Questions That Won't Be Asked
About Iraq - Rep Ron Paul

Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives

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?
M.Kashif Iqbal
I have visited the site:
Most of the points raised by Mr. Rep Ron Paul is appreciable but I have different opinion in some statements, which I want to raise through your site and I hope that Mr. Paul will like to give me the answer.
Dear Rep Ron Paul sir!
In the statement no.5 you said: "Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? "
You have given the proof that none of a hijacker is Iraqi so Iraq should not be attacked. Do you really think that where the hijackers came from should be attacked? Do you think that punishment of a single man should be given to whole nation?
In an other statement no. 9 You said: 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?
I accept that some elements of Al-Qaeda escaped into Pakistan, but sir! They were not invited nor given shelter. Some even escaped to Iran. And some elements are even present in Unites States. So should these 3 nations also be punished? In this way there are so many individual terrorist hiding in Unites States, Israel , and so many other western states so is that True to catch a single terrorist, attack on the whole nation with fighter planes by bombing?
Secondly I would like to add few more lines for your kind information that Pakistan is an active & storng ally of United States in its war against terrorism. Pakistan is not "so-called" and there should be no doubt about this. See what happened on 11th September 2002 in Karachi, Pakistani  intelligence agencies arrested 10 of the Al-Qaeda members from a flat in Karachi, in which there was a master mind
Sorry to say sir you are just watching the past not the present situation. If Pakistani intelligence were the supporter of Taliban in past then see what these intelligence agencies are doing Now? As I mentioned above the arrestment of Al-Shahba Ramzi . Without Pakistan, United States wouldn't fought the war against terrorism and it is Pakistan who fully supported the United States in its war against terrorism, although Pakistan is facing many economical crises due to this war and also in Pakistan there is still terrorism going on against the decision of President to help US.
And if you still think that Pakistani Intelligence supported Taliban in Past, then also see what United States did in cold war. It is not True that United States also supported Taliban in cold war, See the history first !!! So should United States also be punished ?
Dear Rep Ron Paul Sir! I request you to please also think over it that now Pakistan fully supported United States against its enemy, now it is the turn of United States to help Pakistan against its enemy, Yes India who is threatening Pakistan with its forces on border with high alert. Pakistan is asking for dialogue and India is refusing, so what should be the role of US now, think over it!
And do you not think that United Nations (UNO) should be strong? Then why don't you ask the Nations or the leaders of the nations to act on the resolutions passed by the Security Council (The Strongest Body of UNO)?
UNO Resolutions on KASHMIR:
Draft Resolution 38(1948) Resolution 47 (1948) on 17th Jan, 1948
Resolution 51 (1948) on 3rd June, 1948
Resolution on 13th August, 1948
Resolution on 5th January, 1949
Resolution 80 (1950) on 14th March 1950
Resolution 91 (1951) on 30th March 1951
Resolution 95 (1951) on 10th Nov, 1951
Resolution 98 (1952) on 23rd Dec, 1952
Resolution 122 & 123 (1957) on 24th June 1957
Joint Draft Resolution on 2nd Dec 1957
Draft Resolution on 22nd June, 1957
Statement of UN Security Council on 18th May 1964
Resolution 215 (1965) on 5th Nov, 1965
Resolution 307 (1971) on 21st Dec, 1971
"Right of self determination for the people of Kashmir, So that future of Kashmir would be decided"
BUT............... India refuse to give right of self determination to Kahmiris, what India is giving "STATE TERRORISM".                                       
What the First PM of India Nehru Promised:- "We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given...not to the people of Kashmir but to the World. We will not and can not back out of it. We are Prepared, when peace and order have been established to have a referendum held under the auspices of the United Nation" (Jawaharlal Nehru 1st PM of India)
Human Right Organizations across the World verified that:
MORE THAN 80,000 innocent Kashmiris killed by Indian troops,
MORE THAN 24,000 innocent Kashmiris disappeared in Indian Custody,
MORE THAN 19,000 Kashmiri Women RAPED by Indian Army !!!!!!
Where are Peace Loving Countries ?
OVER 800,000 INDIAN TROOPS are equipped with Guns, Helicopters, Air crafts, Missiles, Rockets,etc.
And when Kashmiris raised voice against Tyranny, when they started fighting for their freedom, world called them Terrorist......
Dear Rep Ron Paul Sir! why don't you raise your voice for Kashmir, I think you must have seen the present election held in Kashmir, what was the turn out there, just 1 or 2 percent, so what does it mean ? Yes the Kashmiris want Plebesite according to the UNO Resolutions and not the Election according to the Indian constitution !!!
In the end I would like to add few lines about what I, all Pakistanis and Muslims think that where ever there is terrorism we condemn it, in all its form, whether it is a Terrorism of a single body as suicide bombing or Terrorism of a group as Al-Qaeda, or Terrorism of a State as State Terrorism going on in Kashmir by India . All the terrorist acts should be condemned!!! This is what we hope from you as well.
Thank you sir!
M.Kashif Iqbal


This Site Served by TheHostPros