A Warmonger Explains War to a Peacenik

[GuyJean]

(warning: long post)

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 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 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 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 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 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.

Things that make you go, 'Hhmmm'..

[Andocrates]

That was a lame ass repost - it's way past that point,

[GuyJean]

That was a lame ass repost - it's way past that point,

Past the point of seond-guessing actions? I don't think so.. I still haven't seen any evidence of WMD. I'm waiting to see if this is a 'just' war until I see evidence. I'm patient..

I also didn't know it was a repost. I didn't see it before.. If it is, just ignore.

GJ

[cstaylor]

If Iraqis can live in peace after this war (preferrably with a parliament of some kind), then it was a just war.

Now, ain't Qatar the best example of scrappy capitalism in the Middle East? First they get the U.S. to pay them to support military installations, then they support Al Jazeera news that panders to militant islamic moods in the Middle East. It's like fixing a fight, but they're probably in the safest place in the ME due to the location of U.S. central command. :P

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

That was a lame ass repost - it's way past that point,

Past the point of seond-guessing actions? I don't think so.. I still haven't seen any evidence of WMD. I'm waiting to see if this is a 'just' war until I see evidence. I'm patient..

I also didn't know it was a repost. I didn't see it before.. If it is, just ignore.

GJ

We don't need to find weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was in material violation of the order to disarm. We don't have to extend deadlines or waive the sanctions. He was given direct orders to disclose everything and failed to do it. That warrants attack. We told him we would right from the beginning.

[katakori]

He was given direct orders (...) That warrants attack (...) We told him we would right from the beginning

i love this kind of talking.

because of course, we all take for granted that he is not allowed to think and act for himself, and that he has moral obligations to however elects to "give him direct orders"...?
so now, we assume that the lives of iraqis (civilians and soldiers alike) are less important than the lives of horses (see this post)??

this is shit. there is no way anyone with half a brain really think this war is about weapons of mass destruction of any kind... and even if it is, and even if we do think it is a war that goes for the good of humankind, there is no way anyone can call this a "good" war and not feel sorry it is happening.

this goes for any war happening as we speak that don't have the same media coverage because they are violent and bloody, and do not involve the US...

[cstaylor]

this is shit. there is no way anyone with half a brain really think this war is about weapons of mass destruction of any kind... and even if it is, and even if we do think it is a war that goes for the good of humankind, there is no way anyone can call this a "good" war and not feel sorry it is happening.

As far as any war can be good, if it results in peace for Iraq and an elimination of their current police state, this would be a good one.

Perhaps you have a better, less violent solution for removing tyrannical governments?

[katakori]

i see your point and of course i don't totally disagree with your point of view, but perhaps i do not have a solution and i do not claim to have one. and perhaps there is none. and perhaps the conversation of discussing if there is a solution is on a level much higher than i can ever pretend to be.

the crusades were a good war because the ennemy were sub-humans?
so was Napoleon's conquest of europe?
how about eliminating the jews during WW2 to help the country/world be a better place?
and Staline wanted to bring peace to his people by eliminating the threats of people who couldn't see the truth as he (fortunately) did?
colonization of india and the ruining of all social, political, and economic system they had was only a way for england to show compassion for those poor lost souls, right?
the vietnam war did bring peace to a country that had been colonized and abused for decades for its own good, i assume...?

of course i'm playing the devil's advocate here, but there are other ways than always thinking that "WE" are right and therefore "THEY" are wrong. especially since this war IS NOT about peace or freedom. and neither were any of the above-mentioned examples either...

if there was peace to be brought somewhere, there are a lot of places that already are fighting against one another and peace could be brought by PREVENTING THEM to fight. in that aspect, some former yugoslavia measures could be regarded as "not so bad after all". this is also probably why they were so badly implemented: we have no experience in preventing fight, but only in fighting harder... (i say we as "we humans", i do not imply the american or "western" people)

by thinking that we are doing the good thing for "their own good", you are playing the same rules as islamic extremists and therefore justifying 9/11 and any terrorist attack that has or will happen.

i think the first step is search peace.
a little of Ghandi-like attitude wouldn't hurt...

[GomiGirl]

i think the first step is search peace.
a little of Ghandi-like attitude wouldn't hurt...

I tend to agree with this as in a war there is always a winner and a loser and the losers tend to want to get back some sort of dignity..this is human nature. War does beget war unfortunately and people tend not to forget.

The Japanese situtation is interesting as the "new" constitution imposed by the "winners" made it impossible to regain any sort of millitary victory in the short term, but made business success the "moral" victory.

Unless the US want to invest in the same sort of occupation in post-war Iraq, then I still see trouble ahead for peace in the middle east.

just my two cents...

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

He was given direct orders (...) That warrants attack (...) We told him we would right from the beginning

i love this kind of talking.

because of course, we all take for granted that he is not allowed to think and act for himself, and that he has moral obligations to however elects to "give him direct orders"...?

As a matter of fact he does not. He is a dictator and a murderer. You want to have a chat with him? Go ahead. He will just have your head cut off. You stupid Europeans are absolutely unreal. You seem to think it is acceptable for dictators to lie and stall and that should just be accepted. No the time is now to send a message. Saddam is getting the death penalty and the other pieces of shit like him know that we are not the French. We are not cowards. We are not afraid to obliterate tyrants.

Freedom is not free sonny. Sometimes it has to be paid for. You are living in a free world because your countrymen (and a lot of Americans) said no to Despots. Stand up dummy and take a stand. The 21st century has no room for dictators.

this is shit. there is no way anyone with half a brain really think this war is about weapons of mass destruction of any kind... and even if it is, and even if we do think it is a war that goes for the good of humankind, there is no way anyone can call this a "good" war and not feel sorry it is happening.

Everybody is saddened by these events. Fortunately the US and the UK are able to stand up and say no more. The world will be a far better place without Saddam. Get your head out of your ass. We don't negotiate with murderers. We don't cooperate. You are a bufoon for even suggesting that Saddam has rights. He forfeited those rights years ago like any other murderer he needs to be off the streets. Yeah, it may not be entirely fair. I am sure all rapists and murderers that are locked up for what they did think it isn't fair either. Tough shit.

[Steve Bildermann]

[cstaylor]

The cold war was as much about balancing superpower hegemony as it was about reconciling differences in social systems.

I think the Poles would seriously disagree.

[Steve Bildermann]

The cold war was as much about balancing superpower hegemony as it was about reconciling differences in social systems.

I think the Poles would seriously disagree.

but not when Chairman Brezhnev was listening.