I will, even though most of his questions are silly rambling opinions based on faulty premises.
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. They completed it, but if Iraq hid weapons, did they really cooperate?
5. No.
6. Yes.
7. I don't know.
8. Yes.
9. Unknown.
10. No. Exaggeration.
11. We are not doing that.
12. Their suspicians are unfounded.
13. True, it's not a totally valid comparison. But Hussein can put WMD into terrorist hands, which Hitler could not do.
14. No, this has recently been tested in court.
15. Wrong, bad info.
16. No.
17. Incorrect premise.
18. We are prepared to pay a price, but nothing suggests it is as high as that.
19. Every case is different. Not all violations carry equal weight.
20. We did not enter Baghdad because of the coalition. We will enter now because Hussein has broken his treaty.
21. True. The UN mandated that Hussein cease killing his people. The US and Britain are enforcing that mandate.
22. Yes, the anti-war movement has created animosity toward the US.
23. Iraq presents a current risk to the US and the world.
24. No.
25. Yes, although we had an official policy of strict neutrality during that war. No.
26. No, not at all.
27. Unknown, probably for national security reasons like the rest of us.
28. Bill Clinton favors our intervention.
29. Erroneous premise. Iraq fires at our jets every day, in violation of their 1992 treaty.
30. This war is self defense.
31. No.
32. Yes.
33. No.
34. Yes.
35. Not required. (See #14)
Funny how Ron Paul, a guy called an "idiot" by most left wingers for decades, is now the voice of reason. Any port in a storm, I guess. |
