quote:'Warmonger' explains why we are at war to 'Peacenik'
PN: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?
WM: 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, Gillespie, 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.
posted
Yes, but tune in later tonight when Rob Farquar presents "This Joke Is Unreasonably Biased And The Perpetrator Should Be Reported To Homeland Security!"
*cut to letters-of-fire "This Joke Is Unreasonably Biased And The Perpetrator Should Be Reported To Homeland Security!" graphic*
It's incredible you know, many of the War-Mongerer statements, when I was reading them, I could hear Tony Blair saying them. . .
posted
At least Blair kind of tried to keep the international community together. If it was up to Bush, he'd have gone to war months earlier. I only hope Blair is not so stupid to follow Bush into Syria, Iran and whatever other country Bush can attack before he loses the elections.
posted
PN didn't seem to ask WM about the oil, but what the heck.....
No, Bush can invade any number of contries, as far as the common citizen is concerned, but if something isn't done about the economy, he'll go the way of his one term daddy. Of course, if he doesn't get his full tax reduction bill passed he can pass it off on the Dems and moderate Reps, possibly winning the Electoral on that stance, and helping people to vote for a less Dem and moderate Rep Congress. Then again, if the gets better than half, and the economy doesn't rebound as hoped he's most likely screwed. The foreign policy is far less likely to matter, unless he does invade someplace that is a mire of blood to the US soldiers.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
This is older than the crust on your shorts. n 90% of it has already been proven wrong, so there's no real need to dissect it. *YAWN*
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
That's right, 90% of the crap WM spews has.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Does anyone else find it ironic that First Of Two, an apparent "War Monger," used the same dismiss-as-ridiculous-rather-than-defend-or-explain-his-point tactics as the War Monger in Malnurtured Snay's tragically funny piece?
By the way, First Of Two, what do you know about the crust in certain shorts? Were you there when the crust was created? Were you, perhaps, the cause of the crust? Or are you an inspector who searches shorts for WMDs (those, of course, being Wads of Mass Destruction)?
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
You know what, that is kind of funny RC, considering that we really don't need another thread for this. What Jeff posted, while somewhat interesting, need not start another thread rehashing what we have going in another place....
If you really pay attention you will notice that in the long run both sides of this debate are talking in circles, with both sides being right and wrong, depending on the particular point, and the person viewing the point. For the most part all that any of us have done, in any thread regarding this subject, is spin our wheels, since neither side as changed the opinion of the other in the least, but it is fun to try anyway....
My belief that the few casualties of this war will benefit the greater number overall. Nothing anyone here will say can change that in the least.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
F2: The Israeli resolutions were chapter 6, unenforced. The Iraqi resolutions were Chapter 7, intended to be enforced, with "serious consequences."
PN: *drools* Um... I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
F2: You thought this based upon a report from Hans Blix, who Iraq successfully duped in the 1980's, and whom they were very happy to have back again.
PN: *drools* Um... But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
F2: They were able to launch those missiles, even if they weren't Scuds, into Kuwait now, weren't they? Kuwait, you simpleton, is an ALLY.
PN: *drools* Um... couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
F2: Ah, the 'two wrongs make a right' logical fallacy. Try harder.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
F2: We (what you mean 'we,' paleface? I didn't )sold them to the enemy of our enemy. Welcome to the ugly, dirty 'real world.' Things have changed.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
F2: Not outside a few conspiracy-theory internet pages.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
F2: We're still working on the problem. It ain't easy finding one guy in a country full of mountains and caves, with little border security. But if you think we're not still looking... tell it to the troops stationed there.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
F2: He's a secular infidel, all right. He's still an Arab. And Osama will always pick Arabs over whitey.
PN: He did?
F2: 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?
F2: Nope. It didn't.
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
F2: That depends. Were the UNMOVIC conclusions in 1998 out of date? Were any measures taken to ensure that they were not?
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
F2: No. His reports up and to the end show clearly that Iraq was not cooperating in the manner in which it was supposed to. Plus, we've covered Blix's 'ability to uncover Iraqi programs' issues already.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
F2: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. The evidence was to be presented to them. It was not.
That's a start.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
"F2: The Israeli resolutions were chapter 6, unenforced. The Iraqi resolutions were Chapter 7, intended to be enforced, with "serious consequences." "
--Weren't these resolutions not enforced because the US vetoed most of them? Just about any resolution condemning Israel is vetoed by Big Brother America.
"PN: *drools* Um... I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
F2: You thought this based upon a report from Hans Blix, who Iraq successfully duped in the 1980's, and whom they were very happy to have back again."
--So you believe Iraq has nuclear weapons?
"F2: They were able to launch those missiles, even if they weren't Scuds, into Kuwait now, weren't they? Kuwait, you simpleton, is an ALLY."
--Weren't these missiles launched from Southern Iraq, so they could hit Kuwait because they can only go a little more than 100 miles? Does 90-100 miles constitue long range?
"F2: We (what you mean 'we,' paleface? I didn't )sold them to the enemy of our enemy. Welcome to the ugly, dirty 'real world.' Things have changed."
--So, as long as we sell them to an enemy of an enemy, it's OK?
"F2: Not outside a few conspiracy-theory internet pages."
--Probably true, but we certainly knew about his build-up on their border, said it was none of our concern, and made the mother of all blunders when everyone predicted he would not invade Kuwait.
"F2: No. His reports up and to the end show clearly that Iraq was not cooperating in the manner in which it was supposed to. Plus, we've covered Blix's 'ability to uncover Iraqi programs' issues already."
--How? Didn't he say they were cooperating? Or, were they not cooperating in the manner the BUSH ADMINISTRATION wanted them to, not the UN?
"F2: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. The evidence was to be presented to them. It was not."
--If their job is not to find weapons, why are they called "inspectors?" Why did they go around in white SUVs to search for weapons, then? Then why didn't we invade in December, after Iraq did not lay out their weapons on a table to the inspectors?
posted
Face it, this whole war story is just as believeable as that one about the bloke who was born on christmas, shot his mouth off about everything under the sun and then came a cropper on a hill in jolly arab land.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I appreciate your revision, First Of Two. Better than a brush-off. However, I have not come across many "peaceniks" who drool. A lot that smell, but none that drool.
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
