My take on Iraq

The first casualty of war is truth. - Rudyard Kipling

I'm going to break down my perspective on this whole Iraq situation. I am by no means an “expert” in this area, but I must say the more I research and learn, the more solid I become in my position.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land here in America. It is very specific and is a document of confinement - not expansion - of the government. In other words, if the Constitution says the government can do A, B, and C, they cannot do D unless the Constitution is amended to specifically grant such authority to the government. Amendment 9 and 10 support this. And it makes sense, really, otherwise there would be no limit on government expansion and control.

FACT: Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says in part: “The Congress shall have power.. To declare war..”.
The Congress is granted the power to declare war. It is not allowed to delegate this power to the President, or any other person, entity, or group. As of October 11, 2002, Congress delegated the President sweeping authority to use military force. If we go to war with Iraq without Congress declaring war, it will be unconstitutional. Period.
Where's the threat?
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). So do 20+ other nations in the world, and surely many of them are not as “rational” or “peace-loving” (words used with tongue tentatively in cheek) as America. There hasn't been an attack by Iraq against America or our forces.
FACT: There do not exist “no-fly zones” in Iraq
Since 1991 there have been lots - lots - of bombings in Iraq by American and British forces. These bombings were supposedly authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 688 - or so America claimed. Read the resolution yourself, there is nothing authorizing a “no-fly zone”. This means they are illegal and America lied.
Pre-emptive strikes are un-American
With few exceptions, America has historically maintained a typical “defense only” stance on war, something I feel is honorable and should be maintained. Not to mention it would expand the government's power far to much to allow them to make pre-emptive strikes against nations they deem to be “potential developing threats”. In short, it would just be more bullying.

For this, as well as several other reasons, I do not support going to war with Iraq. I didn't list everything because I wanted to keep this somewhat brief, yet still hit on the main points - which I think are enough in and of themselves to be opposed to the pending “war”.

I urge you to do your own research, educate yourself, and reach your own conclusion.

Additional Recommended Reads:

What Really Happened

Transcript of Senate debate over the Iraq resolution (particularly part 3 is good)

❦

View responses or leave your own response

published February 11, 2003

Responses

the nosy shroom – February 11, 2003
What happened to the test? And what were you testing for, huh?

bbthe1 – February 11, 2003
I personally am irritated by those who call people like yourself and me who disagree with this impending war “unpatriotic.” Way to proudly and intelligently disagree, gRegor.

bryan – February 12, 2003
hmm. curious. i have a question, more out of curiosity and analyticality (is this a word? if not what would the correct form of analytical would the word i'm looking for be?), really, rather than having a purpose behind it such as agreeing/disagreeing. the questions is: if congress delegates the power to the president or any other entity, isn't it really saying, “whatever you decide is going to be okay with us; decide what you think is best and then come to us and we'll approve it?” i don't know if i'm articulating this question clearly or not, but this would in effect BE declaring war, wouldn't it? this makes the congress sort of lazy and lacking on its duties, i admit, but is it really inconsistent with procedure as outlined in the constitution?

good comments as mostly always, gregor. you made me think.

BlackWolf – February 14, 2003
To start with, bryans comment is partly right. Congress does have to declare war, which they did. But they don't fight it, they leave that to the Generals and the Gererals get thier orders from the Commander In Cheif, the President. It has been that way from the first President to the last. An exception was during Vietnam, where polititians fought the war and let many soldiers walk into death.

Second is the theat of Iraq. Not only has Iraq invaded other countries, but have bombed thier own country. Their leader Sadam, has only one goal, to stay in power, and will kill anyone who threates that goal. America by her sheer existance is a threat to Iraq, as is any free democratic country. Iraq has continued to show time and time again its ill use of its weapons of mass destruction. And has shown no good reason for us beliving that they will not use them again. That is why we are going in.

Third, America did not lie, the no fly zones are leagal, its all part of the plan to “contain” Iraq. That is done with no fly zones and limiting trade. Thus far that has not worked, and that is anouther reason why we are going back.

Fourth, had Clinton used some brass to take care of the “disarmerment” while he was President then we would not have to go and do it now. That was his job, he did not do it. Also on his list of things to do was to keep N. Korea peaceful, instead he gave them nuclear secrets and now they threaton us with that.

No ill towards you gRegor, I just see this as a justified war, and one that should have been finished by 1996 at the latest.

That also leads into the pre-emptive strike, this started back in the early ninties, and Iraq still has not complied with UN,NATO,US,USSR, or any other treaties that they signed, so the orinal war did not end, this is just a continuation of it.

BlackWolf