Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (6991)	9/21/2002 1:00:05 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Is It Not True? Questions On Iraq From A GOP Congressman Ron Paul is an M.D. and a Republican Member of Congress from Texas Editor's Note: Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul read the following to the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002. tompaine.com Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. 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 there are those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, and 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 U.N.'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 U.N. 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 United States? 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 one-fifth the size of 12 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 United Nations 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 U.S. 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 U.N. resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of U.N. resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty? 20. Did former President Bush not cite the U.N. 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 United States. 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 U.S. 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?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (6991)	9/21/2002 3:11:40 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Didn't Clinton try for a more liberal court but the Republican controlled congress strike him down in a few occasions? Maybe I remember wrong...

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (6991)	9/21/2002 7:41:55 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

AMERICA'S WAR ON TERROR -- AND HISTORY By Richard Reeves Syndicated Columnist Fri Sep 20,10:01 PM ET story.news.yahoo.com WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's declaration, "The National Security Strategy of the United States," stands as one of the more amazing, depressing and self-deluding documents ever written by the governors of the land of the free and the home of the brave. It is, in fact, too American by half, reading more like the warning cry of crazed missionaries than the reasoned or tolerant arguments of a free and democratic people. The 33 pages submitted to Congress last Friday should be read to music: Onward American soldiers, marching as to war! We will save the world whether it wants to be saved or not, and those who will not be saved will be destroyed in the fires of new technologies. It seems that we are a beleaguered people, surrounded by an encroaching jungle of danger, persecuted from all sides for our goodness, our decency, our generosity. Or, to be more precise, we are better than other people, and they will become like us -- or else. It is hard to imagine these pages of the national strategy were written inside the comfortable walls of the White House in this sunny capital. The Cold War, it seems, has passed, and things are even worse now with thunder crashing around the world as evildoers gather in the darkness at our borders. It is not the strategies and policies of the document that I find so amazing. It is the tone, or as younger people might say, "the attitude," that is so disturbing, and in some ways, so foreign. Are we really so afraid of everyone else? Do we no longer believe that it is morning in America? Here are some of the thoughts and words from the final draft of the document, which says, among other absurdities, that nationalism is internationalism and victory is defeat: "The United States' national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better ... "We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few. We must defeat these threats to our nation, allies and friends ... "Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom's triumph over all these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission ... "By making the world safer, we allow the people of the world to make their own lives better. We will defend this just peace against threats from terrorists and tyrants ... "Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us. To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal ... "The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed. We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain and curtail our enemies' efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. ... We must be prepared to defeat our enemies' plans." In the plan, we are at the center of "lonely defenders of liberty" -- and we are ever ready to "look outward for possibilities to expand liberty." There is a great deal of political boilerplate in the document, with sections promoting everything from better intelligence to entrepreneurial energy and, of course, lower taxes. But there is also willful deception or delusion about how we got to the point that suicidal terrorism is the greatest threat to our messianic dominance of the world. The administration praises itself for "supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world." But our friends out there are military dictators (Pakistan) and monarchies (Saudi Arabia). The history of the Cold War, written by people who were ready to launch war against the Soviet Union, now reads: "We faced a generally status quo, risk-adverse adversary." It is a very depressing document, describing a dark, stormy view from a slightly hysterical White House ready to declare war on both the world and reality. ____________________________________________________ RICHARD REEVES, author of President Nixon: Alone in the White House (October 2001), is a writer and syndicated columnist who has made a number of award-winning documentary films. His ninth book, President Kennedy: Profile of Power — now considered the authoritative work on the 35th president — won several national awards and was named the Best Non-Fiction Book of 1993 by Time. His other best selling books include Convention and American Journey: Travelling with Tocqueville in Search of American Democracy.