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 ... 761-780781-800801-820821-830 next last
To: takenoprisoner
Did this character Isle of CA say he was in the Navy?

Only the Village People navy.

781 posted on 09/12/2002 9:36:10 AM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
Well done!
782 posted on 09/12/2002 9:36:29 AM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
">>>Harry Browne should sue Paul for plagiarism."

"Ain't it the truth!"

No, it's simply a case of, "great minds think alike."
783 posted on 09/12/2002 9:36:57 AM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
Thanks.

Oh, on second reading, I see I wrote "them 'enemies'". This was from coming back to something I'd started much earlier. The correct phrase would actually be something like:

1) "them ('enemies')", or

2) "those 'enemies'", or, of course,

3) "them thar 'enemies'"

;-)
Mark
784 posted on 09/12/2002 9:43:31 AM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 782 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
"His ratings are dropping like a stone. That 85% is based on his 11 years in office. He has gone from 76 to 70 in two years. If he is re-elected, and that is no lock, he will be at the same level as Kennedy by the end of his term. The man is losing it."

No, what's happening is that the American Conservative Union is becoming even more disgustingly socialistic and authoritarian than they already are.


785 posted on 09/12/2002 9:46:09 AM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
I didn't make the statement so why should I defend it?

Let me guess: you rode the short bus here.

786 posted on 09/12/2002 9:47:49 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
Mark writes: "What Congress CAN do, legitimately, is to declare "war" on the Saddam Hussein government of Iraq, and to authorize the President to wage that war according to the Constitution and appropriate treaties (e.g. the Geneva Convention). "

I agree with the Libertoids there. Congress should declare war on on the GOVERNMENT of Iraq. (and Syria, and Iran, and Saudi)...

Mark also writes: "Such a declaration of war would ALLOW the President to kill Saddam Hussein...but Saddam Hussein would have to be given the opportunity to surrender himself, to be tried in a U.S. court, as a "suspect" in 9/11/01."

Why??? Declare war and then kill him. Quick and clean. He's not a US citizen with rights. He's a foreign despot. If we declare war and some private puts a bullet between his eyes, good!
787 posted on 09/12/2002 9:55:35 AM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
I used to be a Libertarian until I heard Browne on Hannity right after 9-11 spewing the "root causes" garbage. I almost puked all over my steering wheel. No wonder Libertarians cannot win political office, they have creeps like Browne running for office. I almost pulled the lever for him too...</shudder>
788 posted on 09/12/2002 9:58:28 AM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
"They can say they are Buicks, but this doesn't mean you can drive them to work."

Touche'! I yield.

"I started to say that,but the whole 'issue letters of Marquis' thing confuses me,and I was too tired to try to think my way through it. I see the LOM as authorizing civilians to fight against selected groups of people,..."

I agree (at least it authorizes them to fight, if the group whose assets are being seized refuses to yield those assets without a fight). (Which most understandably wouldn't do.)

But LOMs have nothing to do with "war"...so it's irrelevant to present discussion (if I remember what the present discussion is...which I'm not sure I do).

To summarize: I was objecting to your use of the word "nations"...because, to me, "nations" includes everyone in that country. So I wanted you to use the word "governments"...that the Constitution allows the U.S. government to make war on other "governments," but not individuals or groups of people.

To really, really summarize: I think we're in perfect agreement on this matter, and I regret if my love of words made caused unnecessary friction.

Oops! Lunchtime's over!


789 posted on 09/12/2002 9:59:10 AM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
I know you know this, but the gov't hasn't followed the Constitution in years. Why start now?
790 posted on 09/12/2002 9:59:55 AM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Oops, lunch is over, but I need to respond to this:

"I agree with the Libertoids there."

Good. Because we're right. On virtually everything. (At least if "right" is used in the meaning of "far right.") ;-)

"Why??? Declare war and then kill him. Quick and clean."

That is against The Law. The Law (the Constitution) prohibits "Bills of Attainder." Congress can't give the President permission to kill anyone, anywhere...without that person having the opportunity to surrender himself for trial in a court of law.

"He's not a US citizen with rights."

Saddam Hussein's "rights" are not the issue, here. The issue is that The Law (of the U.S.) prohibits Congress from allowing the President to direct the military to kill someone, without that someone being given an opportunity to surrender for trial. No "Bills of Attainder." Period. Case closed.
791 posted on 09/12/2002 10:06:45 AM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Oops. This is it (#@$%, now I'll have to take PTO to cover this):

"I know you know this, but the gov't hasn't followed the Constitution in years. Why start now?"

I assume this is a rhetorical question?

If I told you that I have been sinning for years, would you tell me, "That's OK...why stop now?"

792 posted on 09/12/2002 10:09:42 AM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
This can't be done.

Pete, I agree with you as often as I do with anyone on here, but I respectfully disagree on this.

First, I really feel we have no choice. And, second, I believe it is possible for several reasons"

1)I'm not talking Special Ops of the type demonstrated in Afghanistan. The operations would involve (in many if not most instances) very small groups (at times individuals) engaging in assassination, arson, and demolition ... decidedly NOT street fighting, cave crunching and larger scale Afghan type operations.

2) The seeking out and identification of sites would be carried out by (vastly improved and better financed) CIA operatives.

3 I am still laboring under the impression that we are talking about a mission of very long duration.

Nope, can't do it. Illegal, and a war crime.

Gotta disagree again Pete. This is TOTALLY new ball game requiring 180 turnarounds in thinking. The old rules applied to warring NATIONS not pockets of insane terrorists. Which is more humane, my proposition or the bombing of innocent civilians? The fire- bombing of past wars or the assassination of evil individuals? We, the civilized, are being forced to think the unthinkable ... example the bombing of certain Mosques!

793 posted on 09/12/2002 10:29:38 AM PDT by iconoclast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
Of course it's a rhetorical question. It was also sarcasm.
794 posted on 09/12/2002 10:36:05 AM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
"Because we're right. On virtually everything. " Uhhh...no.

BTW, if a U.S. soldier ACCIDENTALLY shoots Saddam, oh well, can't be helped, war is hell, case closed.

One thing Libertarians do which drives me nuts is they cheer people who carry handguns against the law, or smoke weed against the law (all of which may or may not have merit) as a form of protest. "It's resistance," they say. However, when some dictator is threatening American Citizens they bring up the Law saying stuff like, "No, you cannot kill Saddam, it's against the Bill of Attainment clause in the Constitution.

Either it's okay to break the law at times or it isn't you cannot have it both ways.

Also, I'm not saying YOU'RE like this Mark, but many Libertines seem to be.
795 posted on 09/12/2002 10:41:43 AM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
What's PTO and don't get messed up at work on my account.
796 posted on 09/12/2002 10:47:57 AM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
What's PTO and don't get messed up at work on my account?
797 posted on 09/12/2002 10:51:17 AM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner; Zviadist
That the founders included an amendment process proves that they saw the need for the constitution to evolve over time. One problem is that we haven't used the amendment process in far too long. Take abortion for example. If there was a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion it would be 'constitutional' (it would still be morally wrong, but that's a different argument.) But the judiciary has done an end-run around the amendment process by interpreting rights into the constitution that do not clearly exist. I respect the constitution and the men who created it; they were clearly ahead of their time. But I WILL NOT treat either the constitution or the founders as deities or insist that they were capable of perfect creation. There were obvious flaws in the constitution when it was created (slavery?) and there are flaws in it now (income tax.) Jefferson's message was general in which he pointed out the obvious fact that times change. The constitution has and should change with the times. It should just do so in a more above board manner than judicial fiat...

BTW - Zviadist, go pester somebody else you little insignificant twit.. Your mama's calling you.
798 posted on 09/12/2002 12:02:50 PM PDT by Isle of sanity in CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: Isle of sanity in CA
"The constitution is just a piece of paper"
--Isle of sanity in CA
799 posted on 09/12/2002 12:13:09 PM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Did this character Isle of CA say he was in the Navy?

Yes. And you ask this because...?

800 posted on 09/12/2002 12:13:23 PM PDT by Isle of sanity in CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820821-830 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