strike on iraq

I would be very careful about that. The U.S. has been strongly opposed to the Iraqi opposition. In 1988, when Saddam Hussein was a great friend and ally, the U.S. blocked any criticism of the gas attacks. At that point, according to Iraqi opposition leaders to whom I have spoken, Secretary of State George Schultz ordered U.S. diplomats not to have any contacts with Iraqi dissidents because that might bother their friend Saddam Hussein. These orders remained in place and were formally and publicly reiterated in March 1991 - that is, after the Gulf war - while the U.S. was backing Saddam Hussein's massacre of the Shi'ites in the south of Iraq.

The U.S. has sought to work with the military elements of the Iraqi opposition. The idea has been that there should be a military coup that would replace Saddam Hussein with a more or less equivalent regime but without Saddam Hussein. Those efforts have been penetrated by Iraqi intelligence and have failed.

The democratic Iraqi opposition itself claims to this day that it has been receiving essentially no support from the United States. That was pretty much conceded by Secretary Albright just two days ago. When asked about this matter she said: "We have now come to the determination that the Iraqi people would benefit if they had a government that really represented them." She said this in December 1998, when the U.S. suddenly had a religious conversion and decided that Iraqis would benefit if they had a government that represented them. That means that until now the U.S. did not take that position - which is correct. Until now, the position has been that the Iraqi people have to be controlled by an iron-fisted military junta, without Saddam Hussein if possible, since he is an embarrassment.

But shall we take Secretary Albright at her word today, has the religious conversion taken place? No, it is very unlikely that anything has changed except tactics. The U.S. government does not want a democratic opposition to gain power in Iraq any more than it would want such an event to occur in Saudi Arabia. No, it wants these countries to be ruled by dictatorships that are under U.S. influence.

There is a lot to criticise in the Iraqi democratic opposition, but part of the reason why they are so fragmented and at odds with each other is that they just do not get support from the outside. That should not surprise us: where in the world does the U.S. support the democratic opposition? We know how it acts in Central America and in Africa - why should it be different in Iraq?
 
Originally posted by candletrader
DOTSLASH, FLIP THE QUESTIONS AROUND...
More...


You didn't flip the questions around , you completely changed them. You know that those questions and answers are appropriate and based upon reality, and you can't face it. You must change the subject and focus on how evil you think the U.S. is.

If you believe that the U.S. is a greater threat to world peace than Iraq or any terrorist organization, then you are truly disturbed.

If you think that the U.N. has the ultimate authority over every government, including the U.S. government, then you are putting it in the position of a de facto World Government, which it is not. The U.S. still has sovereighnty, as does the U.K., as does Iraq for that matter, and all 3 parties have chosen their paths and we will see how it plays out. My money and my hopes and prayers are on the U.S., and for those who would rather side with Iraq or with Terrorists, they have also chosen their fate.
 
If you are truly a supporter of Chomsky, and know where he is coming from, then you have no business trading stocks or getting involved in the capitalist system. He is a socialist. He has also been extremely anti-american since the Vietnam war. He is a marginal leftover hippie, who is a PHd. of a subject that he completely made up himself ! All of this is true, look it up for yourself. If you admire this man, then I question why you are on this message board.
 
Questions that Won't Be Asked About Iraq
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
September 11, 2002



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 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 Musharraf 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?

Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.
 
Originally posted by Bryan Roberts
Questions that Won't Be Asked About Iraq
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
More...
I guess once was not enough to have to read this. I would think it could have been read twice without being posted twice.

35 points. Some valid, some not.

Ron Paul is a great thinker? Unique? Gotta love these people that can think in black and white. Life must be so easy for them. I am envious of their bliss.

Peace,
Rs7
 
I agree with about 1/3rd of those, about 1/3rd have absolutely nothing to do with whether we should attack Iraq or not, and the other 1/3rd are just plain wrong.
 
also , I think it is appalling that a congress member does not understand the constitution, and is so willing to give up american sovereighnty to the U.N. It is amazing and sad that he is a Republican.
 
Originally posted by dotslashfuture
also , I think it is appalling that a congress member does not understand the constitution, and is so willing to give up american sovereighnty to the U.N.
More...

dotslash - can you elaborate on this?

bryan - do you have a link for the Paul article?

thanks.
 
Originally posted by dotslashfuture
also , I think it is appalling that a congress member does not understand the constitution, and is so willing to give up american sovereighnty to the U.N. It is amazing and sad that he is a Republican.
More...


LOL LOL LOL LOL ....this guy is probably the most constitutionally compliant individual in washington!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he's really a libertarian which i know scares a lot of people. dotslash you have got to be kidding??????? which item are you referring to that indicates that he advocates giving up sovereignty to the UN?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top