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?
Thank you. This means a lot after being attacked by what seems like 100 to 1 odds.
Go ahead and admit it,you are a whiney little weasel who is jealous of VN combat vets,and your only resort is to attack them using Hollywood stereotypes.
I think it is just a example of sarcastic humor.
So what? He wasn't a part of the terrorist operation that made the attacks in NYC and DC.
And more evidence is being found to link him with the OKC and 9/11 crowd.
Oh,yeah. We're going to keep looking until we find it,even if we have to manufacture it ourselves.
You can wait for the next WTC if you want.
Let me ask you this,ok? Given that we have limited military resources to deploy (and we do),don't you think it would be better to use them against the actual people who attacked us?
This can't be done. It takes a couple of years to even do the basic training these people need to be accepted onto a team,and then they have to train together on the team before they really become effective. Not only that,but the pool of applicants is pretty shallow because you have to have a GT score of at least 110 to even be accepted for the training. This is the same GT score you need to apply to become a officer. This means that many of the people who are bright enough don't apply because they would be NCO's in SF.
We then face the problem of being motivated to volunteer for this sort of thing to start with,as well as being airborne qualifed and in superb physical condition. It takes people who are willing and able to make their own decisions "on the fly",and this is a killer for most careers in the conventional military. Add to that the fact that the majority of the SF volunteers are on their second or thired enlistments,and come from outfits like the Ranger Battalions and the 82nd Airborne Division. They already have this background and training BEFORE they apply for the 2 year SF training course.
It's true that it is now possible to enlist specifically for Special Forces training and duty,but I have been told this is a 6 year enlistment for people who are "coming in off the streets". That's a pretty serious committement for somebody who has never spent a single day in the army to make. Especially when you consider most of them don't pass the training,and end up in the 82nd Airborne or some other conventional infantry division,and STILL have a 6 year enlistment to work off.
The sad fact is it takes time,experience,and maturity to create a good SF soldierm,and there are no shortcuts.
Their mission, assassination.
Nope,can't do it. Illegal,and a war crime.
Were have you been? Some pilots refused to unload on the defenseless. Milosevic is making the case in the Hague that NATO is the criminal party.
Was it cowardly to hunker down during 78 days of bombing?
Was it cowardly for Serbia to take on the muslim terrorists?
It was cowarly to sell out Serbia to our declared enemies, the Islamists.
And there never will be.
We need to really put this country on a war footing.
This ain't gonna happen because the ONLY way this would be possible would be to activate the draft,and this ain't gonna happen. The soccermoms who are screaming for blood now,would be screaming bloody murder if their sons got drafted and sent to fight.
I'm ready to fight for my country.
Good! And I'm ready to do my best to make sure that when you DO end up doing this,you are fighting and risking your valuable life against the right enemy. Your life and the lives of your fellow soldiers are too valuable to "waste". When and if you ever put your lives and your futures on the line,there had better be a damn good reason for it!
I want to prevent another 9-11.
So does everybody else,but this is impossible without turning us and the whole world into a police state. I'd rather risk another attack.
None of this really matters. The upcoming war with Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorists or punishing those who attacked us. We are going to attack them because they are a "easy" target,and because everybody already hates them. It's all about keeping the poll numbers up for the coming mid-term elections,and that's all it's about.
I didn't say it wasn't permitted. It may be,esecially when it comes to organized groups. I just said it wasn't done.
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.