From: Andrew Clough (aclough@mit.edu)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 18:05:47 MST
A wandering, mischievous, and distinctly unFriendly AI sees these two, and
decides that it would be fun if he switched their opinions. Suddenly the
intelligent peacnick sees why the invasion is necessary, and the straw
warmonger has an attack of conscience. They become, respectively, WM' and
PN', and continue their debate, now on opposite sides.
PN': I was so wrong, this war it totally illegal! Its against the UN charter!
WM': How so? We have resolution 1441 saying that we can invade.
PN': Nonsense! Serious consequences doesn't mean *war*! It means... well
France definitely wouldn't have voted for it if it meant war! And besides,
now the Security Council is "seized of the matter" and so invading is illegal.
WM': <smiles> And I suppose that the US voted for resolution 1441 thinking
that it would legally prevent them from going to war? Anyway, how is the
Security Council "seized of the matter" now that they are no longer even
planning a vote related toe Iraq, much less demanding any action of any party?
PN': Never mind! The point is that one country can't invade another just
like that! We were at peace with Iraq, we can't just suddenly declare war!
WM': And how did we achieve peace, given that we never signed a peace treaty?
PN': So what! We have a cease fire!
WM': Whose terms resolution 1441 says that Iraq has broken.
PN': Even so, we have no evidence that Iraq has any of those weapons.
WM': So why won't Iraq offer anything but the most token assistance, and
defectors form Iraq consistently say that Iraq is hiding more weapons?
PN': Even if they have weapons in violation of the cease fire, we can get
rid of them with inspections.
WM': And if he just kicks out the inspectors again?
PN': Well he let them back in didn't he? He must have turned over a new leaf.
WM': Or maybe it was just the threat of war?
PN': In any event he is cooperating now.
WM': Will he continue to cooperate when he realizes that we aren't willing
to go to war?
PN': Moving on, those are all just excuses to go to war, we don't have any
good reasons though.
WM': Iraq's support of international terrorism?
PN': What evidence do we have of that? None.
WM': There is that mockup of a 747 that for terrorists to practice
hijacking, and the fact that they give money to the families of suicide
bombers.
PN': But that isn't necessarily related to Osoma Bin Ladin, who doesn't
seem to be showing his face anymore anyway, so that doesn't matter.
WM': Even if Saddam can supply nuclear weapons to terrorists?
PN': There hasn't ever been any nuclear terrorism yet, so there never will be.
WM': And then there is freeing the Iraqi's from a brutal dictatorship.
PN': Whoever we put in will be worse, just look at those guys we supported
during the Cold War.
WM': None were worse than Saddam, and why would we continue to do the same
now that the Cold War is over?
PN': Even putting in a democracy will be antidemocratic, since the Iraqi's
won't have chosen that government.
WM': Even if they can change their constitution?
PN': Countries are supposed to have revolutions and achieve democracy
without any outside help.
WM': Like the US did?
PN': I still have objections!
WM': Go ahead.
PN': The US is a bad country and has no right to impose its will abroad.
WM': Would you say that bad people shouldn't be allowed to do good deeds?
PN': <thinks for a bit> Moving on, we put Saddam where he is now.
WM': No we didn't, and even if we did wouldn't that make him our
responsibility to remove.
PN': But we gave him permission to invade Kuwait!
WM': How is telling him that he can solve the problem himself the same as
telling him to invade?
PN': We should adjudicate all disputes between all other countries just to
make sure that this doesn't happen. And we did sell him weapons.
WM': But didn't we sell him less weapons than France or Russia?
PN': Doesn't matter, and there are lots of worse countries out there that
we should get first, like North Korea.
WM': Do you think that China would agree to that?
PN': They might but...Our sanctions on Iraq are heartless and cost the
lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis each year.
WM': If Iraq used the money for food instead of weapons that wouldn't
happen, and besides, isn't that an argument *against* the status quo?
PN': But people will be killed if we invade Iraq.
WM': Yes, but far less than will be killed if we don't.
PN': It doesn't matter, if we do something the blood will be on our hands,
while if we do nothing we won't be to blame.
WM': But any action can unintentionally cause someone's death, so if you
believe that, isn't your only moral choice to never take any action?
PN': Well, there will be too many civilian deaths.
WM': The top of the range of the largest independent count is 724 so
far. Even assuming that 7000 civilians die in this war, it will be less
than Iraq's police kill in an average year.
PN': We should have offered Saddam a peaceful way out.
WM': Like our offer to let him leave?
PN': But we'll get Iraq's oil if we win!
WM': Won't being able to sell their oil help the Iraqis just as much as us?
PN': But that's *why* we're invading!
WM': Couldn't we get Iraq's oil by just supporting Saddam? Why go through
this whole "war" thing just to get something Saddam seems perfectly willing
to sell?
PN': But Bush and Cheney are oilmen!
WM': How does that effect the above?
PN': But we don't have international support!
WM': Have you heard the phrase "coalition of the willing?"
PN': But that doesn't include the US's traditional rivals like France or
China!
WM': Doesn't it have most of Europe though?
PN': I know, wasn't it horrid how they just stabbed France in the
back. Europe should be unified.
WM': But didn't the majority of European countries vote to support the US?
PN': They should be unified behind what France wants! You're just a
bloodthirsty lunatic; I just hope Iraq defeats the US just to take them
down a notch.
WM': I give up.
At 05:08 PM 4/1/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>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.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Don't assign
to stupidity what might be due to ignorance. And try not to assume you
opponent is the ignorant one-until you can show it isn't you.
-M.N. Plano
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 18:23:49 MST