http://www.house.gov/paul...091002.htm

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?

Amen brother. you have summed up the content of the recent 10 iraq threads and put them into logical and justified questions aimed at the US government.

now this is to all US-government supporters who call us critics "revisionists" or "conspiracy theorists": please answer those questions. now. break it all down, make sense. only then we can talk.

No doubt...

I'm glad this Congressman sits on the International Relations committee... and hope if/when hearings are held, he gets to ask his questions.

NuPwrSoul said:

he'd get my vote if I was american, thats for sure...

Thanx NPS, brought to light many issues i hadn't thought about.

He'll never get to ask those questions and if he does we'll never hear about it...PUBLICLY

Well, this is a first - I'm actually agreeing with my neighbor to the south, Ron Paul.

Those questions need to be asked of the Bush administration, and I'd listen to their answers with an open mind.

But I sure would like those questions asked...

Good questions, but there are lots more he could ask, such as:

How can a nation, the USA, which presents itself as the leader and carrier of morality, human rights and democracy, vigorously support, for already more than 10 years, the most brutal economical sanctions in history against a PEOPLE who are already brutally oppressed by the same dictator the USA want to get rid of, but have supported for decades already, in wars against other countries and against his own people?

Is calling for an all-out war, justified by the so-called necessary improvement on human rights not completely hypocritical when the USA itself has supported the dramatic decline in the human right situation of Iraq itself?


Do we have a case of DOUBLE STANDARDS here?

abrazo? check.

soulpower? check.

nupwrsoul? check.

ice9?....Is ice9 here?


Damn, we could have had an anti-American party.

DARN...
[This message was edited Thu Sep 12 10:46:55 PDT 2002 by Nep2nes]

Nep2nes said:

instead of getting so paranoid you could actually READ the content of this thread... you didnt even pay attention enough to find out that it WAS nupwrsoul who posted it... or why are you asking for him up there?
if you think its all anti-american bullshit, why dont you just ANSWER those questions instead of making silly remarks? since you think you know the truth and everything better, it should be an easy job for you... go ahead, I'm waiting... standing by.. show us your background knowledge..

Thank you so much for the enlightning reading!

No wonder why my brity was telling me that the United States of America are being idiots in this new controversy.

My prayers and hopes are for Iraq and their dictator. :p

I fear that if Bush and the other side of the world agrees to take out Saddam permanently, World War 3 may start.

Nep2nes said:

If we had an anti-American party, the only attendees would be those who wish to stifle dissent and free speech and those who wish to carelessly plunge this country into a war based on half-truths and incomplete evidence.

The real patriots are those who speak out when they believe their country is heading down the wrong path. It is out of love we criticize. It is out of love that we wish to see what is potentially the greatest country ever lived fulfill its potential.

Damn, NPS is smart...

WOW.

E-mail that list to all the talk show hosts on AM radio. Dare them to answer them. I'll do the same.

I've just watched the most depressing hour's television I can remember for a long time. The British political talk show "Question Time" transferred to New York for a special edition - it may very well have been shown in the States as well...I missed the beginning and so could not say.

I've just seen an ex-mayor of NY Ed Koch (?) and a female ex-attourney general speak about the proposed attack on Iraq with such glee as to make me feel physically sick and rotten at heart. The ex-mayor was incredibly dimissive of any contrary point of view. The ex-attourney was supidly sarcastic to any contradictory view point.

Michael Moore was another panel member who the two ex's attacked and belittled throughout - even though he plainly had the majority of the studio audience on his side.

Surely it is not the view of the American people to start an unjust war? The two ex's spoke as though the US of A was chapping at the bit to get at Ol'Saddam...I expected to hear a "yihaa!" and a "com'on, let's git this sucker!" from them, as if they expected the whole nation to rise as one big yokel lynching party. That's not the America I know.

Their attitude has left me feeling so down. Sure as eggs is eggs, if it was raining brains the two ex's wouldn't have even got wet - the paraphrase Bugsy Malone. Sadly, it is standing shoulder to shoulder with them that Mr Bush seems to be ... and mostly frighting of all, so does the government of my country.

This war is, currently, unjust. It will take a hell of a lot to make it just. I mean, if we were to attack any country run by a mad far-right politician with a policy of bullying it's neighbours and developing "weapons of mass distruction" then when are we off to fight Israel? Or China? Or Pakistan? Or India or wherever...oh shit, I forgot. They're on our side aren't they...or they're to big to know you're going to win the war against.

Your bias is quite obvious NuPwrSoul. Let's see what happens when the United Nations tried to impose new resolutions and Iraq defies them AGAIN! Were you against the Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait and sent scud missles towards Israel??? I'm sure you had some rational for why we should not have invaded then and now you have compiled a well thought out list against an invasion 10 years later. The international community will slowly turn our way when it becomes obvious that Iraq has no plans on letting inspectors back in.

You still hold grudges for attrocities commited 200 years ago by the US government against YOUR people. These are separate issues my friend...

.
[This message was edited Fri Sep 13 1:16:48 PDT 2002 by NuPwrSoul]

divo02 said:

and this



*My* bias? *I* have compiled a list?

What, is your mouse broken? Do you know how to read? Can you click a link?

Do you not see that this list is posted on the United States' House of Representatives website? Do you not see that it is compiled by Congressman Ron Paul? If you had clicked the link before talking out of your ass you would learned all of this.



You gonna ask me a question and then proceed to arrogate to yourself how "sure" you are of what my response was/is? Man you ain't sure 'bout shit. If you want to ask me something then do that, but don't pull some "I KNOW you" bullshit cuz you really have no fucking clue. You know if I wanted to, I could go all over the place and high hurdle my ass to all kind of conclusions about you based on ths one post, but I don't know you. Too bad you too damned arrogant to grant me the same respect.



If they are separate issues then why are YOU the one bringing them up? Again, this is that arrogant "I KNOW your kind" bullshit. Man you have no fucking clue once again.

Did you see me bring up "MY" people's treatment anywhere in my discussion of this issue? Are you saying that "MY" people should just stick to domestic concerns? What is this not my country too that I should not be concerned with foreign relations?

"Nigger don't you worry about the whole world, let *us* worry about that... you just keep your ass in the kitchen frying that chicken." You don't like that shit do you? Is that who you are? How about if I just went ahead and assumed that, huh? How does it feel? You feelin me now?

Next: Do you even fucking know who "MY" people are? Have we ever met? Do you even know anything about me to know who "MY" people are? If you want to know ask but don't assume shit okay?

Now let me say something about this grudge/200 year comment. You are not the first person to respond to a discussion about slavery (which this was not but since you brought it up here we go...) by telling me not to hold grudges or to get a chip off my shoulder. What I don't understand is how you think these are the only options--forgetting about shit or holding a grudge. I have done neither. I remember. I recall. I study history. I use history as a guide for the future. Just like anybody else. When you step to Jews and tell them stop holding grudges for the Holocaust then come to me with that bullshit okay? Jews aren't accused of holding grudges... they are just remembering and reciting "Never Again." What is that a privilege for them only?

And this 200 years ago shit is hilarious. Now I know you are smart enough to know that the U.S. government's mistreatment of black people ended legally only 37 years ago with the civil rights act of 1965, and even after that there was de facto segregation that had to be battled with subsequent laws and executive orders.

Man divo02, I really expected better from you. I mean if you can't answer the Congressman's questions don't take that shit out on me with your crazy assumptions.

divo02 said:

It's very obvious that NPS didn't compile that list. He just posted it.



And you say NPS has an obvious bias?

Wolf said:

Praise Jehovah!! another literate soul on prince.org who actually READS before posting thnx Wolf.

Honey, hit me up on the o-notes when you run 4 Congress! I'll volunteer.

ONE LOVE

divo02 said:

NupwrSoul is not the author of that list. There is a link there that takes you to its author. And even if he was the author, there seems to be valid questions within it. Why should everyone grin and go along with the program if the program seems fishy to so many?


Tsk, tsk. Your issues are coming to the fore...

NuPwrSoul said:

NPS...

I'm sorry NuPwrSoul. Sorry for falsely accussing u and attacking u personally. I do respect your opinion...and your right, you should expect better from me. Damn, I feel pretty stupid.

I guess I just get a little upset that almost nobody on prince.org seems to support an invasion of Iraq one year after 9/11. I'm not sure I even see the relevancy of some of the questions this congressman poses. I've responded to the first 10...

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?

Probably were many reasons. Ron Paul is obviously trying to sell an idea here.

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?

This is just plain stupid. Saddam has already proved he is a threat to Kuwait, the Kurds, and openly finances Palestinian terrorists. The US, and hopefully the international community, is concerned about Saddam striking FIRST, let alone retaliating. Additionally, Saddam can hide his ways through terrorism as it is more difficult to accumulate evidence vs. an obvious military move.

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?

Maybe your right about me being illiterate NuPwrSoul, cuz I really have no idea what's he asking here. It sounds like some LSAT or GMAT question...

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?

Probably, as I doubt this congressman would blantantly lie. Still, I imagine this is only one inspection that was allowed to go through vs. others that were not. Is it not a fact that Saddam has banned UN inspectors from fully investigating his weapons stockpile since 1998??? He is violating the terms of the 1991 UN cease fire resolution.
Is that not Bush's main beef?

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?

Saddam invaded Kuwait, openly financed Palestinian terrorists, gassed his own people. Obviously there was enough of a case to warrant international support during the Gulf War 10 years ago. I highly doubt much has changed since. If anything, the defiance of UN resolutions makes Iraq worse off.



So what if 15 of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia??? The Saudi government is a quasi ally to the US despite it's people hating us, and an obvious economic partner. We have had friendly relations for years with the Saudi gov. Some suggest Bin Laden wanted the terrorists to hail from Saudi Arabia to cause a rift in US-Saudi relations...although that it all speculation

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?

A quick goggle search revealed the following quote below from Mr. Cannistraro concerning the USS Cole bombing. Amazing how research can work to favor any agenda one is looking to advocate. Here, it seems, Cannistraro believe Iraq is behind terrorist actions. I doubt the Iraqis "want to be able to carry out" such actions and simply have never gotten around to it. Who needs confirmed evidence when the intentions are so painfully clear??

"The Iraqis have wanted to be able to carry out terrorism for some time now," Mr Cannistraro said. "Their military people have had liaison with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and could well have supplied the training."


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?

Again, so what??? The case against Iraq is strong despite whether or not this took place.

BTW, Did Iraq ever officially condemn the 9/11 terrorist attacks???

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?

Maybe I don't know enough about the issue, but I don't believe the Kurds have their own country despite their intention on wanting one. I'm sure they dominate numbers wise. Even if this is true...I don't see the relevancy. The Kurds would almost be like the Northern Alliance in that they would accept our support to overthrow the government...but pockets of them, if not more, still likely despise the US and could provide safehaven for terrorists.

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?

Does this guy expect unilateral support for US interests in Pakistan from Pakistani citizens??? The Pakistani GOVERNMENT was extremely helpful in the war in Afghanistan and should be applauded for efforts made to arrest terrorists...which I believe they were successful in some instances. That ALOT more than one can say for Iraq. Not a good comparision...

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"

This is indeed a problem. Still, what were our expectations? That Afghanistan would turn into a peaceful country with a vibrant economy immediately following the defeat of the Taliban. There is only so much the US can do if the ethnic warlords in the region are going to continue to fight amongst one another. Certainly, the US should not give up on the region...
[This message was edited Fri Sep 13 8:31:42 PDT 2002 by divo02]

As always, thanks for your continued support Supernova. In light of my stupidity, you could have been much more harsh. Spread some of that class around...

divo02 said:

Ok Divo, I accept your apology. And more importantly I respect you for posting it here. You gets props for that. I apologize if my response was too heavy handed but I was just too thru

Thanks for taking a stab at the questions... that's what I was hoping for, cuz I have many of the same questions. Healthy discussion and substantive debate is what is critical to an enlightened electorate and the democratic process. That's what this is all about.

Peace, man.

divo02 said:

No problem, divo.

Hypocrisy

We justify our conviction to attack Iraq for their ignorance of UN Sanctions (Since the evidence thing did not pan out)

Reality check: The US and Isreal have middle fingered UN Sanctions for years now. (Not to mention Kyoto, Johanasburg and the International Criminal Court)

Unilateralism
"If the UN does not approve millitary action then the US can attack UN on its own accord becuase it is in its sovereign best interests"
I guess then we (US) can't say shit when China decides to recapture Taiwan because it is in their best interests.

Blech!!!

divo02 said:

soulpower said:

Hey, as an award-winning journalist, I'm surprised that you did not include the news of the recent capture of Binalshibh in Pakistan. He may be the missing hijacker who was unable to obtain a visa to enter the US to commit the September 11 attacks. According to Reuters, he was captured in a joint raid conducted by our FBI and the Pakistani ISI.

Cooperation between the US law enforcement and the Pakistani governement may upset you, and it may disagree with your wish that the Pakistan government adoringly harbors AlQaeda and the Taliban, but this is the sort of selective "reporting" that diminishes your credibility.

So much of your rhetoric is blatantly biased - the org must be an artistic outlet for you, assuming that you are actually asked to be more complete and objective as a journalist.

For example, what other facts (or points of view) are known regarding the "wedding party massacre" that you repeatedly allude to? As a journalist, why not even mention the fact that a US investigation came to different conclusions about why innocent civilians were placed in harms way that day?

Why not denounce, with equal fervor, the use of civilian "human shields" to sway public opinion - do you even acknowledge that the Taliban is capable of such atrocities? And why not celebrate the ideals that the US has the courage to decry the loss of civilian lives in any military engagement and shows a willingness to investigate such incidents. Where is the "investigation" on the part of the Arab world for its role in the events of September 11 where thousands of completely innocent civilians were killed?

This post is one of a hundred examples of why I feel you are guilty of the same sorts of blind nationalism that you condemn. I am truly surprised that you would announce your credentials as a respected journalist, then unload such poorly balanced reporting of "facts" here at the org, I can only imagine the stuff that makes it into your newspaper! I hope your editors are more objective!!

___

TheMax said: