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 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 821-830 next last
To: CharacterCounts
First time I have ever beeb accused of being a liberal. But then I just consider the source.

To a Bircher EVERYONE is a liberal.

361 posted on 09/10/2002 6:20:45 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: copycat
"Germany, Britain, and Saudi Arabia were not "harboring" AQ operatives."

Saudi Arabia wasn't harboring AQ operatives? Geez, I wonder why 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis?
362 posted on 09/10/2002 6:20:59 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
The Geneva convention also does not extend protections to combatants not in identifiable uniform. Those combatants are subject to summary execution.

Summary executions are cool. :^)

363 posted on 09/10/2002 6:21:01 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Is that florid in the koolaide?
364 posted on 09/10/2002 6:21:27 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
Where does the Constitution state that the Congress must declare war (authorize the use of force) against nations only? It only says they have the power to declare war (authorize the use of force.) They have done so.
365 posted on 09/10/2002 6:21:32 PM PDT by copycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Is that florid in the koolaide?

I have been waiting for 40 years for the all clear on Fluoride. I am getting very thirsty.

366 posted on 09/10/2002 6:23:17 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
Harboring, Mark...............words matter, remember?

Harboring.
367 posted on 09/10/2002 6:24:06 PM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Damn, I guess I made that florid flouride...kind of fitting. I still say this is the result of wheening them too soon.
368 posted on 09/10/2002 6:24:25 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
The Constitution says our president is responsible for the defense of the Constitution. Why does Paul want to rely on U.N. reports?

The Constitution states that Congress is responsible for declaring war, not the President. Until detailed U.S. reports are made available to Congress Paul will have to make do with what is available. In other words he doesn't just take the word of the Administration, unlike many sheeples on this site.

369 posted on 09/10/2002 6:24:38 PM PDT by FreeLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
OK mister literal one, Tell me where in this language it is required that the U.S. can only declare war against a government:

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power ...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

370 posted on 09/10/2002 6:25:09 PM PDT by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: one_particular_harbour
You ever gotten enough info to put forth a valid educated
guess about a given situation? If you're like me, you have to do that
daily.

The art of management is making irrevocable decisions
based on insufficient information.   You betcha.  And
over the years, I finally got to where I was more often
right than wrong.

The administration has not produced sufficient
linkage between Iraq and 9/11 to justify our
invasion and overthrow of that regime.

Hell, even LBJ had to have his Tonkin.
It takes more that a gut feeling of the
chief executive...or so the Constitution
says, not that that matters anymore.

371 posted on 09/10/2002 6:25:12 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
Saudi Arabia wasn't harboring AQ operatives? Geez, I wonder why 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis?

You argue like a teenager. (Are you?) To my knowledge, Saudi Arabia was not "harboring" Al Queda operatives.

harbor

\Har"bor\, v. t. [Written also harbour.] [imp. & p. p. Harbored; p. pr. & vb. n. Harboring.] [OE. herberen, herberwen, herbergen; cf. Icel. herbergja. See Harbor, n.] To afford lodging to; to enter as guest; to receive; to give a refuge to; indulge or cherish (a thought or feeling, esp. an ill thought).

372 posted on 09/10/2002 6:25:46 PM PDT by copycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: FreeLibertarian
The Constitution states that Congress is responsible for declaring war, not the President. Until detailed U.S. reports are made available to Congress Paul will have to make do with what is available. In other words he doesn't just take the word of the Administration, unlike many sheeples on this site.

Show me where the Constitution says the president may not defend this country without a declaration of war frm Congress.

373 posted on 09/10/2002 6:26:39 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The administration has not produced sufficient linkage between Iraq and 9/11 to justify our invasion and overthrow of that regime.

No linkage is required by the joint resolution.

374 posted on 09/10/2002 6:26:43 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
"If the Geneva Convention says that the president can't protect this country against people and our Constitution says our president has a duty to protect out Constitution agains all enemies, then our Constitution rules."

The Constitution says our president's duty is to protect the ***Constitution*** not The People.

The ***Constitution*** doesn't give the President the power to wage war without a Congressional declaration of war. The president's OATH is to follow the Constitution.

President Bush (like all Presidents of the 20th century) massively violates the Constitution.

375 posted on 09/10/2002 6:26:49 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

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

Why are you trying to change the subject? What has a chickenhawk got to do with child molestation? Are you sure you're on the correct web-site? Maybe you thought you were on a kiddy porn site.

376 posted on 09/10/2002 6:28:16 PM PDT by FreeLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Please elaborate. I thought it was taxation without representation. The founding fathers were actually more worried about what Great Britain was doing in India and Australia, etc.?

I'm not saying that necessarily. But are you suggesting that one farseeing intent of the Founders was to establish an Empire much in the same format of that which they left? Maybe for the Hamiltonian kooks it may be, but for the rest of them, even most Federalists, it was to be a loose fitting union with little power at the top. Even your Federalist papers would point that out. The Republic as was established IS gone forever. What do we have left? Nothing that the Founders would approve of

377 posted on 09/10/2002 6:29:14 PM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: copycat
harbor \Har"bor\, v. t. [Written also harbour.] [imp. & p. p. Harbored; p. pr. & vb. n. Harboring.] [OE. herberen, herberwen, herbergen; cf. Icel. herbergja. See Harbor, n.] To afford lodging to; to enter as guest; to receive; to give a refuge to; indulge or cherish (a thought or feeling, esp. an ill thought).

No, according to Andy Rooney, a harbor is a body of water that accommodates ships and a body of water only.

378 posted on 09/10/2002 6:29:22 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: billbears
post 35. is there an unabridged consitution I can play with. LMAO
379 posted on 09/10/2002 6:29:45 PM PDT by aSkeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: FreeLibertarian
The Constitution states that Congress is responsible for declaring war,

No it does NOT. It only gives the Congress the power to do so and Congress can exercise that POWER in any way it deems appropriate which means it can authorize the President to take military action via an authorizing statute.

380 posted on 09/10/2002 6:29:48 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 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