right to be sovereign in someone else's country! Go find another planet if your set on ruling the world.

o.k. Saddam took power by force, he maintained his rule by force fear and intimidation, so who's to say that we didn't have every right to remove him by force?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
o.k. Saddam took power by force, he maintained his rule by force fear and intimidation, so who's to say that we didn't have every right to remove him by force?

Stop playing word games. I've told you, we agreed to honor the conditions of Article 51 of the UN Charter. When I say "agreed", I mean it is the law of our land. As in Constitutional law. He didn't attack us, and we didn't get UNSC authorization. So, we did not have the right.

But you probably think it is perfectly OK for us to run around the planet kidnapping people, taking them to secret locations in other countries, killing democratically elected leaders and re-instating brutal dictators that were friendly to us, so they could do their own version of Saddaam Hussein in their own country with Congressional support and funding.

Did you know hypocrisy is the only sin from which there is no forgiveness.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by stsburns:
Name some people who have tried the world Oh mighty brain! You will need more than just Hilter. Go!

Ask a coherant question, and I will give you a relevant answer.