received in my inbox today

long, but worth reading

 

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 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 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, 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 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!

bwhahahah pretty obvious who the other peace vote was on our poll lmao :D

Can it be? A kindred spirit?!!

:D

Russ.

Excellent Post Craig!

The US are truly the Untouchable World Police. But that's OK with me :D :D

 

Good post.

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella

The US are truly the Untouchable World Police.

Good post.

Hey... Cool! That was exactly what I told my "peace no war" cousin that the world needs a police! As much as every neighbourhood needs.. u wouldn't want your neighbour to come rob your house n get away with it for 12 years and still stays involved with criminal activites, continue building his own arsenal, threatens other neighbours, or even harming your family members...

Very hippycritical indeed! ;) :D

so i re read that and it looks to me like it was made up and taken from bits and bobs of quotes? is there any link to who the actual conversastion or debate was taken from?

its easy to take things in past context and relate them back into present and say "aahh but this but that" ect.

sounds almost like one of Bean Laadins pre cut tapes he sends out sporadically lol