In View of Impending Violent Insanity
Mar. 17th, 2003 11:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vervain13This seemed most appropriate.
> A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A
> PEACENIK
> By Bill Davidson
>
> 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 New York.
>
> 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 terrorist
> 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 Bin Laden
> 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 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 Qaida 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 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, 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 all the other cheese-eating surrender
> monkeys. It's time to
> boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt
> about that.
>
> PN: Here... have a pretzel, instead.
> A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A
> PEACENIK
> By Bill Davidson
>
> 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 New York.
>
> 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 terrorist
> 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 Bin Laden
> 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 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 Qaida 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 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, 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 all the other cheese-eating surrender
> monkeys. It's time to
> boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt
> about that.
>
> PN: Here... have a pretzel, instead.
