Posted on 09/10/2002 12:57:09 PM PDT by Zviadist
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002
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?
Careful with that logic stuff on here!
I'll venture one of them there logical guesses. GHWB did't take him out because there's a damn good chance his replacement could be worse. At least one could conclude that by looking around at the enlightened democracies surrounding him.
Is that your final answer? LOL....it must be frightening to be so clueless?
Yes, I find your extreme cluelessness frightening.
Should we have entered into WWII earlier-when we first learned of his brutal massacres of innocents? Do we care about the Iraqi people ENOUGH to use Saddam's breaking of the resolutions HE SIGNED after losing the Kuwait War to go after that murdering, sick bastard? And lastly, Saddam is crazy, were the Russian leaders, Krushev, Breshnev, etc equally mad? There is, a difference.
LOL...yeah, we wouldn't want to upset the "delicate balance" and "stability" of the Middle East. [sarcasm]
Iraq has not complied with even one of the nine UN resolutions spelled out at the cessation of Desert Storm. Not one. Containment, as you recommend, could only work if these resolutions were heeded. War is the only option at this point, and war it will be. It has nothing to do with "machismo." -- (A typical liberal accusation, incidentally).
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. The war was already started by the f*cking *sshole m*therf*ckers who attacked our country on 9-11-01. These "gentlemen" were supported by Saddam Hussein
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? The Soviets never ATTACKED us!
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? Iraq started this mess a long time ago. They were behind the original 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (an act of war) and they tried to assassinate Bush 41.
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? If we kill Saddam and arrest his Lieutenants, inspections will be unecessary
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? The UN is a joke. The Iraqi's demanded (and received) a weeks notification before the inspection of any site occurred.
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? Your opinion And I'm hopin' we go after the House of Saud next!
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? Note Former. Does he have access to classified intel or is he giving his opinion?
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? That's not what the Czechs say The Prague Post Online
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? The Kurds don't "control" anything.
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? We should demand from Musharraf to go after them. If he doesn't help us, we should go in there anyway.
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" Again the infamous UN who spends lots of money to talk about poor people. Congressman Paul might have a point here, as we do not have enough troops in Afghanistan to clean up Al Qaeda units who have returned.
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? Because they supported those who 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? Please note the pictures of people being forced to jump to their deaths from really tall buildings to escape being burned to death. Do we really care what the Arab "street" thinks when fellow Americans were forced to jump to the street from 100+ floors by these very Arabs?
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? He's just as crazy and has murdered his own people. Need any more evidence?
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? Bush should get a declaration of war. Shouldn't be too difficult.
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? Does this include every time Saddam gassed the Kurds or just this one occurrence?
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? What better way to avenge them than by killing Saddam & Co.?
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? Their agents already did, note buildings burning and collapsing.
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? Yes. We should be. Better than pork.
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? Do we have to explain how many stupid UN resolutions there are?
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? In all honesesty I'd have to check on this. My guess though is it follows the rest of this self-serving treatise.
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? So?
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? We have a right to defend ourselves no matter what France or Saudi Arabia says. Again, note people jumping from buildings.
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? The two-facedness of our government needs to be changed...after we eradiciate islamofascism from the planet
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? Have any proof? You want incontrovertible proof why we should defend ourselves from the likes of Hussein, yet you throw out charges like this with out it? What's good for the goose....
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? I forgot, Saddam is wonderful, we should all give him a big, wet, sloppy kiss. Barf.
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? Please note we were ALREADY attacked, witnessed on national television.
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq? Red Herring Alert. Please did you poll them yourself? Any of that aforementioned evidence?
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? I wear a uniform. Bush wore a uniform. Rumsfeld wore a uniform. Who, precisely are you talking about?
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted? Again, note people jumping from really tall office buildings. Saddam supported Osama. Saddam must die.
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense? It IS self-defense. Again, note falling office workers.
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? I don't think those Westphalian dudes thought attacking innocent civilians were a good idea either. I bet they didn't have an argument against self-defense.
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war? So if you defend yourself, you're not civilized? France must be the most civilized nation on the planet (Note: WWII)
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? Uhh..so?
34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban? They at least helped us out now.
35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress? I do.
I used to be a Libertarian until 9-11. After I heard Harry Browne hem and haw about the "root causes" of terrorism, I detested the Libertarian party and I'm starting to not like Ron Paul very much either. He should look at pictures those people jumping to their deaths. He should read about the people burned alive or crushed. They did not deserve that suffering. They did not do anything to Osama and his band of angry men.
Saddam supported Osama, financially and militarily. They have a common enemy, us. Saddam cheered when the towers came down. When Japan attacked us we declared war on Germany simply because it was allied with Japan. When Osama attacked us we should declare war on Saddam simply because he is allied with Osama. We need no proof in a court of law. We need no approval of the French or the communist, jihad-loving, jew-hating, UN. We have to earn the respect of the souls who died going to work, and those who died trying to rescue the trapped.
We should declare war and follow the constitution. But we should wipe out every government who supported Osama in word and in deed. This includes the Saudis, the Mullahs, and the Syrians. This should scare the other states into not supporting terrorist madmen like Osama.
LOOK AT THOSE PEOPLE JUMPING FROM THE TOWERS!!!
NEVER FORGET!!! NEVER AGAIN!!!
Please excuse my crappy HTML. I'm just learning this stuff.
ROTFLMAO!
The only way to win this war is to kill everyone in Iraq and colonize it with Americans. I think that some Americans have this mistaken notion that Iraqi citizens are hoping we will liberate them or something. Make no mistake, aside from the few who we install in power the rest will actively fight against us as long as they live.
My question then is what are our goals? What do we hope to achieve? Its a question we could ask of Afganistan as well? How long will we occupy Afganistan before we give up like the Soviets did?
The Bush administration has never done more than speculate that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks and have admitted as much. The transactions from bin Laden associates thru banks in the UAE to the hijackers' accounts are all a matter of record. None of the trails lead to Iraq. All the evidence shows that this was a decentralized, semi-autonomous operation by al-Qaida operatives which required only around $300,000 to carry out.
Are you saying that only those who are fighting should have an opinion? If so, what are your qualifications to enter this argument?
Where on earth do you people get such ideas? Oops, slogans ..I really don't think you are capable of an idea.
That really is a nice way to answer a Constitutional argument. Maybe if you had a stronger argument, yourself, you would not need to hurl abuse. Nor would you need to exaggerate a situation, or a potential legal problem.
No one has ever suggested that the Armed Forces cannot respond to an attack, while Congress is waiting to act. Jefferson, the most conscientious Constitutionalist, did not hesitate to deal with the Barbary Pirates--and deal with them effectively, under his policy of "punishing the first insult." But he gave them back their ship, after the thrashing, because Congress had not authorized him to hold it.
If we have evidence that Iraq has attacked the U.S., since the termination of hostilities in 1991; an immediate retaliation would be appropriate. That does not necessarily justify a full blown invasion; nor can it possibly justify not consulting with Congress over that invasion, nor planning an actual offensive war, without Congressional approval.
There are a number of factors, here, which must be considered. To what extent is Iraq involved in current terrorist efforts against the United States? To justify a War on such a basis, there should be a clear connection. We do not randomly wage war on those who do not like us--however nasty they may be.
The second consideration must be, why us? There are many players, far nearer Iraq--and hence far more at risk from any reckless Iraqi foray with mass killing devices--who could easily crush Iraq. Starting with their neighbors in Turkey, spanning outward to Russia, as well as the other nuclear powers, including, Britain, France, Israel, Pakistan & India, all are far closer than the United States. If there is a clear need to retaliate for an attack, that is one thing. But dealing with a future threat? Why us?
I certainly have no sympathy with the Iraqi Socialist. It would certainly be infinitely preferable to see the Monarchy restored in Bagdad. But again, is that a mission for the United States? How and why? As for the cock-eyed idea of introducing "Democracy," that is really scary. If those planning an invasion have any such idea, they do not have a very clear grasp of the realities of the situation. What works in homogeneous Switzerland would not work in fractionalized Mesopotamia--particularly, after you humiliate the largest population group.
The sloganized idea that imposing a Democracy on a people--in clear ignorance of Madison's admonitions on the subject--is somehow the cure to problems, is ridiculous. Just look at the German experience in the 20th Century. The Weimar Republic was really a Democracy, and led rapdidly to the rise of Socialism under Adolph Hitler. True, he overthrew the existing Constitution--but he did so after forging the dominant party;--and then affirmed his Socialist Dictatorship in a plebiscite.
Does anyone really imagine that a "democratically" elected Government in Bagdad--even if it is composed of many people who hate Sadaam--is really going to love America?
Make no mistake. I repeat, that if Iraq is currently involved in attacks on the United States, we need to punish her severely. But let us make sure that we do not wreak a greater punishment on ourselves in the process--not from Iraqi military might, but from other consequences of an attack. Only a damn fool would want to rush in without a thorough assessment of all factors.
Finally, there is no place in the pursuit of political advantage, when the possibility of War is being discussed. One of the most loathsome things about LBJ was the fact that he waged the Viet Nam War in a manner better designed to pump the economy than bring the victory. If the Democratic Leadership is trying to maneuver for advantage, that is indeed contemptible. Let us not fall into the same trap, in expressing our disdain for their actions.
Some of Ron Paul's questions, seem redundant. Others do, even as some posters have suggested, seem disingenuous. But the main thrust is to make us think. And for that we should thank him, not denounce him.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Defending the US from immediate attack is one thing - the President has that power - but invading and attacking (even presupposing defensive use) a foreign country requires Congress to declare war (a vested leislative power which cannot be delegated).
If Saddam is responsible, Congress should declare war against Iraq (why have a Constitution if we don't follow it?) and W send in the military. I'm all for retaliation against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I will never forget the images of the people diving from the Towers.
It's all billbears rates on this one. Ron Paul signed on to a resolution that authorizes the use of force against the terrorists and all their sponsors. al-Qaeda didn't get anthrax from a comic book ad.
In other words, it's a WEE BIT LATE for ol' Ronnie to open his pie hole about this.
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.