Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul: Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq
House Floor ^ | 10 Sept 02 | Dr. Ron Paul

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?


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: ronpaullist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 821-830 next last
To: Texasforever
The American Conservative Union are socialists, as can be seen from their ratings system. For example, the American Conservative Union supports federal funding of education.

According to the New American Magazine, Ron Paul is second only to Tom Tancredo in 2001:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/672744/posts?page=39#39

261 posted on 09/10/2002 4:59:17 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Ron Paul has a conservative rating of 70 for 2001, 76 for 2000 and only 85 lifetime

Pattern: Ron Paul getting less and less conservative as time goes on. By 2005 he should score similar to Ted Kennedy..

262 posted on 09/10/2002 5:00:11 PM PDT by Isle of sanity in CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Why thanks Tex!
263 posted on 09/10/2002 5:01:35 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: The Federal Farmer
Seal it off? How? The war is now international terror. It finances. How do you seal off the money to the cells? The logistics and intelligence coordination? This is the Iraqi threat, not that it will send the Republican Guard to New York. If the "den of rattlesnakes" was located strictly in Iraq, by all means, build a fence around the country. But the snakes are in Prague, Hamburg, Khartoum and anywhere else that is convenient.

The policy of containment is absurd when applied in this context. The emergence of the doctrine of pre-emptive strike is an essential component of a successful anti-terror strategy.

The "dumb move" here is no movement.

One more thing--the "pants peeing" will be done by those commanding these so-called nations who watch the resolve of this great country when it is applied--with all of its might--to outlaw regimes like Iraq. I believe just the opposite--those nations cooperating with us to stop terror (which ones, by the way?) will really get on board when the rubber hits the road in Baghdad. Saudi Arabia first, followed quickly by Iran (which will find its way in any event) and Syria.
264 posted on 09/10/2002 5:01:51 PM PDT by Zebra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
I agree. Canada and Mexico are both WAAAY too close to the US,and they could eventually build up to the point where they attack us. I saw we bomb them back into the stone age,NOW! Are ye with me?

Woooooooooooo, we are with YA, pete!!!!!!

Wooooooooo, they might have WMD. One of Mexico's ambassadors was once in Iraq. You know what that means. Polls say 89% favor a pre-emptive on Mexico.

We must hunt down terrorists wherever they may be. Get ready Mexico, we are coming....

265 posted on 09/10/2002 5:02:21 PM PDT by SirAngus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: monday
Make no mistake, aside from the few who we install in power the rest will actively fight against us as long as they live.

Nonsense.

266 posted on 09/10/2002 5:03:35 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: UbIwerks
You Libertarians are in favor of child molestation. Who are you guys to talk about chickenhawks?

Hahahahaha  .......

267 posted on 09/10/2002 5:03:40 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
"Confession is good for the soul."

His "confession" is that he basically wants to follow the Constitution (which doesn't give G.W. Bush the power to decide with whom the U.S. is or is not at war).
268 posted on 09/10/2002 5:04:45 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
Yeah the John Birch Society is a real influential source. LMAO
269 posted on 09/10/2002 5:04:58 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
His "confession" is that he basically wants to follow the Constitution (which doesn't give G.W. Bush the power to decide with whom the U.S. is or is not at war).

When Bush does that then get back to me.

270 posted on 09/10/2002 5:05:45 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
! I don't trust the motives behind this war,

I do trust them. There is a election coming up,and the motives are they need to keep the poll numbers up,despite the economy tanking. This doesn't mean I like them,though.

271 posted on 09/10/2002 5:06:48 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
You're an assh*le. You are not intelligent enough to even make an effort to debate. Next time you address me I will hit the abuse button. Try me. Please.
272 posted on 09/10/2002 5:07:44 PM PDT by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: nicollo
"Since Congress is a pu**y, the President can do whatever he wants."

Sort of like, "might makes right," eh? The President can ignore The Law, because Congress--and the American p**ple--are too gutless to impeach him, and remove him from office?
273 posted on 09/10/2002 5:08:09 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
do trust them. There is a election coming up,and the motives are they need to keep the poll numbers up,despite the economy tanking. This doesn't mean I like them,though.

This "wag the dog" bulls%%T is really getting old. Stuff it.

274 posted on 09/10/2002 5:08:39 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: gunshy
You're an assh*le. You are not intelligent enough to even make an effort to debate. Next time you address me I will hit the abuse button. Try me. Please.

You conceded the point. I thought the debate had ended. Push away.

275 posted on 09/10/2002 5:09:51 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: john in missouri
At this point, it is hardly arguable that it's a matter of when, not if, Hussein has the capability of delivering nuclear disaster upon us. It's a chance not worth taking, IMO.

- what about using this logic with Communist China? Isn't Russia signing a multi billion economic pact with Iraq? Doesn't that make them our enemy now too? Both China and Russia have weapons of mass destruction. China has threatened us in the past. But in their case we help make them "rich." We ask for their "help" in this war. Doesn't anybody find this ludicrous? Does anything we do make sense anymore?

I fear China far more than I fear Iraq.

276 posted on 09/10/2002 5:09:56 PM PDT by willa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
"When Bush does that then get back to me."

He's ALREADY done it! He went to war against the Taliban without a Congressional declaration of war.
277 posted on 09/10/2002 5:10:23 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
Baloney.
278 posted on 09/10/2002 5:11:16 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Isle of sanity in CA
"Pattern: Ron Paul getting less and less conservative as time goes on."

No. What's really happening is the American Conservative Union is getting more and more National Socialist as time goes on.
279 posted on 09/10/2002 5:12:37 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Why is it that a bunch of libertarians think they are responsible for deciding who is conservative and who should represent the Republican party? I think it's 'party envy'. Most are decent enough, but some just follow you around conservative forums like an annoying kid brother. They need their own playground...
280 posted on 09/10/2002 5:14:53 PM PDT by Isle of sanity in CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 821-830 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson