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?
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?
...before I realized the normally admirable Ron Paul has lost his marbles concerning Iraq. Just that line alone puts him with Dasshole's "Wait until they can destroy us before we attack" mode.
Well put!
So you alone in the world contend that Iraq was really behind the 9/11 attacks... Truly delusional.
And whatever you do, don't mistake most of the Republican party for conservatives either. Sadly, with the doubletalk voiced on Capitol Hill I can't tell much of a difference anymore between Republicans and Democrats. Look at the issues on some of the more 'conservative' candidates running and having received PSVRs (party suggested voting recommendations). Better public schools, high tariffs, and better healthcare provided by the government? I'm starting to think these folks are going to have wear colorcoded uniforms to remind me whose Democrat and Republican
And that would be...?
This is one of the embedded-lies questions... 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?
Sure. And how many of those hundreds of resolutions have to do with the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction by a nation that, suddenly and entirely without provocation, invaded a neighboring country for the express purpose of destroying and assimilating it? 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?
Just as much as shooting an armed assailant with a known past history as a murderer, who is threatening your home and safety, is "an act of aggression, immoral and illegitimate." Yes, by all means, wait until he shoots you before you act. We wouldn't want to be immoral about this, would we? This is another embedded lie: shooting first is always immoral.
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?
Embedded lie. Who would you be referring to? Condoleeza Rice?
In any event, it's clear that our top civilian political leaders are at at least as much personal risk (and probably more) in the event of a war than our top military leaders.
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
Embedded lie.
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?
It takes two civilized societies to settle disagreements without war -- not one civilized society and Adolph Hitler.
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?
What do you call the Gulf War? What do you call the action in Afghanistan? Embedded lie.
35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?
Perhaps it's because we have too many Congressmen like you.
Quite true.
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?
Yes, that's the idea--clean up the problem BEFORE it's a real threat. Sheesh, some people are just STOO-PID.
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?
Uh, Ronnie, me boy...we can be reasonably sure that Saddam is bending every effort to acquire these weapons, in part by his determined efforts to evade inspection.
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?
And they were able to do it in 1990. A year later, we had solid evidence that they'd been working overtime on deceiving the IAEA, which is why the tighter UN inspection regime was put in place as part of the cease-fire terms.
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?
And Abu Nidal was just another tourist in Baghdad, eh?
Ron, I used to think you were intelligent. Then I thought you were moronic. Now, I believe the term is "maliciously willful stupidity."
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?
Absence of evidence cannot be counted as evidence of absence.
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?
Nope. There's leaks galore going in all directions on that one. No official conclusion has been publicly released.
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?
Nope. It's under no one's particular control.
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?
Same as #8--the area in question has historically been ungoverned, a Libertarian paradise, Ronnie.
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"
As for Afghanistan being in chaos: that's the status quo ante 1979. As for UN reports, IIRC, Ronnie, you don't attach any credence to the UN.
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?
Yeah, that's real bright--let's wait until AFTER Saddam gives Osama's kids a nuke or two to play with.
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?
And why should we give two s**ts and a holler what the Arab world thinks of us, so long as they have a sufficiently fearful attitude?
Personally, I am beginning to think that being a follower of Islam is prima facie evidence of a desire to commit crimes against humanity.
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?
Uh, because he has the same kinds of ambitions, perchance?
Remember, Hitler didn't have an army worth a damn in 1933, no navy, and no air force. Look where he got to by 1939.
14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress?
Did not Congress give its approval for the President to b!tch-slap one and all terrorist-sponsoring nations?
Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion?
Congress HAS concurred, you silly bunt.
Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?
I don't see Bush doing that.
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?
Are you aware that that report was drafted when the Iranians were enemy Numero Uno in the region, and Saddam was a convenient pawn?
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?
Nope, at least not in those numbers. If they did die in those numbers, however, it kinda refutes your earlier arguments that Iraq doesn't have WMDs, doesn't it?
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?
Were we prepared for 3,000 casualties on 9/11?
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?
I seem to recall this prediction from Round 1. Came about as true as one of Clinton's campaign promises.
Weak, Ronnie, weak.
How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?
We can use the oil to pay the occupation costs.
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?
Ronnie: they are not "alleged" violations.
As for other violations: sorry, Ronnie, I'm not going to engage in your brand of intellectual weasel-whacking.
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?
The original idea was to simply eject Iraq from Kuwait. Since then, Saddam has shown that "he needs killin'," to use the Texan vernacular.
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?
They are in place to enforce specific UN resolutions. The resolutions themselves are the approval, as they grant UN members authority to enforce them.
Geez, Ronnie, you can do better than that...
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?
If this question had a point, would anyone ever recognize it?
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?
So frickin' what? We support those who support our interests. Period.
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?
No, I'm not, but I have a feeling, based on your fundamentally dishonest arguments, that the report is considerably less than you claim.
25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran?
Ronnie, Ronnie, Ronnie...he was IN power.
Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?
I haven't seen anyone doing so.
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?
Yes, it's not true.
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
Because it does stabilize oil markets in the long run.
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?
Ronnie, I never knew you were a Berkeley Birkenstocker...
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
There ain't any. Too bad for your argument that this isn't the case with Iraq.
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
Actually, the Constitution doesn't limit the power to wage war solely to 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?
Again, it's not true.
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?
Civiliaztion CREATED war, you dumbf**k!
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?
Unknown if it is coincidental or not. However, almost all American wars have concluded with less-than-clear-cut victories, which you would know if you had actually bothered to read some history.
34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?
It's true. It's also irrelevant, because the Talibunnies quickly spun out of Pakistan's control.
35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?
Because there are too many lefty pinkos in the Senate, good sir.
I would advise you read H.J.Res. 64 before you spout.
Please refer to question 14:
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?
Actually it is you who are in Daschle's camp (and Gephardt's as well). They have both indicated enthusiasm for this war. Next...
You mean the ones who have never bothered to serve in the military themselves, and who would probably pee themselves if they came face to face with a gun? Oh yeah, those "conservatives."
1. True, but irrelevant.
2. True, but entirely misses the point, unless Ron Paul thinks we should absorb a new attack with many more dead, before acting.
3. False. Even the erratic Scott Ritter has said that Iraq already has WMD, now, just not the nuclear one.
4. True, but irrelevant. Any Member of Congress who wants to leave the safety of Americans in the hands of a UN group should resign from Congress today.
5. False. Ron Paul has not been following the news of late.
6. True, but irrelevant. The operative word is "confirmed." It will be "confirmed" that Iraw has a nuclear bomb when a smuggled one takes an American city off the map with millions dead. Does Ron Paul insist that we wait for that?
7. The CIA is "not sure." Prague is "sure." But the case does NOT depend on a single meeting, but on 20 years of Hussein's history of murder by various means.
8. False. Territorial control in Iraq is "fluid" at distance from Baghdad. It is "solid" and deadly, at the center.
9. Not necessarily true, and irrelevant in any case. If Ron Paul knows exactly where the "vast majority of Al Qaeda" have gone, he should inform the Department of Defense of his new-found wisdom. Besides, Pakistan is "next door." Iraq is not.
10. Both false, and moronic. Afghanistan is no "peaceful paradise," but it is light-years ahead of what it was.
11. Dumb question. Our tactics are not either/or. They are both/and.
12. Does Ron Paul actually give a damn what the US reputation is in the Arab world, other than that it is not a good idea to mess with the US of A?
13. Apparently Ron Paul has not cracked a history book. Hitler at one time was in charge of only a couuple dozen losers in a Bavarian beer hall. Wouldn't the world have been a lot better if he'd been stopped then?
14. Incredibly stupid question. See the answer to 33, below.
15. Stupid question. Iran had no quarrel with the Kurds who were gassed to death. They opposed Hussein, which made them useful to Iran. Ron Paul hasn't been doing his homework.
16. False. Not doing his homework again.
17. Another stupid question. Iraq has the same ability to attack the US now that Al Qaeda had on 11 September, 2001.
18. Wars are properly fought to defend lives. How much are American lives worth to Ron Paul? And, we did not have to occupy either Japan or Germany for 30 years after WW II.
19. So what? If American lives are at risk, violation of UN resolutions is the least of the problem.
20. Apparently Ron Paul has not read the declaration of war that Congress passed in 1991 for the Gulf War. See also the answer to 33.
21. False. The "no-fly" zones were part of the truce which ended the UN-approved Gulf War.
22. Again, rotten homework by Ron Paul. Article V of the UN Charter guarantees to every nation the "right of self-defense."
23. Some dictators are threatening the US with WMD. That makes THEM more dangerous than the others.
24. In the Iran-Iraq War, we "tilted" toward the then-perceived lesser of two evils. That decision was as logical, and as sleazy, as our acceptance of Joe Stalin as an ally in WW II.
25. False.
26. False.
27. Irrelevant.
28. False.
29. Saving American lives.
30. This is self-defense. And in any event, the Constitution does not limit the reasons why Congress chooses to declare war.
31. The ONLY legitimate purpose of warfare is regime change. We did not fight Hitler just to get him to withdraw from Poland.
32. If BOTH nations are civilized, then yes. If one nation is barbarian, then irrelevant.
33. Dead wrong. Congress declared war in 1991, and again in 2001. Ron Paul voted for Senate Joint Resolution 23, which declared war, on 18 September, 2001. If he didn't READ it then, he should read it now, and shut his mouth with his ignorant questions until he has done so.
34. Yes. So?
35. See answer 33. Not only was the declaration brought to the floor, but Ron Paul voted for it. For the precise text that Congressman Paul voted for, click the second link below. Had he voted no, that would have doubled the nay votes to two.
Glad I could be of service, since obviously neither Rep. Paul nor his staff have done their staff work.
Congressman Billybob
Click for major article on turnover in the House of Representatives: "Til Death Do Us Part."
Click for latest column: "The Star-Spangled Banner, Part II, & More Lies from the Media"
Let's save our fighting boys for the real battles that lay ahead. The reason behind the neo-cons' obsession with Iraq may be a mystery but the fact that their obsession is not based on the lies they're telling us is clear.
According to George Bush, Osama bin Laden did. However, since the War on [insert noun] has devolved into Afghan nation-building, and the al-Qaida leadership are all in Karachi, the government had to find a new enemy to distract you from Bush's pledge of a year ago: "Osama bin Laden--dead or alive."
What do you call the Gulf War? What do you call the action in Afghanistan? Embedded lie.If we "won" the Gulf War, why are we talking about going back in, genius? And if Afghanistan is "won", why have all the al-Qaeda gotten away and why are our servicemen playing guard duty with the Afghani "president"? You call this victory? Sounds like something the French would say. I'd hate to have you be in charge of a war.
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.