The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
These are questions asked in the US Congress by Rep. Ron Paul, a Republican. None of these types of questions are asked, or even reported, by the media: probably because our politicians have no answer to them. They're worth reading, anyway.
"Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. 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 there are those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, and 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 U.N.'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 U.N. 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 United States? 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 one-fifth the size of 12 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 United Nations 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 U.S. 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 U.N. resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of U.N. resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
20. Did former President Bush not cite the U.N. 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 United States. 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 U.S. 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?"
"Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. 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 there are those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, and 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 U.N.'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 U.N. 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 United States? 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 one-fifth the size of 12 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 United Nations 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 U.S. 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 U.N. resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of U.N. resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
20. Did former President Bush not cite the U.N. 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 United States. 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 U.S. 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?"
I think the whole point with Al Queda and their attacks post 1999 is that we only now know (thanks to recovered video tapes from Afghanistan) that in 1999 Bin Laden gathered his top people together and proclaimed war on America and it's allies.
It's easy to see in retrospect the warning signs of 9/11 but not so easy before an attack because it's easier to relate an event to evidence than it is evidence to an event about to happen, there are more 'blanks' to fill in.
What's widely know - that Iraq tried to get plutonium, has "lost" biological material, is refusing access to 8 Presidential palaces, and it's stalling on the whole issue - could be linked to an event, technically, just like the signs prior to 9/11.
I didn't see that interview, but I've seen several on Fox and from what I gather the US wants to see, in the aftermath of regime change, a UN transistional government like the one in post war Berlin, whilst a new one made up of all Iraqi factions is assembled. I'd be wary of the term "ordinary Iraqi's" because there are so many factions/ethnic differences that its hard to see which group this might be. Similarly Iraqi's are unlikely to tell a journalist anything against the government.
Whilst Sadam remains in power Iraq will continue to be isolated to the detriment of the majority of it's populace. That alone is bad enough, I can honestly think of no reason not to attack him and his suppoters and kick out another dictator. The rest of the Middle East will be pretty apathetic in the end, they know that just because we take out one dangerous regime we're not going to come after them as well.
Still ,whatever your standpoint, you gotta wonder what Bush is going to say on Monday.....
~~Belldandy~~
It's easy to see in retrospect the warning signs of 9/11 but not so easy before an attack because it's easier to relate an event to evidence than it is evidence to an event about to happen, there are more 'blanks' to fill in.
What's widely know - that Iraq tried to get plutonium, has "lost" biological material, is refusing access to 8 Presidential palaces, and it's stalling on the whole issue - could be linked to an event, technically, just like the signs prior to 9/11.
I didn't see that interview, but I've seen several on Fox and from what I gather the US wants to see, in the aftermath of regime change, a UN transistional government like the one in post war Berlin, whilst a new one made up of all Iraqi factions is assembled. I'd be wary of the term "ordinary Iraqi's" because there are so many factions/ethnic differences that its hard to see which group this might be. Similarly Iraqi's are unlikely to tell a journalist anything against the government.
Whilst Sadam remains in power Iraq will continue to be isolated to the detriment of the majority of it's populace. That alone is bad enough, I can honestly think of no reason not to attack him and his suppoters and kick out another dictator. The rest of the Middle East will be pretty apathetic in the end, they know that just because we take out one dangerous regime we're not going to come after them as well.
Still ,whatever your standpoint, you gotta wonder what Bush is going to say on Monday.....
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> As for Iraq attacking the USA ? It hasn't yet, but neither had Al
> Queda made much attempt at a direct attempt until the 1st WTC bombing
> years before 9/11, and no terrorist group had inflicted such damge
> before 9/11.
The difference is one of intent, I think. Al Quaeda has always had the destruction of the USA as its aim. The rhetoric of Bin Laden stated this; the attacks on US embassies and the USS Cole put it into action. The warning signs were there. I don't think the same is true of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was fond of the West - and vice versa - right up until the Gulf War. His ideology , such as it is, is to retain power. He is at the opposite end of the spectrum from those miliatant Islamists seeking to destroy the West, even at the cost of their own lives. There is a world of difference between taking pot-shots at jets patrolling the no-fly zones - actions we might not like but can probably understand - and instigating wholesale slaughter of British and American citizens.
Incidentally, I saw an excellent interview with an exiled Iraqi writer on the BBC (yes, that other great satan ;)). She had been tortured by the Saddam regime, but was still against the war. She made the point that the Iraqis had never had a real chance to overthrow their dictator: before the Gulf War Saddam was buttressed by western trade and support; afterwards the Iraqis were weakened and made dependent on their government by the sanctions. She also reminded us that the INC, which would probably supply any new government in the event of military action, was not supported by ordinary Iraqis; in fact it was set up and funded by the CIA, and consisted mainly of disgruntled Ba'athists who want their own regime.
> As for Iraq attacking the USA ? It hasn't yet, but neither had Al
> Queda made much attempt at a direct attempt until the 1st WTC bombing
> years before 9/11, and no terrorist group had inflicted such damge
> before 9/11.
The difference is one of intent, I think. Al Quaeda has always had the destruction of the USA as its aim. The rhetoric of Bin Laden stated this; the attacks on US embassies and the USS Cole put it into action. The warning signs were there. I don't think the same is true of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was fond of the West - and vice versa - right up until the Gulf War. His ideology , such as it is, is to retain power. He is at the opposite end of the spectrum from those miliatant Islamists seeking to destroy the West, even at the cost of their own lives. There is a world of difference between taking pot-shots at jets patrolling the no-fly zones - actions we might not like but can probably understand - and instigating wholesale slaughter of British and American citizens.
Incidentally, I saw an excellent interview with an exiled Iraqi writer on the BBC (yes, that other great satan ;)). She had been tortured by the Saddam regime, but was still against the war. She made the point that the Iraqis had never had a real chance to overthrow their dictator: before the Gulf War Saddam was buttressed by western trade and support; afterwards the Iraqis were weakened and made dependent on their government by the sanctions. She also reminded us that the INC, which would probably supply any new government in the event of military action, was not supported by ordinary Iraqis; in fact it was set up and funded by the CIA, and consisted mainly of disgruntled Ba'athists who want their own regime.
Aplogies unknown kernel, for missing the point that the questions weren't made by you. I feel strongly about the whole war on terror thing and it occasionaly means I miss a few things, like who made these questions. I'm sorry for any comments that were aimed at you because I thoght you had made the questions.
Apologies, I was wrong on that front.
~~Belldandy~~
Apologies, I was wrong on that front.
~~Belldandy~~
unknown kernel wrote:
> Look again at question eleven:
>
> "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?"
>
> Well?
The USA has always had it's military able to do one very important thing ever since WW2 ended. An ability to fight more than one major conventional war. If I remember rightly ever since then the US has maintained enough forces to wage two major front wars, 3 regional conflicts, plus maintain other peacetime operations. In short the US is not taking "precious resources", it's using its ample resources more fully. Our military on the other hand is less able to do this. We can do peacetime operations and stretch to one major front war in somewhere like Iraq.
In addition, you mention "tracking down" those responsible for 9/11, yes ? Well I think anyone who has seen the news since then knows who is responsible, and that vast numbers of Al Queda now lay dead and buried, detained around the world, and hiding in small groups. They're on the run and its a case now of tkaing them down and creating environment in which they cannot operate. Just yesterday another 4 people were arreste in the USA, and two more are being pursued. Also, you cannot know fully just what is going on to apprehend and remove Al Queda members around the world, unless you're the head of the CIA in disguise...... Neither can most senators who could be asked this question unless they're on the intel oversight committee, and they wouldn' talk if they did know.
As for Iraq attacking the USA ? It hasn't yet, but neither had Al Queda made much attempt at a direct attempt until the 1st WTC bombing years before 9/11, and no terrorist group had inflicted such damge before 9/11.
Face facts, Iraq has tried to acquire nuclear material and may have, it is developing weapons whose only use is long range offensive capability, it has biological and chemical sites far too large for just research, it makes promises of compliance to the UN that never come good, it ha almostly certainly paid Scott Ritter to say what he's saying, an it has used nere gas on its own people.
The logic of this question is why attack someone wh hasn't attacked you, yes ? By that same logic why attack someone who hasn't used the weapons we claim he has ?
Well he has used them, over 200000 dead kurds would testify to that, both before and after the Gulf War, and before anyone bleats about the USA and UK giving Iraq that stuff go check the facts and you'll find that material was used in the Iran/Iraq war. As for attacking before being attacked ? Well if you want another attack to happen that makes 9/11 look like peanuts then fine, lets sit back. Apocalyptic ? Yes, it is. Fact is the international community has failed to control weapons proliferation. The nightmares of the 80's are todays realities and terrorists will and are trying to get this stuff and use it. They won't ask you your opinion before doing so, or whether you support a war or not, whether you agree with the war on terror, they'll just do it. And then it'll be too late. The agreed response to any use of a WMD on a NATO member is retaliation with a WMD straight back. It won't be World War 3, but it will see Iraq in ruins and a wasteland. The dispute is not with the Iraqi people, its with Saddam. Anyone who claims the Iraqi people still love Saddam may be right, but when you live in a dictatorship you don't want to appear on foreign news saying you don't support him.....because if you do you'll dissapear, and you children, and your relatives.... and there would be nothing you could do. On of the largest migrant groups into Europe are Iraqi's, if it's so good in Iraq why are those that can leaving ? When the Taliban fell in Afghanistan it has led to what the UNHCR called "the biggest reverse migrant flow in history", Afghani's returned to Afghanistan freely once the Taliban were defeated.
Anyhow, apologies for the rant, but with President Bush addressing the US on Monday at 8pm EST on Iraq I have a feeling thing's may start moving rather fast.
~~Belldandy~~
> Look again at question eleven:
>
> "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?"
>
> Well?
The USA has always had it's military able to do one very important thing ever since WW2 ended. An ability to fight more than one major conventional war. If I remember rightly ever since then the US has maintained enough forces to wage two major front wars, 3 regional conflicts, plus maintain other peacetime operations. In short the US is not taking "precious resources", it's using its ample resources more fully. Our military on the other hand is less able to do this. We can do peacetime operations and stretch to one major front war in somewhere like Iraq.
In addition, you mention "tracking down" those responsible for 9/11, yes ? Well I think anyone who has seen the news since then knows who is responsible, and that vast numbers of Al Queda now lay dead and buried, detained around the world, and hiding in small groups. They're on the run and its a case now of tkaing them down and creating environment in which they cannot operate. Just yesterday another 4 people were arreste in the USA, and two more are being pursued. Also, you cannot know fully just what is going on to apprehend and remove Al Queda members around the world, unless you're the head of the CIA in disguise...... Neither can most senators who could be asked this question unless they're on the intel oversight committee, and they wouldn' talk if they did know.
As for Iraq attacking the USA ? It hasn't yet, but neither had Al Queda made much attempt at a direct attempt until the 1st WTC bombing years before 9/11, and no terrorist group had inflicted such damge before 9/11.
Face facts, Iraq has tried to acquire nuclear material and may have, it is developing weapons whose only use is long range offensive capability, it has biological and chemical sites far too large for just research, it makes promises of compliance to the UN that never come good, it ha almostly certainly paid Scott Ritter to say what he's saying, an it has used nere gas on its own people.
The logic of this question is why attack someone wh hasn't attacked you, yes ? By that same logic why attack someone who hasn't used the weapons we claim he has ?
Well he has used them, over 200000 dead kurds would testify to that, both before and after the Gulf War, and before anyone bleats about the USA and UK giving Iraq that stuff go check the facts and you'll find that material was used in the Iran/Iraq war. As for attacking before being attacked ? Well if you want another attack to happen that makes 9/11 look like peanuts then fine, lets sit back. Apocalyptic ? Yes, it is. Fact is the international community has failed to control weapons proliferation. The nightmares of the 80's are todays realities and terrorists will and are trying to get this stuff and use it. They won't ask you your opinion before doing so, or whether you support a war or not, whether you agree with the war on terror, they'll just do it. And then it'll be too late. The agreed response to any use of a WMD on a NATO member is retaliation with a WMD straight back. It won't be World War 3, but it will see Iraq in ruins and a wasteland. The dispute is not with the Iraqi people, its with Saddam. Anyone who claims the Iraqi people still love Saddam may be right, but when you live in a dictatorship you don't want to appear on foreign news saying you don't support him.....because if you do you'll dissapear, and you children, and your relatives.... and there would be nothing you could do. On of the largest migrant groups into Europe are Iraqi's, if it's so good in Iraq why are those that can leaving ? When the Taliban fell in Afghanistan it has led to what the UNHCR called "the biggest reverse migrant flow in history", Afghani's returned to Afghanistan freely once the Taliban were defeated.
Anyhow, apologies for the rant, but with President Bush addressing the US on Monday at 8pm EST on Iraq I have a feeling thing's may start moving rather fast.
~~Belldandy~~
Well first of all these aren't my questions: they were asked by a Congressman a couple of weeks ago. I posted them here because they're interesting. I don't agree with every word, but I do agree with the general point: there is no need or justification for a war with Iraq.
> 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?
>Iraq can easily retaliate right now if it wanted to commit suicide. >Israel, Kuwait, Cyprus - all are in range right now. Within a year the >government dossier says a new missile will be available giving a range to >hit Turkey.
The point is that Iraq does not have the ability, or the suicidal desire, to attack US or British citiznes - and these are the only two countries that want a 'pre-emptive' war. Iraq might have the capability to lob its few remaining missiles at Anglo-American military bases in the region, but is Saddam stupid enough to do so? I doubt it. And would he have any reason to do so? Not unless the US-UK began another war.
>Also you're assuming convnetional warfare. 9/11 wasn't that.
No, but then 9/11 was nothing to with Iraq, was it? I find it quite distasteful that one unconnected tragedy is constantly cited as reason to go to war with Iraq, or to pass repressive domestic laws, or to do whatever else governments couldn't get away with otherwise. It's emotional blackmail; and soon enough the political elites and their apologists will find it won't wash anymore.
>If, say, smallpox were released in London...
Again with the apocalyptic fantasies. Yes, there are people who want the West destroyed by any means possible. But these people are not members of the Iraqi government, nor are they connected to them, nor are they supported by them. There are two terrorist threats facing the US and the UK. One is fanatically Islamist: but Saddam's regime is a secular one, that - as admitted by the Bush administration numerous times - has no links with Al Quaeda. Second is internal terrorists, usually ultra-rightwingers, responsible for Oklahoma, the anthrax letters etc.: I'm guessing that Saddam has very little to do with these.
Look again at question eleven:
"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?"
Well?
> 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?
>Iraq can easily retaliate right now if it wanted to commit suicide. >Israel, Kuwait, Cyprus - all are in range right now. Within a year the >government dossier says a new missile will be available giving a range to >hit Turkey.
The point is that Iraq does not have the ability, or the suicidal desire, to attack US or British citiznes - and these are the only two countries that want a 'pre-emptive' war. Iraq might have the capability to lob its few remaining missiles at Anglo-American military bases in the region, but is Saddam stupid enough to do so? I doubt it. And would he have any reason to do so? Not unless the US-UK began another war.
>Also you're assuming convnetional warfare. 9/11 wasn't that.
No, but then 9/11 was nothing to with Iraq, was it? I find it quite distasteful that one unconnected tragedy is constantly cited as reason to go to war with Iraq, or to pass repressive domestic laws, or to do whatever else governments couldn't get away with otherwise. It's emotional blackmail; and soon enough the political elites and their apologists will find it won't wash anymore.
>If, say, smallpox were released in London...
Again with the apocalyptic fantasies. Yes, there are people who want the West destroyed by any means possible. But these people are not members of the Iraqi government, nor are they connected to them, nor are they supported by them. There are two terrorist threats facing the US and the UK. One is fanatically Islamist: but Saddam's regime is a secular one, that - as admitted by the Bush administration numerous times - has no links with Al Quaeda. Second is internal terrorists, usually ultra-rightwingers, responsible for Oklahoma, the anthrax letters etc.: I'm guessing that Saddam has very little to do with these.
Look again at question eleven:
"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?"
Well?
unknown kernel wrote:
> These are questions asked in the US Congress by Rep. Ron Paul, a
> Republican. None of these types of questions are asked, or even
> reported, by the media: probably because our politicians have no
> answer to them. They're worth reading, anyway.
Think you'll find the answers are actually they're to be found, if you look properly and wnat to read them....
> 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?
It wasn't actually like that. It was known as MAD - mutually assured destruction - and BOTH sides knew that an attack by one would mean mutual destruction. Russian commanders knew that in Europe, should Russia invade, NATO did not have the forces and would resort to a nuclear attack to even things. The height of the Cold War was the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that was caused by the missiles being within range of America with a short flight time, and the fact the facility was so secret in Cuba. In effect it wasn't the missiles that were the problem, it was the fact they were "secret" missiles that caused the crisis.
> 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?
Iraq can easily retaliate right now if it wanted to commit suicide. Israel, Kuwait, Cyprus - all are in range right now. Within a year the government dossier says a new missile will be available giving a range to hit Turkey. Also you're assuming convnetional warfare. 9/11 wasn't that. Saddam has sarin, anthrax, botulism, smallpox, and many more delightful things. Any could be easily carried into a major city and be released by one person. The danger is also that this material could be passed onto terrorist groups he is connected with. If, say, smallpox were released in London, then the death ratio is 3/4, and it's massively contagious and incubates for around 2+ days before becoming eaily recognisable. Imagine how far that could spread, it's be across the country.
> 3. Is it not true that there are those who argue that even with
> inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons,
> and at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist
> in the absence of inspections?
Bad logic. There are no inspections going on ! If there are no weapons, why does Iraq need machinery and materials for nuclear material, when it has no nuclear power plants ? Why does Saddam need so much laboratory equipment ? Why can Iraq not account for tons of nerve gas and bilogical agents ? And why does Iraq need missiles than can hit into Europe if its the wonderful place you make it out to be ?
> 4. Is it not true that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency
> was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this
> year with Iraqi cooperation?
Yes, it was allowed to complete that mission with an Iraqi escort, that needed to know one day beforehand where the team went, and also denied access to every sensitive site there is.
> 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?
Wrong there. Sky News obtained video footage earlier this year showing an Iraqi official at a meeting in Palestinian territory where he gave cheques out to families of suicide bombers. That's financing terrorism. In addition you are not privilege to the entire intelligence community info somehow I think, so you cannot sat what they have found. Not everything happens in the glare of CNN...
> 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?
Yes, because he is a "former" chief and as such isn't privilege to information that's current.
> 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?
Yes, but whats the grand point with that ? One less terrorist linked to Iraq ??
>
> 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?
Yes, but if you have any clue as to the terrain and the Kurds you'd know there is no way that region can be sealed off. The Kurds are a lost people, hated by Saddam and suppressed. They have no formal military and have a hard enough task protecting themselves without going after Al Queda.
>
> 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?
Yes, but again theres no actual point in this point ! The Afghan/Pakistan border is porous and impossible to fully police. Pakistan is helping detain Al Queda leaders - they got the killers of Daniel Pearl for example, and other high ranking officials, and they've offered full access to USSOCOM to go after Al Queda, you've got a sovereign nation giving the US Military free reign and you're questioning there loyalty ? Stupid !
> 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 U.N. report the Al Qaeda "is, by
> all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when,
> and where it chooses?"
Firstly, the UN sat back and did squat whilst the Taliban were in power. But you're right, we oughta let the Taliban back in and continue there oppression of women, political opponents, teach extremism e.t.c. Also you exaggerate, there are not daily bombings and assasinations. There is more order and hope for Afghanistan now than there was with the Taliban, and again this isn't relevant to Iraq one bit.
Right, forget the other questions I've made my point.
All you're questions are basically focused on the US and not the issue of Iraq, regimes, and WMDS. If you think Iraq is only after America then I've got bad news, it's not. I can kinda see your point of view but I don't agree with it one bit and I think you should really look into a lot of these points properly and find out the real info instead of the tabloid version.
Sorry if this sound's insulting but I'd say you're one of those people who will only accept proof of Iraq's threat once a nuke goes off or our hospitals are full of dying, and you'll then turn round to the government and say "why didn't you stop this ?" Then you'll want Baghdad nuked in retaliation.
Well I don't want to see anything like that. I want Saddam gone, and his regime and support network. The UN has failed, like the League before it, and the only way to guarantee peace is war.
You might think that since 1991 we have been at peace with Iraq, but you'd be wrong. Peace is not the absence of war.
~~Belldandy~~
> These are questions asked in the US Congress by Rep. Ron Paul, a
> Republican. None of these types of questions are asked, or even
> reported, by the media: probably because our politicians have no
> answer to them. They're worth reading, anyway.
Think you'll find the answers are actually they're to be found, if you look properly and wnat to read them....
> 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?
It wasn't actually like that. It was known as MAD - mutually assured destruction - and BOTH sides knew that an attack by one would mean mutual destruction. Russian commanders knew that in Europe, should Russia invade, NATO did not have the forces and would resort to a nuclear attack to even things. The height of the Cold War was the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that was caused by the missiles being within range of America with a short flight time, and the fact the facility was so secret in Cuba. In effect it wasn't the missiles that were the problem, it was the fact they were "secret" missiles that caused the crisis.
> 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?
Iraq can easily retaliate right now if it wanted to commit suicide. Israel, Kuwait, Cyprus - all are in range right now. Within a year the government dossier says a new missile will be available giving a range to hit Turkey. Also you're assuming convnetional warfare. 9/11 wasn't that. Saddam has sarin, anthrax, botulism, smallpox, and many more delightful things. Any could be easily carried into a major city and be released by one person. The danger is also that this material could be passed onto terrorist groups he is connected with. If, say, smallpox were released in London, then the death ratio is 3/4, and it's massively contagious and incubates for around 2+ days before becoming eaily recognisable. Imagine how far that could spread, it's be across the country.
> 3. Is it not true that there are those who argue that even with
> inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons,
> and at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist
> in the absence of inspections?
Bad logic. There are no inspections going on ! If there are no weapons, why does Iraq need machinery and materials for nuclear material, when it has no nuclear power plants ? Why does Saddam need so much laboratory equipment ? Why can Iraq not account for tons of nerve gas and bilogical agents ? And why does Iraq need missiles than can hit into Europe if its the wonderful place you make it out to be ?
> 4. Is it not true that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency
> was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this
> year with Iraqi cooperation?
Yes, it was allowed to complete that mission with an Iraqi escort, that needed to know one day beforehand where the team went, and also denied access to every sensitive site there is.
> 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?
Wrong there. Sky News obtained video footage earlier this year showing an Iraqi official at a meeting in Palestinian territory where he gave cheques out to families of suicide bombers. That's financing terrorism. In addition you are not privilege to the entire intelligence community info somehow I think, so you cannot sat what they have found. Not everything happens in the glare of CNN...
> 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?
Yes, because he is a "former" chief and as such isn't privilege to information that's current.
> 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?
Yes, but whats the grand point with that ? One less terrorist linked to Iraq ??
>
> 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?
Yes, but if you have any clue as to the terrain and the Kurds you'd know there is no way that region can be sealed off. The Kurds are a lost people, hated by Saddam and suppressed. They have no formal military and have a hard enough task protecting themselves without going after Al Queda.
>
> 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?
Yes, but again theres no actual point in this point ! The Afghan/Pakistan border is porous and impossible to fully police. Pakistan is helping detain Al Queda leaders - they got the killers of Daniel Pearl for example, and other high ranking officials, and they've offered full access to USSOCOM to go after Al Queda, you've got a sovereign nation giving the US Military free reign and you're questioning there loyalty ? Stupid !
> 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 U.N. report the Al Qaeda "is, by
> all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when,
> and where it chooses?"
Firstly, the UN sat back and did squat whilst the Taliban were in power. But you're right, we oughta let the Taliban back in and continue there oppression of women, political opponents, teach extremism e.t.c. Also you exaggerate, there are not daily bombings and assasinations. There is more order and hope for Afghanistan now than there was with the Taliban, and again this isn't relevant to Iraq one bit.
Right, forget the other questions I've made my point.
All you're questions are basically focused on the US and not the issue of Iraq, regimes, and WMDS. If you think Iraq is only after America then I've got bad news, it's not. I can kinda see your point of view but I don't agree with it one bit and I think you should really look into a lot of these points properly and find out the real info instead of the tabloid version.
Sorry if this sound's insulting but I'd say you're one of those people who will only accept proof of Iraq's threat once a nuke goes off or our hospitals are full of dying, and you'll then turn round to the government and say "why didn't you stop this ?" Then you'll want Baghdad nuked in retaliation.
Well I don't want to see anything like that. I want Saddam gone, and his regime and support network. The UN has failed, like the League before it, and the only way to guarantee peace is war.
You might think that since 1991 we have been at peace with Iraq, but you'd be wrong. Peace is not the absence of war.
~~Belldandy~~
Hmm, several very interesting points there. A few seem a little... well, based on rather debatable points. Not in itself a bad thing, but doesn't go beyond expressing an alternative opinion, and one that could be comfortably rejected by some. But there were some very solid points there too.
This one stood out too (though back into opinion, it's an opinion that merits more consideration than him just expressing that he doesn't think iraq is capable of attacking the us).
unknown kernel wrote:
> 12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst
> suspicions about the United States? And isn't this what bin Laden
> wanted?
This one stood out too (though back into opinion, it's an opinion that merits more consideration than him just expressing that he doesn't think iraq is capable of attacking the us).
unknown kernel wrote:
> 12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst
> suspicions about the United States? And isn't this what bin Laden
> wanted?
Every question is an answer. Brilliant.
These are questions asked in the US Congress by Rep. Ron Paul, a Republican. None of these types of questions are asked, or even reported, by the media: probably because our politicians have no answer to them. They're worth reading, anyway.
"Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. 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 there are those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, and 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 U.N.'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 U.N. 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 United States? 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 one-fifth the size of 12 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 United Nations 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 U.S. 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 U.N. resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of U.N. resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
20. Did former President Bush not cite the U.N. 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 United States. 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 U.S. 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?"
"Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. 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 there are those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, and 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 U.N.'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 U.N. 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 United States? 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 one-fifth the size of 12 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 United Nations 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 U.S. 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 U.N. resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of U.N. resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
20. Did former President Bush not cite the U.N. 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 United States. 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 U.S. 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?"