Ron Paul: Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq

House Floor ^ | 10 Sept 02 | Dr. Ron Paul

[Free the USA]

Index Bump

[Roscoe]

This is why it lays out a specific procedure for declaring wa!

Oh? What "specific procedure" is that?

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Isn't it interesting that this attitude of "wait" can be seriously debated while at this very moment we are doing our best to anticipate what our enemies, seen and unseen, are plotting against us this week?

I'm not foolish enough to not understand that there are negatives to going into Iraq, but the alternatives seem to be worse and it seems a choice has to be made.

Not to be trite, but "BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY".

At this point, it is hardly arguable that it's a matter of when, not if, Hussein has the capability of delivering nuclear disaster upon us. It's a chance not worth taking, IMO.

[Fred Mertz]

Ron Paul bump!

[Austin Willard Wright]

I didn't correct it because I thought that folks would be able to figure out the typo. I guess that there are always expections so I will correct it for you: war.

[SteamshipTime]

One problem: Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. How do we know? Because after the attacks, the Bush administration contacted the Taliban government, declared that bin Laden and his al-Qaida were culpable, and demanded his extradition. The Taliban asked for evidence--an awkward request, since the evidence showed rather detailed foreknowledge by the US government of a planned attack by al-Qaida.

Now that the al-Qaida are dead or hiding in Karachi safe-houses, Bush has to find another candidate for the Two Minute Hate.

[austingirl]

Excellent replies.

[NeoCaveman]

Funny I just got something from Ron Paul, and I thought about mailing it back in....I guess I'll just throw it away.

[GoreIsLove]

Straw men, like "suicide pact," have been used by all enemies of the Constitution.

living document?

[Roscoe]

I didn't correct it because I thought that folks would be able to figure out the typo. I guess that there are always expections so I will correct it for you: war.

What "specific procedure?"

[mhking]

Anybody got any popcorn? This is gonna turn into a good one...

[Poohbah]

One problem: your arguments are BS from beginning to end.

[john in missouri]

If we "won" the Gulf War, why are we talking about going back in, genius?

Because in retrospect over the last 12 years, we have now determined that the original objectives of the Gulf War -- the liberation of Kuwait and smacking down of Saddam Hussein -- by which we conclusively won in only 100 days's time -- should have been replaced by complete removal of the Hussein regime -- dumb$***.

Only a true dumb@ss would contend that we didn't win the Gulf War, and start name-calling against someone who merely pointed out the obvious. Thank you for revealing your stripes, sir.

And if Afghanistan is "won", why have all the al-Qaeda gotten away and why are our servicemen playing guard duty with the Afghani "president"? You call this victory? Sounds like something the French would say.

Have all the al-Qaeda gotten away? Really? Are they and the Taliban still in charge of Afghanistan? Really? I'm sure the hundreds of prisoners in Cuba, as well as the current President of Afghanistan, and the thousands of Taliban fighters buried in the ground and in Afghan caves, will be very interested in this bit of news. Why don't you go tell them?

I'd hate to have you be in charge of a war.

I'd hate to have you in charge of a go-kart.

[Austin Willard Wright]

"Better safe than sorry." Well, I suppose this could, and has, been used to justify any violation of constitutional rights. Heck, why not create an even safer society and officially abolish this 213 year old document with its antiquated restrictions and unrealistic rules.

[Zviadist]

Was that a formal declaration of war? There are many here who would disagree...

It was an authorization for the use of force, consistent with the war powers act (which itself it unconstitutional, but that is a different issue).

[Zviadist]

GW Bush

Show me where Bush has claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11.

[strider44]

Agree with your assessment that we didn't have a clear-cut "win" in The Gulf War, as well as Afghanistan. But overall, the merits of attacking Iraq will win the day. Attacking a weaker opponent is just sound military policy by the way, one of the pricinples of war (Mass). The bigger problem is this - Around the world the US military is increasingly being seen as a bunch of pussies. I hate to say it, but it's true. This is not the fault of our troops mind you, it is the leadership. As soon as we get our nose a little bloody, we turn tail. I'm speaking from 8 years of experience as a active duty captain in the army. The terrorists know this. That is why we have to show some sack now. We need to show the world we're not going to take any more shit. Taking out Saddam is a good start. We may plant a few thousand troops, but it's worth it. My only fear is that we lose a few jets, a SEAL team, or a company of Rangers, and the administration wimps out again (see Somalia) The Arab world needs to know we mean business. That a good enough reason for me.