File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2003/anarchy-list.0303, message 655


From: "Heather" <Heather-AT-teknopunx.co.uk>
Subject: A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:41:55 -0000


A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
 By Victor Forsythe

Dedicated to the Love it or Leave it crowd


 PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we 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 coundn'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
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 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 Quaida. 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
 tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily
 be a
 partnership between al-Qaida 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 Quaeda 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 Iraquis scuttling and hiding evidence from
 inspectors...

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

 WM: Yes, but there is plently 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
dectruction  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 Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the
 U.S.
Supreme C...-
 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,  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
waywe 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 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!



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005