Ron Paul: 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?

"Because we're right. On virtually everything. "--->"Uhhh...no."

Uhhh...yes. I was using "right" in terms of "right-left." The only consistent way to look at "right" versus "left" is to say that "left" is where the government controls everything, and "right" is where the government controls nothing (i.e., anarchy).

Since there is no Anarchist party, the Libertarian Party represents the absolute farthest "right" party in the United States. That's the truth. The Republican Party is so far to the left of the Libertarian Party that it's not even funny. (It's depressing.)

"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."

I don't agree that "Libertarians" (meaning the majority of Libertarians) do either of those things. But even if they did, "as a form of protest" (which I don't agree is the reason, either)...what of it? Those violations of the law hurt no one.

"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.'"

It's Bill of Attainder. And it was put in the Constitution for a very good reason: English Kings found it to be very easy to have their Parliaments take a person's property--or even life--without any trial to establish that those persons had broken any law. Juries of one's peers are more difficult to sway, because juries aren't partnered with the King in ruling the land, but are instead citizens, like the accused.

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

This seems to be a matter of confusion here at Free Republic. Libertarians' (or at least *this* Libertarian's) views on the matter don't conflict at all.

It is *generally* morally right for a *citizen* to follow The Law. It is actually *immoral*, in my opinion, for a citizen to follow an *immoral* law, especially in a manner that hurts a fellow citizen. "Immoral" laws, in my opinion, consist of laws that are both: 1) illegitimate, and 2) unnecessarily harmful. For example, I would *never* vote to convict on a federal charge involving medical marijuana. (In fact, a jury in California recently sentenced a man to up to 15 years in federal prison on just such a charge.)

The reason what that jury did was immoral--again, in my opinion--was that: 1) federal medical marijuana laws are unconstitutional, and this illegitimate, and 2) medical marijuana laws are unnecessarily harmful, because both parties are willing participants in the transaction.

So it's *generally* immoral for citizens to break the law. But it is ALWAYS immoral for elected government officials to break The Law (when they are making laws, or disregarding them).

The reason it's ALWAYS immoral for elected government officials to break The Law (e.g., the Constitution) is because they swear an OATH (to G@d, in most cases!) to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, they are breaking an oath when THEY break The Law.

I don't see at all what the problem is for G.W. Bush to *demand* that the Congress give an up-or-down vote on whether or not to declare war on Saddam Hussein. Bush and all members of Congress take an oath to follow the Constitution, and I don't see--in this case, especially--why any one of them should have trouble honoring that oath.

Yeah, right! They would have laughed at someone who wants to follow--to the letter--the document that THEY produced!

Well, YES! They began trying to change the constitution almost from the day it was finalized. There was alot of disagreement and compromises that went into it's creation. Libertarians think it's a divine document straight from the mouth of god. It isn't. It started off pretty good and improved over time. That's why there was an AMENDMENT PROCESS... Because they understood that a)it wasn't perfect and b)it NEEDED to change over time. I know this offends/scares/confuses some Libertarians, but you'll get used to it after a while... ;-)

They would have laughed at a bunch of good-intentioned people decided it was better to lose the battle/sit on the sidelines that to compromise. (Libertarians) They were FULL of COMPROMISE. They did the best they could. Republicans do the best they can. Founders weren't perfect. Republicans weren't perfect. But founders/republicans are out making things happen, while libertarians just watch and complain... :-)

"What I meant by the 'follow the law' statement was how some 'Libertarians' on this board were trying to apply domestic civil law to Saddam (i.e. not enough evidence)."

As every good Libertarian knows (I'm just making this up...what I mean is that *I* "know" it ;-))...there ARE only "domestic" laws. There's no such thing...to THIS Libertarian, at least...as "international" law. There ARE treaties...like the Geneva Convention...with which the U.S. federal government says it will comply. But there is no "controlling authority" (to borrow a phrase)...greater than the U.S. federal government.

I understand your frustration with what may seem to you to be an "obstruction" thrown in the way of "killing a bad man."

But the rules of the Constitution (that Congress MUST declare war...and that even Congress can't order the death of someone not convicted of a crime) protect US!

Who do you think is the most dangerous man in the world, right now?.......

OK, and who do you think *I* will name as the "most dangerous man in the world"?

...my nomination is for G.W. Bush. Why? Because G.W. Bush has so vastly much more POWER...and because he's already given abundant evidence that he will use that power illegitimately (in violation of the Constitution).

To give you an analogy: over Labor Day, I was back at my parents house. I was using a saber saw. A saber saw by itself is dangerous, simply because it's powerful. But my Dad's saw had a problem, where the saw blade would "stick"...and wouldn't start moving, if it was in certain positions. So I had to pull the blade down to a better position, and THEN turn on the saw. (But, of course, I didn't go an unplug the saw every time it "stuck"...which was about 1/2 the time I tried to turn it on.)

That's just really, really dangerous. I was very careful to avoid turning on the saw...but if I'd accidently--somehow--turned on the saw while I was pulling down that blade, I could have very easily lost a finger (or two).

Scary.

The United States military is, without question, the most powerful human force on earth. That means it must be used with only the most extraordinary caution. And it ESPECIALLY shouldn't be used in a way that violates The Law!

Everybody knows Saddam Hussein is a bad man. But what about Salah Idris? What about his custodian? And what about their sick customers?

You probably don't know who I'm talking about...but Salah Idris was the owner (private owner!) of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. And his custodian (whose name I don't even know) was the poor devil who was killed in the U.S. cruise missile attack. And it's quite likely that literally THOUSANDS of sick people did in Sudan, because our country blew up that pharmaceutical plant.

But...if you don't care about innocent people outside our country, killed directly because of the wrongs WE did, what about:

1) the Branch Davidians?

2) Randy Weaver, and his family?

Those are the sort of things that happen when the U.S. government starts violating The Law.

"While I've considered myself a 'Libertarian', though I've never voted LP,..."

You can not be a Libertarian...or even a "libertarian" (small l), if you don't vote for the Libertarian Party. You can be a "freedom loving conservative" (to quote a certain FR poster)...but you can't be a Libertarian (or even libertarian).

There isn't any party even CLOSE to being libertarian, except for the Libertarian Party...which is purely libertarian.

If you really agree with the Libertarian Party (that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect people from physical harm and fraud) you should be voting Libertarian. (Or, if in Ron Paul's district, you could vote for him. :-))

"OK, and who do you think *I* will name as the "most dangerous man in the world"?

...my nomination is for G.W. Bush. Why? Because G.W. Bush has so vastly much more POWER...and because he's already given abundant evidence that he will use that power illegitimately (in violation of the Constitution). "

Man, I'm starting to think you're losing it. True, Bush has more power than Saddam Hussein. But the fact of Saddam supporting terrorists who intentionally killed over 3,000 innocent civilians is vastly worse than Bush sidestepping his Constitutional authority. BTW, I reread the war clause and it's as follows:

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

I don't how any authorization of force by congress doesn't comply with this? It just says declare war. I doesn't limit it to government, countries, actually using the words "declare war" (though they have a much more dramatic impact). How does a majority vote in congress authorizing force against Iraq not comply with this?

Why didn't you just unplug the saw? I mean it's not that tough. Also, if it kept jumping, just get it fixed. Much better than risking your fingers.

You can not be a Libertarian...or even a "libertarian" (small l), if you don't vote for the Libertarian Party. You can be a "freedom loving conservative" (to quote a certain FR poster)...but you can't be a Libertarian (or even libertarian).

Labels, labels. Hey, we can see the word two different ways. I differentiate a big L as an LP voting type of individual, and a little l as libertarian leaning Republican. Last time I checked, there was no hard and fast definintion.

Additionally, it's my belief, that our government hasn't really been following the Constitution for a while and won't for a long time to come. Too many pigs are at the trough.

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.