From: Christian Szegedy (szegedy@or.uni-bonn.de)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 08:08:52 MST
WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO PEACENIK (Author Unknown)
PN: Why did you say we are we 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 any 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.
PN: I give up.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 08:18:48 MST