Ron Paul: Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US- and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

I hate to cast disparaging words upon Rep. Paul, but I must (don't take this as an attack on you, just on one of the few bad positions taken by Rep. Paul):

Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

No; the reason why we didn't was because the Soviet Union did not demonstrate that they would necessarily use those weapons against the US. Morever, we WERE in a pair of shooting wars against the Soviet Union (secretly), and things were settled before those on either side decided to expand things beyond Korea or Vietnam.

Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

Again, no. Iraq, and its allies, have already demonstrated that they would (a) use these weapons and (b) attack the US directly. Morever, Iraq has refused to abide by the WMD conditions that it agreed to in the armistice that "ended" the Gulf War.

Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

It is a matter of percentage. With the removal of Hussein, the likelyhood of Iraq's use of WMD (assuming that he doesn't employ them in his defense) is next to nil. With inspections, it approaches 50%. Without inspections or removal, it will be a certainty.

Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

Mohammed Atta and Saddam's right hand man met in Prague just for tea and crumpets? Do you need a notarized summary of the meeting from both participants?

Regarding where the hijackers came from, that makes my case for wiping out that entire area of the world, not just Iraq.

Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

I haven't seen that retraction, though I have seen the allegations that this meeting did in fact take place.

Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

Not quite. I seem to remember Saddam's army sweeping through just that area back in 1996, with no word since suggesting that the Kurds have regained control.

Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

Congress expressly authorized the US armed forces to use force against Iraq in order to meet various objectives back in 1991. Those objectives have only been partially met, there has been no truce signed or ratified by the Senate to officially end those hostilities, and there has been no action taken by Congress to invalidate that authorization.

Morever, should Iraq be conclusively linked to the attacks on 9/11/2001, Congress again has expressly authorized the use of force against those forces that are linked to those attacks.

Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

All the more reason to finish the Saddam regime.

Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

Iraq does have the means to attack the United States in means that are "untraditional", which is the way that most enemies of the United States are limited to.

Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

When President George H.W. Bush didn't press the attack into Baghdad, he did so because that was not necessary to gain assurances from Hussein to adhere to the conditions under which we would cease attacking. As Hussein has not adhered to those conditions over the last 11 years, there now is nothing left to do but remove Hussein from power.

Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

The relevant portion of the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have the power...(t)o declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water...." It does not say anything about "self-defense".

The last 2 major authorizations have properly set forth rules concerning captures on land. So long as the President follows the letter of an authorization, and said authorization is in force, he is within the Constitution.

Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

I am not aware that we are a party of that Treaty; therefore, that is a false argument.

Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

That semi-truism is only applicable when both sides are civilized. In any case, the key phrase is "less likely", which means that war will still sometimes happen even between 2 very civilized societies.

Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

Because there are 50 Democrats in the Senate who so abhor both the Constitution and our President that they will not allow the entire Senate to advise and consent on his selections for the judiciary, and given a choice between doing what is right for this country and <expletive deleted> (sorry for the vulgarity) the President, they will do the latter 10 times out of 10.

Now, a question for Rep. Paul. If he is so determined to not allow any further action against Iraq without further explicit Congressional approval, how about getting Congress to revoke both the 1991 Gulf War resolution and the 2001 War on Terror resolution?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.