Important Questions About War in Iraq

Website ^ | 03 Sept 02 | Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

[Zviadist]

The evidence is in the statements of defectors which state that ..

Defectors are always suspect. They always have mixed motivations. Hamza insisted up and down that Saddam was behind anthrax. He lied.

[tallhappy]

As stated, the questions have been answered.

Asking them over and over is simply a way for Paul to avoid answering them.

Why doesn't he answer them?

[TexasRepublic]

We may as well acknowledge the fact that we are at war and methodically destroy them all. That's what it will take.

I seriously believe we should simply nuke all of the capitals of terror-supporting states. Same day. Maybe 9/11/2002 would be a good date.

Aw, come on Boris, stop pulling punches and tell us what you REALLY THINK! :-)

[tallhappy]

Finally, do the American people, and not just a handful of advisors to the President, really want this war?

Headlines trumpet loss of support for Iraq action. Translation -- more than half support it (56%).

It seems more of the public support it than the "brilliant experts" Paul cites.

And again, Paul uses the argument that Scowcroft and Powell and others are against it -- and uses their authority as experts. Since when has he ever accepted their analyses before?

They are the UN coalition types. I thought Paul didn't like the UN (one reason I liked him before I learned what he's really about).

[citizenK]

Iraq at present is impoverished, hence "third world".

Yes, there are degrees of 'third worldness.' But while the Iraqi people are clearly impoverished (result of Saddam's regime), the country of Iraq is actually quite wealthy.

Following through with Paul's line of thinking, the former Soviet Union was a 'Third World' country too. Of course, the liberals never thought the Soviet Union was a threat to the US, much in the same way that today they don't see Iraq as direct or current threat either. Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed.