Warmonger Explains War With Iraq To A Peacenik

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by trader556, Mar 19, 2003.

  1. Peacenik: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?

    Warmonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.

    PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

    WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

    PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

    WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

    PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

    WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

    PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

    WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

    PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

    WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

    PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

    WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

    PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

    WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

    PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

    WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

    PN: He did?

    WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaeda poison factory in Iraq.

    PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

    WM: And a British intelligence report...

    PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

    WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

    PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

    WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

    PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

    WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

    PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

    WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

    PN: So what is the point?

    WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.

    PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

    WM: Absolutely. ... unless it rules against us.

    PN: And what if it does rule against us?

    WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

    PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

    WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

    PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

    WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

    PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

    WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

    PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

    WM: Yes.

    PN: But George B-

    WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

    PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

    WM: I never said that.

    PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

    WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

    PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

    WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

    PN: You know this? How?

    WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

    PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

    WM: Precisely.

    PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

    WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

    PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

    WM: Exactly.

    PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

    WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

    PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

    WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

    PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

    WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

    PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

    WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

    PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

    WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

    PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

    WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

    PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

    WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

    PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

    WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

    PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

    WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

    PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

    WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

    PN: In which case?

    WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

    PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

    WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

    PN: That makes no sense:

    WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

    PN: I give up.
     
  2. msfe

    msfe

    that´s it - a masterpiece of contemporary American realism

    `good vs. evil - let´s roll´
     
  3. Thank you once again for providing a lot of laughs.

    What are you doing to my country?!? :D
     
  4. Babak

    Babak

    yawn
     
  5. Several hours after the U.S. raids on Baghdad, a Kuwaiti defence ministry spokesman said an Iraqi Scud and two smaller missiles struck northern Kuwait.

    Sahaf denied Iraq had any Scuds, which are banned under 1991 Gulf War ceasefire terms that also ordered Baghdad to scrap its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes.
     
  6.  
  7. I heard this point addressed earlier this morning. It was claimed that the range on these scuds used today were within the UN guidelines. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this "fact" but just trying to relay the information.
     
  8. Is this some new kind of logic?? :confused: :confused: :confused:


    "All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?

    Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.
    Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does. And we are twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition. We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them."

    Sure someone will explain this:D :D :D

    What the friggin f%$k are we doing???:confused: :confused:
     
  9. roe

    roe

    You are a genius! I already was "shocked and awed" by your first post, but now, a week later you managed to update it and the truth is even more worryingly coming to the light. I am actually frightened (must be the cowardly German grandfather and his cheese-eating French surrender girlfriend in me) of the inevitability of the desaster which is brewing out there.

    Okay okay, the Americans will "win" that "war", and sooner or later Saddam Hussein will begin rotting in his grave. But at what cost!!!

    When I travelled Germany last year, I almost felt like being in the US! Literally everybody speaks English, and those who do, speak with an American accent. Those people's benchmark is the US, and now they are turning their hearts and minds against the country which they have learned to admire most. How long has it taken the US diplomacy to build up this trust and yes, even love for the US in that country, and how little time did it take to destroy that!

    The way people like you and I feel now must have been the way some of our forefathers felt in August 1914. Remember: the monarchs who led their subjects into that worldwar, were all first cousins! Just that the weapons people had in those days were not as far-reaching as what they have nowadays.

    How cruel of Babak to just say "YAWN"! His indifference is worse than the ranting of those right-winger "idits" in the US and Australia
     
  10. It's the ole Monty Python Logic:D :D :D :D


    I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:

    he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now
    I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple
    of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health
    food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson
    is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been
    able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to
    see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how
    devious he is.
    As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from
    very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I
    have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act
    first, he'll pick us off one by one.

    Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go
    to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say
    that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours.
    They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights
    and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson
    will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr
    Patel will be secretly murdering people.

    Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of
    automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But
    until recently that's been a little difficult.

    Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I
    need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do
    whatever I want! That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and
    kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson.
    Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that
    totally unacceptable way.

    Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before
    bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and
    that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find
    them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr
    Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.

    Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg.
    There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and
    who - quite frankly -look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe
    until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too
    far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of
    the United States. That shuts her up. Like Mr Bush, I've run out
    of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's
    good enough for me.

    I'm going to give the whole street two weeks -
    no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all
    aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar
    terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say
    'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.
    It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in
    contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.
     
    #10     Apr 2, 2003