September 13th, 2006

Iraq—A Global War

From The John Birch Society:

During a televised interview conducted by NBC’s Matt Lauer on September 12, 2006, President Bush gave us his reason for sending troops into Iraq.

Lauer mentioned Mr. Bush’s admissions that Saddam Hussein’s government had no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al-Qaeda, and was not a nuclear threat. So he asked, “Why did we go to war against Iraq?” Mr. Bush’s response, “We enforced the demands of the world,” indicates that he sees a role for the U.S. that is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

Sadly, it is true that most Americans today do not see how wrongly our forces are being used. The correct reason for having a military force is to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people of this nation alone. That role has been watered down ever since President Truman sent forces into Korea in 1950 without the required declaration of war issued by Congress.

On March 20, 2003, one day after the war against Iraq began, our nation’s Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, delivered a letter to the UN Security Council claiming that “the actions being taken are authorized” by several UN Security Council resolutions. In other words, the U.S. went to war for the United Nations, a war that has now cost close to 3,000 U.S. lives, some 20,000 U.S. casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis’ lives.

The American people should not be allowing any President to use America’s military and treasure to enforce “the demands of the world.”

Our military serves our country alone. We are not to be pawns of the U.N. agenda. The demands of the world, while an importance to many, should not have any impact whatsoever on the military campaigns of our nation. Our military actions are to be authorized by our elected Congress, not U.N. Security Council resolutions.

23 Responses to “Iraq—A Global War”

  1. Curtis
    September 13, 2006 at 8:07 am #

    The premise of this statement is a bit mistaken I think. I got the feeling the UN was a rather reluctant passenger to the US’s hellbent desire to go to war. The UN continuously found no WMD’s and many top humanitarian officials resigned in protest over our murderous sanctions. I agree that our military should serve our country alone,… that is why they should be here protecting our land!

  2. the narrator
    September 13, 2006 at 9:10 am #

    You’re a Bircher too? I’m disappointed, though not at all surprised if such is the case.

    I’m surprised that the author of this post actually believed Bush’s rhetoric. This was clearly a post-hoc response to the continued criticism that Bush attacked Iraq without UN support and against the will of the global community.

    Furthermore, this notion that Iraq was a part of some global effort by Bush for the UN goes against your own conspiracy theorists and much of the consensus of those against the war in Iraq. If you take the position that Bush’s war is a product of neo-conservative ideals promoted by such thinktanks as the Project for a New American Century, then this whole idea that the war in Iraq was done to support the UN is complete bolagna. The over-riding thought behind the so-called Bush doctrine (originally developed by Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others) lies in the notion that the state has the right and obligation to seek out and secure resources for the state (which includes such means as forcing democracy on others, pre-emptive attacks, etc). The idea that all of this was done in support of the UN is simply ludicrous.

    The John Birch Society should have died along with it’s one ill-founded paranoia of communism.

  3. Curtis
    September 13, 2006 at 9:28 am #

    Actually the times that the US disagrees with the UN, the US just flat out uses its veto power with no qualms. We vetoed a resolution against Israel in the recent Lebanon conflict, when the rest of the council was in favor of the resolution or had abstained from voting. We have no qualms about going alone against the entire rest of the world as in the case of voting against FISSBAN, the general assembly resolution against the production of nuclear weapons grade fissile material (147-1 on that one… even Iran was in favor of it).
    I’d have to say along with Narrator that we never do the UN’s bidding, but rather use the UN to achieve some sort of legitimacy for our crimes.

  4. Connor
    September 13, 2006 at 9:28 am #

    Do I have to be a Bircher in order to comment on or agree with something they say?

    To assume that the notion goes against “my own conspiracy [theories]” is a bit presumptive, since there are many theories out there that promote different ideas. Frankly, this notion is perfectly in step with my own beliefs, that being that our nation’s sovereignty is eroding as its leaders seek a globalized government.

    The neo-conservative ideals and the UN globalized agenda are often one and the same. PNAC’s own statement, cited previously, stated the “need” for a catalytic change in order to promulgate the idea of going to war in the Middle East. The U.N., while acting surprised and disapointed with the results of the war, agreed in Security Council resolutions to support him in the war. This was largely done through political pressure and economic threats, since the other countries in the SC have deep economic ties to the U.S. and can’t stand to put them in jeopardy. And so, they fell in, rank and file behind Bush, who then turned around and said that he was and is enforcing the “demands of the world”.

  5. John
    September 13, 2006 at 11:10 am #

    Do you feel that we should never engage in causes to aid others abroad, Connor?

    I realize that the reasons for the immediate conflict are hotly debated, but I don’t know if we should never aid in non-US issues or ignore our global responsibilities at the UN.

  6. Connor
    September 13, 2006 at 12:08 pm #

    I agree with a quote by Thomas Jefferson, also used as #25 in Cleon Skousen’s Principles of Liberty:

    “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”

    Entangling alliances include most all things associated with the U.N., our agreements with our nations fighting in the current war, NAFTA, SPP, and others.

    We should engage in causes to aid others. It should not, however, be mandated by the government. My hard-earned tax dollars are to help America, not other governments and peoples. I choose to give privately to those in need. I should not be forced to do so. That redistribution of wealth is socialism.

    We have no global responsibilities. Nowhere in the Constitution (unless I am wrong, and if so, please let me know) is our President authorized to fight other people’s wars (especially for his friends and their deep pockets) or administer humanitarian aid to victims in other countries (or rather give the aid to their corrupt governments, where the aid never reaches the people who need it).

    Yes, we should give aid. No, the government should not be in charge of it.

  7. Jonathan Elwell
    September 13, 2006 at 1:22 pm #

    Conner, you have come so far since our freshman year debates….love to hear rational thought coming from you! :) haha. ANyway, your little friend the Narrator needs to go ahead and do some research to fiugure out what he’s talking about before he spouts off and makes himself look like an uneducated ignoramous. So, if the narrator would like me to educate him on the views of the John Birch Society then by all means, come my way. If not, don’t make dumb ignorant statements that are on the level of accusing modern-day mormons of polygamy, you sound stupid! :-) That is all….

  8. John
    September 13, 2006 at 2:27 pm #

    First of all, I’m not talking about constitutionality, I’m talking about humanity. The responsibility I’m talking about isn’t written anywhere, per se. As one of the richest nations in the world, we’re in a position to do a whole lot of good. I’m not exactly sure how governments fit into that global responsibility, however.

    I think its an exaggeration to talk about socialism. That’s kinda like saying that abandoning the civil unrest and starvation in Africa is capitalism. The US is donating less than .22% of its GNI to Official Development Assistance (ODA) anyway. I don’t these people are undeserving on the whole, either.

    I think you realize that, and we’ve been (partly) talking about the same thing–you think we should give aid, but that it should be of our own accord.

    That makes some sense, but what about when that aid needs to come in the form of troops? I don’t think it can be such a black and white issue.

  9. the narrator
    September 13, 2006 at 3:40 pm #

    elwell,

    care to tell me what i was wrong about?

  10. steven
    September 14, 2006 at 10:48 am #

    Terrorism is now global. 9-11 changed everything. If we have to go to the ends of the earth to protect our safety we will. I dont think you comprehend the magnitude of this task. Your “Disney World” outlook on these Muslim thugs is short-sighted. Connor, these thugs and murderers want you dead. They want your family dead. They want me dead. They want my family dead. How are you going to change their minds and their will? The short answer “You wont and you cant.”

  11. Dustin Davis
    September 14, 2006 at 10:56 am #

    I don’t have any arguments for this discussion one way or the other… but a couple questions for everyone involved? I don’t have answers to these so I look forward to yours.

    1. Was it right to go overseas and fight World Ward II?

    2. If our governement is so in debt, are we really the richest nation in the world and should we be going further in debt to help others?

  12. Connor
    September 14, 2006 at 10:56 am #

    Terrorism has been hyped up to be way more than it is. It has existed throughout the history of time (read your BoM if you don’t believe me!) and is nothing new. Sure, advancements in travel, technology, and munition has facilitated it, but it has also facilitated the “good guys” and their ability to protect their citizens. Yet the fearmongering tactics of the Bush camp lead us to believe that if it weren’t for the war in Iraq and the preemption we use to justify it, that we’d all be blown up by street bombers here in our own land. I don’t buy it.

    9/11 did change everything. And now PNAC is quite happy.

    Of course I comprehend the magnititude of this “task”. I have the Book of Mormon, the best guide and playbook one can have in times like these. But this “task” is not a heavenly ordained one. It is being conducted by greedy men seeking to fill their own pockets and retain their power. While promoted differently, ours is not a perfectly just cause. As Elder Eyring said in the CES fireside last week, we always operate with multiple motives. “Spreading democracy” isn’t the only reason we are over there.

    These thugs and murderers want me and my family dead? Highly unlikely. O’Reilly and the rest of the media portray these villains as wanting to slit my throat simply because I’m a Westerner and a Christian, but I don’t believe it’s really that bad. And even if it is, that’s fine. But our troops should come back and protect the homeland. We should not be implementing a preemptive attack. There is no justification. Good grief, have you read anything about our borders? Do you know how easy it would be for “terrorists” to enter our country? There is much left to be done to protect and secure our nation, and being in Iraq is not one of them.

  13. Connor
    September 14, 2006 at 11:09 am #

    Dustin, thanks for your questions. My responses:

    1. Was it right to go overseas and fight World War II?

    Yes – we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. When the enemy comes to us, then we “bring the fight to the enemy”. But going out and fighting other people’s battles is not the proper use of American lives and taxpayer’s dollars.

    I like the lesson we learn from the Anti-Nephi-Lehis and the Nephites. The ANL required military assistance for protection from their enemies. It was not the Nephite’s battle to fight. So what happened? The ANL gave support to the Nephites in exchange for their service. It would be interesting to see that happen today.

    2. If our government is so in debt, are we really the richest nation in the world and should we be going further in debt to help others?

    Our debt is astronomically increasing. Others will probably disagree with me on this, but I believe we are headed for an economic collapse. The dollar continues to be devaluated as inflation (in the control of the wicked Federal Reserve) rises. War only serves to catalyze this process and quicken the pace of our nation’s debt. As our nation needs more money, it asks the Fed to print some more, who then does so, printing this fiat currency out of thin air (with no gold and silver backing). The money makes its way into circulation, thus decreasing the purchasing power of my existing money. We should not go into debt to help others.

  14. Dustin Davis
    September 14, 2006 at 11:24 am #

    > When the enemy comes to us, then we “bring the fight to the enemy”.

    Now I know you think that the attack on 9/11/2001 was a big conspiracy, but what if it really was terrorists. Would we be justified in taking “the fight to the enemy”?

  15. Connor
    September 14, 2006 at 11:27 am #

    Now I know you think that the attack on 9/11/2001 was a big conspiracy, but what if it really was terrorists. Would we be justified in taking “the fight to the enemy”?

    Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no.

  16. Connor
    September 14, 2006 at 1:09 pm #

    Steven, regarding your belief that terrorists are out to kill us all, I’d like you to read this when you have a chance.

    The part I most enjoyed was the last sentence: “Terrorists are a potential threat, but the biggest and most potentially lethal threat Americans face from human sources is, always has been, and ever shall be, the government that supposedly protects us.”

  17. the narrator
    September 14, 2006 at 2:58 pm #

    The part I most enjoyed was the last sentence: “Terrorists are a potential threat, but the biggest and most potentially lethal threat Americans face from human sources is, always has been, and ever shall be, the government that supposedly protects us.”

    and heart disease.

  18. Curtis
    September 14, 2006 at 11:10 pm #

    Connor,
    I believe that even Afganistan wasn’t a legitimate target in the war on terror. Afganistan was reportedly completely ready to hand over bin Laden, if we provided a bit of evidence that he was the one who committed the crime. This is standard procedure in working with nations with whom one has a extradition treaty. We refused to provide evidence and demanded bin Laden be handed over. The Taliban refused. Our resulting attack devastated Afganistan, causing millions of refugees, contaminating the land with depleted uranium debri, leading to a so-called democracy that now breaks records in opium production and where the people are beginning to flock back to the banner of the Taliban for some security.
    We protected the Shah of Iran when Iran wanted him back to face trial for his crimes, currently harbor the terrorists Orlando Bosch and Jose Posada Carriles, the most notorious terrorists in the western hemisphere and protect them from extradition to Venezuela etc. In these cases there was ample evidence produced and we still didn’t turn over the criminals. In Afganistan we just bullied our way in, when it could have been done much more simply by getting the Taliban to hand over the bad guy.
    This war on terror is a terrible sham. There is no good reason for us to be fighting now.

  19. Connor
    September 15, 2006 at 8:49 am #

    Curtis, thank you for your comments. My polar response of saying yes to Afghanistan and no to Iraq was incorrect. Believing as I do that 9/11 was either planned, assisted, or known about by Uncle Sam, then neither Afghanistan nor Iraq should have seen one single soldier of ours in response. Indeed, the FBI has publicly stated that there is no known connection between Bin Laden and 9/11. He is a scapegoat (most likely a dead one, at that) used to further the neocon desire for war and profiteering.

  20. the narrator
    September 15, 2006 at 9:37 am #

    Indeed, the FBI has publicly stated that there is no known connection between Bin Laden and 9/11.

    That’s a new one to me. I know they’ve said that about Hussein. Can you provide a contextualized source for this?

  21. Connor
    September 15, 2006 at 9:46 am #

    Narrator, this link has a summary of the issue.

  22. steven
    September 15, 2006 at 2:33 pm #

    Bin Laden is a thug and a murderer and he deserves to be turned into dust. So Connor, do you think Bin Laden is an innocent bystander? Is he on your “Good Guy” list? Please explain.

  23. Connor
    September 15, 2006 at 2:39 pm #

    Steven, I believe that Osama is dead. If he is really the enemy, and if he is as dangerous as Bush tells us he is, and if he is still alive, I’m positive we’d have him caught by now. But he’s dead, irrelevant, and Bush’s camp uses him as a tool to further their own desires.

    Think about it, doesn’t it make sense? The fearmongering tactics of Bush’s administration are too obvious to ignore. To instill fear in the American public and have them accept more and more government control, there needs to be an enemy.

    I invite you to read some of the quotes posted here to have this put in some additional perspective. One of my favorite is by James Madison: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

    Osama is dead, innocent Iraqis (and Americans) are dying, and Halliburton is making a huge profit.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.