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

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

[KC Burke]

He is making his arguements in a less than straight forward manner. I would have expected better.

[arkfreepdom]

"35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?"

Because your fellow congresscritters couldn't decide to put out a fire if they smelled smoke in their pants and would much rather release long statements.
#1. Saddam conspired to kill a POTUS....that's enough for me. Case closed. Kill him.
Now, go back to cutting taxes.

[john in missouri]

A few of these questions deserve to be answered. A surprisingly large percentage of them contain outright embedded lies. Others are trick questions like, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

[Ff--150]

#11 needs to be answered. Saudis attacked us, 15 of the 19 Paul points out. We need Help, and we can get It. We're being set up to be destroyed due to ignorance.

[#3Fan]

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?

Do you libertarians out there agree with putting faith in the words of the U.N.?

[Austin Willard Wright]

So what is your point? Are you asserting that the rules set down in the constitution should be ignored if they are "inconvenient?" Do you also feel the same way about the first, second, and other amendments?

[Austin Willard Wright]

Examples of the "lies" please?

[soccermom]

"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?" Uhhhh....yeaaaaaa....shurrrr....let's wait until they can retaliate and then get into a war with them. What a maroon!!!!!!

[AppyPappy]

Iraq does not have the capability to launch an attack on the United States

9/11 notwithstanding.

[The Vast Right Wing]

That's right, your sticking your head in the sand and waiting to get kicked in the ass!!

[The Duke]

Gosh, until I read this I thought I was the only conservative in town opposed to the conquest of Iraq.
At least now I feel like I'm in good company.

[soccermom]

Oh puhleeze! Saying the Saudis attacked us is like saying Italy discovered America. The nationality of the players is irrelevant. What is relevant is who gave the marching orders.

[billbears]

SSSSHHHHHH!!! The war drums are beating. We can't stop now!! We're on a mission. You're either with us or against us. We have to 'win back the Senate' at all costs. Wait that's in the other phrase book. Sorry, I'm retraining my mind to forget all forms of reasoning and just remember the important Republican 'mantras'. They keep getting jumbled

While I agree a regime change needs to happen in some form in Iraq, I can just see these United States setting up their next enemy 15 years down the road. It's not like it hasn't happened before

[Spirited]

". 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?"

Strange form of double-think. Perhaps BushII inherited the capability from the immediate predecessor he defends so well.

No earthly chance of getting any answers here. Certainly those in charge cannot brook questions. Truth is the most hated concept these days.

[soccermom]

Don't mistake losertarians for conservatives.

[Senator Pardek]

Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

Odd - he voted to authorize funds for the invasion of Afghanistan without a "formal" declaration of war.

[Fred Mertz]

Gosh, until I read this I thought I was the only conservative in town opposed to the conquest of Iraq.

You and me bofe.

[eno_]

That's a nice theory, but you fall into the trap of Question 2. It is not a question of whether Iraq could retaliate. They can, and probably will try. The question is would they try the same attack without any provocation, and the answer to that is probably yes.

Nobody wants war, but our choice is to risk bioterror or nerve gas or nuclear retaliation by acting to end the threat, or simply waiting for these attacks to happen anyway. AOS: All Options Suck.