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? Just so ya know where I stand, I'm playing devil's advocate here.
36. Isn't this invasion part of a plan dreamed up by Cheney, et al prior to Bush's election as president to take control of vital areas of the world? http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
I don't know. Wasn't there a nuclear skirmish sometime in the late 70's? You can't think of it only as a threat to mainland U.S. They certainly have the capability to retaliate against U.S. interests and allies now. If the inspections are done right, we can be a hell of a lot more sure than we are now. We can be sure that Iraq has a weapons program based on the inspections that ended 4+ years ago, when departing inspectors said that Iraq could restart various programs in a matter of months. Not even close to the same thing. I don't know. I'd say paying suicide bombers equates to "global terrorism", but that's just me. Yes. I'm not aware of any evidence that there was a meeting. It's certainly not as cut and dry as that. It's a wild scene, maaaan. Apparently, the idea of strategy is lost on you. You have to pick and choose your battles. "Sinking"? Oh, that's rich. Sinking from its renaissance under the Taliban? You can't sink when you're already rock-bottom. I realize everyone wants the fight against al Qaeda over and done with, but it takes time, as does building a new Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is certainly alive and dangerous, but I don't know if you could call them "well". This is a valid concern and one I'd be interested in hearing testimony on. We can't control what the "Arab world" thinks. These people are told in the press and during worship services that the Mossad brought down the WTC, and that Jews bake stuffwith the blood of gentiles. It's the brutal dictator thread that connects them. And if he's that weak, well then, we won't be sparing too many of the "precious resources" you mentioned earlier. I'm guessing there won't be a war declaration. It's been 60 years since that happened. As for the last question, no, and we can all be happy about that. It wasn't a "Pentagon" report, and it has never been the position of the US government. It flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, from government, media and independent investigations. Iraq gassed the Kurds, and there is no way around it. It happened in at least two cities, and the Iraqi military was responsible. I have no idea what the numbers are, but yours seem high, particularly the deaths. Thousands of casualties against the weak military you described earlier? Not bloodly likely. 100 billion dollar war? And this comes from which left-wing website? Oil prices won't skyrocket. You might remember earlier this year when the idea of an oil embargo against the U.S. was tossed about by OPEC nations, because of our support of Israel (this was around the time of the mythical Jenin massacre). Saudi Arabia quickly squelched the idea, because they need our money just as much, if not more than we need their oil. "Some" have deemed 30 years of occupation necessary to "build democracy"? Well, "some" people are wrong. Of course, they're probably thinking about our 30 year occupations of Japan and Germany after WWII. Yeah, the UN's pretty much worthless. But, hey, if they're going to pass the resolutions, we can sure as hell use them as excuses. I'm not certain which resolution you're talking about, but most supporters of a new attack want a new resolution. Losing sucks. If the "international community" has become a toothless joke, and we point this out, maybe some friends will get a clue. Well, we used to support Saddam, so hopefully in 10 years, you'll support our move on Pakistan. Of course, that might be tough considering they have nuclear capability, which, if you've been paying attention, is what we'd like to avoid with Saddam. We didn't supply them with chemical and biological materials. We provided them with intel and strategy support. And we certainly didn't provide them with anything in 1992, after the Gulf War. I'll ask this question: So don't we bear more of a responsibility to do something now? Yeah, waiting for Iraq to gain nuclear capability seems like the smarter move. With the 20/20 hindsight that you have now, would you have objected to a 1997 action on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Sudan on moral grounds? Because it's obviously a benefit, and if done properly can greatly aid post-Saddam Iraq (and, yes, the oil companies). Please feel free to point to this supposed survey of the nation's generals. Moral argument? Let's ring up ol' Newt Gingrich and we can start basing all government action on moral grounds. Where does it say we can only use it for self-defense? This isn't Japan. The Treaty of Westphalia? Who was president back then? Supposedly, but until we sign that treaty with Fantasyland, it's probably not going to happen. Depends on your definition of clear-cut. Sure. Probably PR reasons. Satan thanks you.
Re: Re: Re: ???s for Congress regarding Iraq It's a joke. Should I remind you of the number of Americans killed by suicide bombers in that region? Or is that still "regional" terrorism? I'll leave it to you to split that hair. The notion of Kurdish control is weak at best. It's not cut and dry. I was being sarcastic about the notion of a renaissance under the Taliban, because for Afghanistan to "sink", as the original poster put it, it would have to have been somewhere that it could sink from. It was not, and no, it still isn't. I've never said that Afghanistan is settled. That won't be a possibility for a number of years. He asked how Hitler and Saddam could be compared. I gave one example of how they could be compared. They both hate the Zionists, too. The last part of Iraq's letter last week read like something out of Mein Kempf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm dismissing. There are reports that the Republican Guard might not even fight for Saddam if it comes to that. My bad. I'll stick with the Pentagon numbers, which are approximately half that. But, hey, I think its a bargain at any price. Or he could just do a live test in downtown Tel Aviv or northern Iraq. Newsflash: these retired generals won't have to fight either. The original post made it sound as though there were some current generals who were against military action. Shouldn't Tony Zinni be somewhere failing to make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian situation instead of running his mouth? Again, who was president then? What was the Senate vote?
There is nothing better than an article that begins: "A secret blueprint for US global domination reveals.."
Dude, if you're going to steal from Republican Congressman Ron Paul, at least give him credit and not try to pass off his writings as your own. Questions that won't be asked about Iraq, by Ron Paul
I don't/didn't know anything about Ron Paul and/or his writings. My crazy left wing aunt emailed me those questions with nothing attributing it to anybody and I wanted to get your takes on the questions. I didn't know who wrote the questions, but knew my whacko aunt didn't write them. Sorry for misrepresenting. I knew there was something wrong with the questions but didn't have time to research the answers. Thanks for the help,WakeUpBomB.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ???s for Congress regarding Iraq First, if I'm going to go to the trouble of replying in a nice, neat format, you could do me the same courtesy. I don't have time to cut and paste everything. But if I were in those groups, I'd be worried. But I'll still leave it to you to split that hair. That's my point (about the boundaries). It would be very easy for terrorists to set up camp in what is essentially a lawless place. Now keep in mind, I haven't seen any information that they have set up camp, but it's not far-fetched. Blah, blah, blah. Quagmire this, quagmire that. Israel doesn't constitute a fundamental US interest?!? Nice one. Are you making this up as you go along? You can debate whether or not they should be, but the fact is, they are our ally in the region. Bush expressed a clear desire to rid the world of Saddam during the presidential debates.