Revisiting Ron Paul's unanswered questions

[shanek]

Well, it's been over six months since the libertarian Republican asked these questions about the war. (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm) To this date, I still haven't seen anyone give any satisfactory answers.

Any takers?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ugh. Feh. Hold on a sec . . . just pouring my brains back into my skull . . . there we go.

Sorry, too many double and triple negatives. I cannot understand the questions.

~~ Paul

[shanek]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ugh. Feh. Hold on a sec . . . just pouring my brains back into my skull . . . there we go.

Sorry, too many double and triple negatives. I cannot understand the questions.

Funny...I've shown them to many people and none of them mentioned any problems understanding it. And double and triple negatives are part of the English language. The only problem is in their misuse, but Paul didn't misuse them.

[John Bryce]

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?

We begin bombing in five minutes (http://home.golden.net/~tdailey/Sounds/Bomb.wav)

:D

(The above link is an audio file in WAV format)

[John Bryce]

I do not support this war, but I might as well play the Devil's Advocate (mostly), and give some answers.

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?

The Soviet Union did not aid and or harbour terrorists or terrorist groups that actively threatened the U.S. If it looked like the Soviet Union was going to attack the U.S., the U.S. would have conducted a pre-emptive strike to prevent an attack.

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?

Military action against Iraq is a direct result of Iraqi violations of UN resolutions to disarm, and a result of Iraq actively trying to build weapons of mass destruction, which U.N. inspectors found evidence of since the end of the war twelve years ago. Iraq is determined to build a stock-pile of weapons of mass destruction, and has deliberately tried to deceive the U.N. numerous time to achieve this goal. We can not afford to wait for Iraq to use its weapons of mass destruction against the U.S., or its allies, before action is taken.

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?

Evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes has been varified through such things as U-2 missions over Iraq, as well as U.N. inspectors. Some of the most credible and damning information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction comes from high ranking Iraqi military and scientific personel who have defected from Iraq. U.S. intelligence also has informants working on the inside of Iraq providing information to the U.S. which, for the security and safety of the infomat, can not be revealved to outside sources.

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?

Pakistan has made many arrests of suspected al-Qaeda members. They are on side and active in the war on terror.

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"?

The United States and its allies in the war on terror are still actively involved in operations to eliminate the few remaining pockets of al-Qaeda members and other terrorists. Before the rebuilding of Afghanistan can fully go forward, all terrorist elements in Afghanistan must first be eliminated.

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?

The U.S. will attack any state that aids and or harbours terrorists. Without state sponsorship, these terrorist groups will have no support, and no where to hide. The ability of these terrorist groups will be greatly weakened by the elimination of states that sponsor their terrorist acts.

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?

Bringing democracy to Iraq will show the Arab world that the United States is for freedom, and our cause is just. Once the Arab world sees the freedom in Iraq, the rest of the Arab world will look to Iraq as a model and demand the same freedom. They will turn away from the message of bin Laden and will embrace freedom and democracy.

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?

America Didn't Seem to Mind Poison Gas (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0117gas.htm)

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?

There is no conclusive proof that the so-called Gulf War syndrome is a genuine illness caused by exposure to military operations during Operation Desert Storm.

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?

There will not be thousands of American casualties. That was said before Operation Desert Storm, and it turned out to be completly inaccurate. It will be again this time.

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?

Oil prices have dropped even before the war starts as investors are counting on a very short war in Iraq. The estimates are Iraq will be occupied for at least two years by U.S. forces. If it takes 30 years to bring democracy to Iraq, then so be it. It will be worth it in the end, and the people of Iraq will thank us.

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?

Saddam was firmly in power in Iraq before U.S. support. The U.S. supported Iraq in its war with Iran because Iraq was the lessor of the two evils at that time. It is easy to find fault with the benefit of hindsight. We made a mistake supporting Saddam. We will correct that mistake by eliminating Saddam from Iraq.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Shanek said:Funny...I've shown them to many people and none of them mentioned any problems understanding it. And double and triple negatives are part of the English language. The only problem is in their misuse, but Paul didn't misuse them.
Is it not true that the people you showed them to are much more willing than I am not to get upset when reading sentence with multiple negatives?

Heck, even a little less formality would make the sentences easier to read:

1. Isn't it 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?

But mostly I just hate politics. :eek:

~~ Paul

[shanek]

Originally posted by John Bryce
I do not support this war, but I might as well play the Devil's Advocate (mostly), and give some answers.

OK.

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?

The Soviet Union did not aid and or harbour terrorists or terrorist groups that actively threatened the U.S. If it looked like the Soviet Union was going to attack the U.S., the U.S. would have conducted a pre-emptive strike to prevent an attack.

And what evidence is there that Saddam is going to attack the US?

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?

Military action against Iraq is a direct result of Iraqi violations of UN resolutions to disarm, and a result of Iraq actively trying to build weapons of mass destruction, which U.N. inspectors found evidence of since the end of the war twelve years ago. Iraq is determined to build a stock-pile of weapons of mass destruction, and has deliberately tried to deceive the U.N. numerous time to achieve this goal. We can not afford to wait for Iraq to use its weapons of mass destruction against the U.S., or its allies, before action is taken.

This doesn't answer the question. He didn't ask the reason why we're going to attack Iraq; he asked if we would be attacking if Iraq had real weapons of mass destruction, like North Korea.

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?

Evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes has been varified through such things as U-2 missions over Iraq, as well as U.N. inspectors. Some of the most credible and damning information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction comes from high ranking Iraqi military and scientific personel who have defected from Iraq. U.S. intelligence also has informants working on the inside of Iraq providing information to the U.S. which, for the security and safety of the infomat, can not be revealved to outside sources.

Again, this doesn't answer the question.

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?

Pakistan has made many arrests of suspected al-Qaeda members. They are on side and active in the war on terror.

He said "vast majority." How many were arrested compared to how many fled, and how prominent were those arrested?

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"?

The United States and its allies in the war on terror are still actively involved in operations to eliminate the few remaining pockets of al-Qaeda members and other terrorists. Before the rebuilding of Afghanistan can fully go forward, all terrorist elements in Afghanistan must first be eliminated.

Mmm. Nice and convenient excuse. Just curious, did you cook up these answers on your own playing devil's advocate or are they based on what people on the pro-war side have actually said? Because if this is actually what they're claiming, then they've lost pretty much all credibility...

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?

The U.S. will attack any state that aids and or harbours terrorists. Without state sponsorship, these terrorist groups will have no support, and no where to hide. The ability of these terrorist groups will be greatly weakened by the elimination of states that sponsor their terrorist acts.

There are many states harboring terrorists, not the least of which is Saudi Arabia. We're allied with Saudi Arabia, and are stationing troops there as a lunching off point to go to Iraq. Sorry, but this doesn't hold water either. And again, the "evidence" linking Saddam to terrorist groups is tenuous at best.

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?

Bringing democracy to Iraq will show the Arab world that the United States is for freedom, and our cause is just. Once the Arab world sees the freedom in Iraq, the rest of the Arab world will look to Iraq as a model and demand the same freedom. They will turn away from the message of bin Laden and will embrace freedom and democracy.

He didn't ask about bringing democracy to Iraq. He asked about attacking Iraq. And there are many reasons to doubt that we'll be successful in establishing a free state in Iraq after the 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?

America Didn't Seem to Mind Poison Gas (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0117gas.htm)

He asks if you're familiar with a Pentagon report, and you respond with an article from a policy group?

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?

There is no conclusive proof that the so-called Gulf War syndrome is a genuine illness caused by exposure to military operations during Operation Desert Storm.

There is much more evidence for it than there is evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks.

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?

There will not be thousands of American casualties. That was said before Operation Desert Storm, and it turned out to be completly inaccurate. It will be again this time.

He said "possibly," and there were still hundreds of American casualties in Gulf War I. Is your only response here numeric?

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?

Oil prices have dropped even before the war starts as investors are counting on a very short war in Iraq.

Where are you filling your gas tank???

http://www.msnbc.com/news/886936.asp?0si=-&cp1=1

Part of the reason for the run-up in retail gasoline prices is concern that a war with Iraq would disrupt Middle East oil supplies....As a result, crude oil prices had been steadily rising since last November. But their rate of increase has slowed.

The estimates are Iraq will be occupied for at least two years by U.S. forces. If it takes 30 years to bring democracy to Iraq, then so be it. It will be worth it in the end, and the people of Iraq will thank us.

This is nothing more than bluster. Again, are you getting this from actual claims made by the pro-war side?

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?

Saddam was firmly in power in Iraq before U.S. support. The U.S. supported Iraq in its war with Iran because Iraq was the lessor of the two evils at that time. It is easy to find fault with the benefit of hindsight. We made a mistake supporting Saddam. We will correct that mistake by eliminating Saddam from Iraq.

Answer the question. Is it not hypocritical of us to criticize Saddam for actions that the US supported at the time?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Shanek said:
Is it not true that the people you showed them to are much more willing than I am not to get upset when reading sentence with multiple negatives?

Apparently.

Heck, even a little less formality would make the sentences easier to read:

Well, when you present something to Congress, you have to be formal.

But mostly I just hate politics. :eek:

Then you're in the wrong forum. :p

[John Bryce]

Shanek,

I am way out of my league with you! :D