Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: blitz on January 22, 2003, 02:48:18 PM
-
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?
Always thought these republicans are godamn f""ckin gay comunists !
Regards Blitz
-
Who IIRC ran as a republican.
He makes some good points, too bad we won't ever get answers to them.
-
Is he a Republican?
-
yes from Houston
-
I think he is a Libertarian.
http://www.house.gov/paul/
Edit: Guess not.
-
Blitz, where did you get that article?
Edit: Nevermind found it.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm
-
Return to the
2001 Congressional
Record directory
Project FREEDOM
Opening Page
March 8, 2001
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
Secretary Powell, thank you for your time and please answer the following questions:
1. On the topic of the International Criminal Court, I have two questions. I am pleased that the administration, as well as the Chairman of this Committee, have spoken against the ICC treaty as an infringement upon U.S. sovereignty. As a policy matter, can you explain why the administration has not spoken similarly against the WTO, the International War Crimes Tribunal, or the idea of fighting wars based on UN or NATO resolutions and why these instrumentalities are any less threatening to our sovereignty? Also on the ICC topic, if the administration is not going to pursue ratification of the treaty, will you support my resolution, H Con Res 23, calling on the President to declare to all nations that the United States does not assent to the treaty and that the signature of former President Clinton should not be construed to mean otherwise?
2 . Since World War II, each of our Presidents have engaged in wars -- both big and small, from Korea to the continued bombing of Iraq -- without an explicit declaration of war from Congress. Yet, the Constitution clearly vests the decision to go to war (as opposed to its execution by the commander-in chief, once declared), with the Congress. If, however, the "war decision" is allowed to come from Presidential directives or UN resolutions, of what value to the American people is the Constitutional constraint upon a President who would otherwise wage war without Congressional approval? Do you believe the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional? If so, why? If not, why not?
3. Is it not clear that a U.S. treaty, although it is called the law of the land, was never intended to be used to amend our Constitution?
4. Why do we trade and subsidize a country like China, pursue talks with Iran and North Korea, and act as a conduit for peace in the Middle East while all we seem to know what to do with Iraq is bomb, kill, and impose sanctions? Surely we are not expected to believe Saddam Hussein is the only totalitarian in power today?
5. Is not the continued bombing of Iraq an act of war? Where does the administration get its authority to pursue this war? Is this policy not in violation of our Constitution that says only Congress can declare war? There is not even a UN resolution calling for the US-British imposed no-fly zone over Iraq. Our allies have almost all deserted us on our policy toward Iraq. Is it not time to talk to the Iraqis? We talked to the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, surely we can do the same with Iraq today. We trade with and subsidize China and we talk to the Iranians, surely we can trade with Iraq . . . ?
6. If investors of a foreign nation had a stake in oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and their country was dependent on oil imports for subsistence, is that country justified in militarily dominating the Gulf and use of U.S. soil for basing operations? My guess is Americans would be furious even if done with our government official's approval. Yet we expect the Arab world -- a world quite different from ours -- to accept our presence and domination. Is it not possible for our policy in the region to show more "humility" rather than pursue a policy that incites Islamic fundamentalists against us leading to what they see as acts of self defense and we see as acts of terrorism?
7. How would you, the U.S. government, and the American people respond if a foreign power subsidized subversive groups whose goal it was to overthrow our government as we are doing with the Iraqi National Congress?
8. In your earlier remarks before this committee you said that you regard the military as a vital component of U.S. foreign policy. I am wondering if you, as a former military officer, would comment on the antiquated idea of a military draft and selective service registration. I believe you have spoken against the draft in the past. Do you still hold that a draft is unwarranted? Would you support ending draft registration?
Brainwashed, insane, damn stupid, antichrist, republican, terrorist supporter lover §§$%§$//(&%)(/(???`??(=$§"&§/$()/=(?!
Regards Blitz
-
It's this sort of rant that kills the anti-conservative's credibility except with the converts. Then again, maybe they are the only focus. Get 'em all up in arms to go demonstrate somewhere.
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?
-uh, maybe we didn't because we're not all cold hearted war mongers?
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?
-hmmm, yeah, let's just bomb everyone that's no real threat, hey, maybe we could start with Somolia?
:rolleyes:
-
is it not true that he said "is it not true" 16 times?
-
Seems like a reasonable list of questions that should be answered to me. I know it doesn't sit well with all the Chickenhawks, but that doesn't bother me in the least.
This mindless drive to war is idiotic.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It's this sort of rant that kills the anti-conservative's credibility except with the converts.
Liberals are liberals, not anti-conservatives. Just like conservatives aren't anti-liberals. To imply otherwise is to try and imply that liberals don't believe in anything. Which is patently not the case.
This must be the first Texan Repbulican to ever be labelled a liberal! :eek:
-
He's not a liberal, that's why I called him anti-conservative. In retrospect I guess anti-conservative wasn't a good description either since most of his positions are conservative.
His argument is very weak and his logic very flawed. I'll leave it at that.
-
Well to be hyper-technical he was a libertarian who ran on the republican ticket to win. I used to listen to him on my evil right wing radio talk show in Houston before I moved to Austin. He basicly got in on the anti-Clinton wave here in Tx. Had he been in my discrict at the time I would have voted for him. I got to vote for Bill Archer though :) he was a kick bellybutton representative! My rep before him was Shiela "can you take the mars rover over to where the astronauts landed" Jackson Lee. :rolleyes: Talk about taxation without representation!
-
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?
Oh, so 91 was not a clear cut victory?
Or Panama?
Or Grenada?
ANYWAY
That guy has some serious mental issues (probably why Weasel thought the questions were good). Just for laughs, do this little trick: exchange "Saddam Hussein" and "Iraq" with "Hitler" and "Germany" You get some really interesting results...
"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? "
Change "Kurds" to "Jews", "Iraq" to "Germany" and "Iran" to "USSR" and you have a textbook revisionist argument.
-
Hortlund....Do you have Issues?
-
Originally posted by Ping
Hortlund....Do you have Issues?
Everyone have issues.
Did you have anything particular in mind?
-
Sure...just head over to the thread you started about the french and read it :)
-
Change "Kurds" to "Jews", "Iraq" to "Germany" and "Iran" to "USSR" and you have a textbook revisionist argument.
ROFL...
Yea revised from "Kurds" to "Jews", "Iraq" to "Germany" and "Iran" to "USSR"
hehee you are on a roll brother Steve!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
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?
Oh, so 91 was not a clear cut victory?.
LOL!!! If it was so clear cut, then why are we arguing about going to war with Saddam again??
-
he ran for president as a libertarian in '96 i think
-
91 gulf war was to get saddam out of kuwait , the next one is to get saddam out of iraq.
the reason the gulf war ended so soon was the "coalition" (including canada) did not want to "upset" the arabs by sending US troops into bagdad.
-
Some valid questions up there, not all, but some. FYI:Some of you may find this hard to believe but not everyone that is "right of center" (when it comes to voting )is 100% for war. ;) Being right of center does not automatically make one a hawk.
-
Originally posted by whgates3
he ran for president as a libertarian in '96 i think
"In 1988, Dr. Paul re-entered politics when he successfully won the nomination of the Libertarian Party for the U.S. Presidency. He spent much of the year campaigning across the country, promoting the ideals of limited government, low taxes, and personal liberty.
Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1996 after successfully winning a House seat representing the 14th Congressional district of Texas. He was re-elected in 1998. "
-
Some valid questions, and he sounds like he has his head screwed on the right way around. And that's coming from a communist.
It's a shame the Bush administration would never answer them though. They prefer to use public addresses and press conferences to remind Saddam of the time of day or to practice the art of the diplomatic gaff. Which is a shame.
The case for invading Iraq is as weak as a fanny flap (and that's the British definition of fanny).
-
As this thread would be several hundred posts to answer all of Rep Paul's questions fully, and he makes some valid points where a reasonable man would admit that some of Paul's concerns are warranted, I thought I would answer just one where I think he may be off base.
#15
Combined from the Guardian and 10 Downing Street
Iraq has been involved in chemical and biological warfare research for over 30 years. Its chemical warfare research started in 1971 at a small, well guarded site at Rashad to the Northeast of Baghdad. Research was conducted there on a number of chemical agents including mustard gas, CS and tabun. Later, in 1974 a dedicated organisation called Al-Hassan Ibn Al-Haitham was established. In the late 1970s plans were made to build a large research and commercial-scale production facility in the desert some 70km Northwest of Baghdad under the Project cover of No 922. This was to become Muthanna State Establishment, also known as al-Muthanna, and operated under the front name of Iraq's State Establishment for Pesticide Production. It became operational in 1982-83. It had five research and development sections each tasked to pursue different programmes. In addition, the al-Muthanna site was the main chemical agent production facility, and it also took the lead in weaponising chemical and biological agents including all aspects of weapon development and testing, in association with the military. According to information, subsequently supplied by the Iraqis, the total production capacity in 1991 was 4,000 tonnes of agent per annum, but we assess it could have been higher. Al-Muthanna was supported by three separate storage and precursor production facilities known as Fallujah 1, 2 and 3 near Habbaniyah, north-west of Baghdad, parts of which were not completed before they were heavily bombed in the 1991 Gulf War.
The Attack on Halabja
On Friday, 17th March 1988, the village of Halabja was bombarded by Iraqi warplanes. The raid was over in minutes. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people. A Kurd described the effects of a chemical attack on another village:
"My brothers and my wife had blood and vomit running from their noses and their mouths. Their heads were tilted to one side. They were groaning. I couldn't do much, just clean up the blood and vomit from their mouths and try in every way to make them breathe again. I did artificial respiration on them and then I gave them two injections each. I also rubbed creams on my wife and two brothers."
(From "Crimes Against Humanity," Iraqi National Congress.
Among the corpses at Halabja, children were found dead where they had been playing outside their homes. In places, streets were piled with corpses.
-
LOL good answer Hortlund :D