A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK

Thought everyone would get a kick out of this. I'm sure you'll let me know if I was right or wrong!

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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!

Funny how nobody's replied to this. It's true.


<b><font color=blue>Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia</b></font color=blue>

ok I'll reply. It's been written from a peaceniks point of view, with the punchlines for the peacenik, rather than the warmonger.

I'm sure someone else could write something equally smug from the other point of view.

<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~<font color=blue></b>

Oh for f**k's sake....

Can't you see that all your anti-war, anti-US stance is really starting to piss people off? Your problem is that in your mind, your stance is right and that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Period.

If people are against war, fine. If people are for war, OK. At least have the common decency to allow those people to have their views without you mocking them and feeding them some bullshit you once read that has no military credibility.

<font color=blue>"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum" - Roddy Piper</font color=blue>

They wont admit they're wrong... but that is human. I have similair problems myself.

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on

I don't know why I am even responding to you Svol, but here goes...

Ok, now which of these statements did you make by NOT applying common sense? Anyone who has any idea about the situation would be able to make these same statements. So what's your point?

Even yet Svol, you have NOT, I repeat...NOT given any resolutions to the problems with Iraq, and how Saddam's regime was/is not complying with the U.N. and its resolutions.

So, since you have been right on everything else, please enlighten us as to how to stop mass murder of millions AND violations of U.N. resolutions in Iraq. (Hint: This requires more thought than those other statements that you have been correct on...)

<font color=blue> Computer fans are really cooling fans for the user. When they run, the user is cool, but whenever they break, the user starts sweating!! </font color=blue>

this war is not about the human rights violations that have gone in on iraq. if it were about human rights violations and violations on us resolutions there were be other countries that have committed far worse atrocities than sadaam. israel, saudi arabi, china, north korea have just as many if not far worse human rights violations and abuses than good ole sadaam hussein. this is also the same people in our government who called husseins actions unfortunate when he murdered hundreds of thousands of peoples within his border with the weapons we so kindly provided him. you want solutions to the problems with iraq i suggest the us take a good hard look at who they give military aid, funding, training, and weapons to in the future. i agree there is no easy answer but i have said it before and will say it again we created this mess and now we have to clean it up. it should never have come to this.

<i><font color=red>What you need and everything you'll feel is just a question of the deal In the eye of storm just think of the lonely dove the experience of survival is the key to the gravity of love</font color=red></i>

We aren't the only one who created this mess. Luckily, the UK and Aussies are helping us clean it up. Also, just saying we created the mess doesn't really say a thing. You have to factor the "why" into the equation and then things become a lot more clear. Not pretty, but you have to ask yourself what you would have done 20+ years ago. Things were different.

<font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=blue>BLESS</font color=blue> <font color=red>AMERICA</font color=red>

good point it doesn't absolve the us either. the only reason i really bring that point is some of the people from this administration were the ones involved with giving hussein his weapons in the first place. everything has come full circle. i don't know what i would have done in their shoes. anyways here's to getting it done

<i><font color=red>What you need and everything you'll feel is just a question of the deal In the eye of storm just think of the lonely dove the experience of survival is the key to the gravity of love</font color=red></i>

You raise a good point jmycal. Once you give a weapon away, you lose control on how and to what purpose it is used. So we shouldn't be suprised if some of the weopons we gave away get pointed back at us. I think though, that the period that most of our weapons were suppilied to other countries was during the cold war. Maybe we picked the lesser of two evils (supplying weapons and fighting the USSR by proxy vs total war with the USSR). Who can say for sure? Surely nobody would have wanted the two superpower in a nuclear slugfest. We don't know that it would have degenerated into that, but again, who can be sure? I think our leaders did the best job they could during the time and made several decisions that would be called "judgment calls". Today we are fighting the legacy of the cold war. I believe that our current cause is just. I also believe that is a shame that our resources, as a nation, are being funneled into a cause of violence rather than one of mercy. We should be curing AIDs in Africa. We should be traveling to Mars. We should be doing a hundred other things besides killing our fellow man. Shame on us. Not just our leaders, shame on us all...We all, in our own small ways, perpetuate the slavery, oppression, and exploitation of human beings elsewhere. From the sex slaves in Amsterdam (internet porn), to the cocoa plantations in Africa (chocolate), to the sweatshops of southeast asia (Walmart), we have their blood on our hands.

Any man can withstand adversity...The true test of character is to give a man power <i>Abraham Lincoln</i>

Amen

Any man can withstand adversity...The true test of character is to give a man power <i>Abraham Lincoln</i>

I agree, but it also doesn't kill anybody.

"There is no God but God!"
- Iraqi civilian woman after being bombed by the US.

i am going to play devils advocate for a minute. why is the us so worried about the people of iraq when our country has so many pressing problems socially. how about making sure the american people come first, which is supposed to be the top priority of our government. how is it that we have billions of dollars to fight a "questionable" war or what ever you like to call it, yet we are cutting money for social programs left and right. that is the same as genocide but it goes by a diferent name. when you take away the ability to care for those who are less fortunate isn't that just as bad as someone who ethnically cleanses his country?

<i><font color=red>What you need and everything you'll feel is just a question of the deal In the eye of storm just think of the lonely dove the experience of survival is the key to the gravity of love</font color=red></i>

it all seems like a big catch 22. to protect our people we spend enormous amounts of time resources and materials and money to ensure our freedom and security and then have nothing left over to ensure the quality of life for the people we are protecting, or vice versa. we need to do things differently, that is for sure.

<i><font color=red>What you need and everything you'll feel is just a question of the deal In the eye of storm just think of the lonely dove the experience of survival is the key to the gravity of love</font color=red></i>