Reply
Mon 17 Mar, 2003 05:46 pm
The following is courtesy of BuzzCook.
A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
By Anonymous
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 Court.
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.
PN: I give up!
(Source: Unknown)
Better than good -- EXCELLENT.
Anon sure knows how to write.
Right to the point!!!!
Painfull for the warmongers!
Copy-pasted and mailed to my friends!!!
LOL!
This sums it all up, doesnt it?
If this isn't an unjustifiable war, period, at the very least it is the 'worst sold war in history'.
Thx for posting, I'll fw: it to some friends who'll appreciate it.
That is a well done piece, even if I would take exception to many of its propositions. I won't bother doing that, it would serve no purpose. I think nimh nailed it:
nimh wrote: it is the 'worst sold war in history'
gelisgesti posted this on the US/UN/War thread, where it quickly got snowed under - I think, considering the style it was written in, it fits better in here - and will be easier to find back this way, too! ;-)
Quote:Rumor Mill News Reading Room Forum
DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE
Posted By: HeraldAp
Date: Wednesday, 19 March 2003, 9:40 p.m.
Written by: Peter Freundlich of NPR
Food for thought... I'll take some mushroom tea, please...
All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?
Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.
Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does. And we are twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition. We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them.
Listen. Don't misunderstand. I think it is a good thing that the members of the Bush administration seem to have been reading Lewis Carroll. I only wish someone had pointed out that "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" are meditations on paradox and puzzle and illogic and on the strangeness of things, not templates for foreign policy. It is amusing for the Mad Hatter to say something like, `We must make war on him because he is a threat to peace,' but not amusing for someone who actually commands an army to say that. As a collector of laughable arguments, I'd be enjoying all this were it not for the fact that I know--we all know--that lives are going to be lost in what amounts to a freak, circular reasoning accident. --
Peter Freundlich / National Public Radio / 13.03.03
BBB's initial offering reads amazingly like the transcript of an interview I heard on the CBC sometime before Christmas. It was American army rep being interviewed by the host of Dispatches. I swear that at one point, I heard him (the U.S. army guy) start to stamp his feet. If i hadn't known it was real, I would have thought it was a Second City skit.
I don't know if y'all saw this one already - it made me laugh.
Quote:International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration
by John Cleese
Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil", Libya, China and Syria today announced that they had formed the: "Axis of Just as Evil", which they said would be more evil than that Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union Address. Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new group.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il declared "Not only do they have a really dumb name, but everybody knows we're the best evil." Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "An axis can't have more than three countries", explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So, you can only have three, and only one secret handshake."
Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what has become a game of geopolitical chairs: Cuba, Sudan and Serbia announced that they had formed the "Axis of Somewhat Evil", forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the "Axis of occasionally Evil", while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really as Just Generally Disagreeable".
With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the: "Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics".
Canada, Mexico and Australia formed the "Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America", while Scotland, New Zealand and Spain established the "Axis of Countries That Want Sheep to Wear Lipstick". "That's not a threat, really, just something we'd like to do", said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.
While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axis, although he rejected the establishment of the "Axis of Countries Whose Names End in 'Guay", accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges. Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.
Culture Clash! How about this for an answer to the Peaceniks?
Forget all the rationalizations about UN resolutions, WMD or oil. "Western Culture" which is based on freedom of the individual and secularism/ religious variance is clashing with "Islamic Culture" which is based on authoritarianism and religious dogma. Furthermore, the latter appears to hold "this life" to be relatively cheap. Dictatorships, benign or malignant, will continue to flourish in the psychological climate of a theocracy, and the dream of establishing a democracy in Iraq, will remain just that.
Of course politicians will pussyfoot around this central issue claiming "to respect religious beliefs and cultural differences". That may be true an an individual level, but at the group level we are basically sick and tired of being pushed around by what we consider to be medieval cultures.
fresco wrote:at the group level we are basically sick and tired of being pushed around by what we consider to be medieval cultures.
How have you been "pushed around" by medieval Islamic cultures, fresco? What did they do to you?
Specifically, what's Iraq, for example, ever done to us apart from not doing what we (the UN, through resolutions) told them to do?
fresco wrote:Dictatorships, benign or malignant, will continue to flourish in the psychological climate of a theocracy,
Name three theocracies in the Arab world. In fact, name one.
fresco wrote:Furthermore, the latter appears to hold “this life” to be relatively cheap.
At the risk of sounding like Wilso - but hey, I can respond in rhetorical kind:
Which of the images of civilian war victims in Iraq, of children in hospitals with shrapnel in their legs, or their arms cut off by a bomb blast, their mothers and family wailing in grief around them, has suggested to you that Arabs consider life cheap?
By "pushed around" I refer to the "infidel syndrome" which gives carte blanche to Islamicists to prefer violence to negotiation.
The concept of "The West as Satan" is straight Freudian projection used as a justification for such violence,
I refer not to theocracies per se but to their "psychological climate".
i.e. the propensity to act or be governed by "submission" (="Islam") to the "will of a deity" or those who claim to be "his spokesmen".
Of course the grief of individual bereavements is heart-rending. But only in Islamic culture (at present) do we also witness the sickening pride of the mother of the "martyr" who blew up somebodyelse's offspring. Such "martyrdom" also answers the question about the "value" of this life.
As an aside I am involved with elementary British schoolchildren.
When this war started I overheard one eleven year old Muslim boy talking to his Muslim friends. "Don't worry" he said, " WE will fire rockets at Israel and then we will win." ...and here is a child who is third generation "British" yet considers a holiday in Pakistan to be "going home". This is why I say the central issue is a culture clash and why it is futile to equate "moralities".
Fresco you are on very shaky ground.
We invade another country when most of the world wanted more diplomacy and santions. We use a vicious campaign that *we* name "shock and awe" using cluster bombs and napalm...
... who "prefers violence to negotiation"???
We bomb a residential neighborhood with what we call the "Mother of All Bombs" in an attempt to assassinate Iraqi leadership based on intelligence reports he may be there doubtlesslessly kill civilians.
... whose actions "question the value of life???
Your post is a bit one sided don't you think?
The only people who say that it is "futile to equate moralities" are deparately trying to cover up the injustice of American foreign policy.
Wouldn't you agree that killing Arab's is as immoral as killing Americans.
And get over this "Great Satan" thing. Franklin Graham said that Islam is "an evil religion". Both side are guilty of questionalable rhetoric. It doesn't make what we are doing any less immoral.
ebrown,
I think you made a few factual errors (I'm not certain):
I don't think the MOAB was used.
I don't think napalm was used.
I could be wrong.
there were mixed reports of napalm being used but i really kinda doubt it
The MOAB was not deployed, though several were available in-theater. Napalm was notably unevidenced. Submunitions, or "Cluster Bombs", currently provide soft-target tactical effect similar, even in some respect superior, to that of napalm, when used against troops and light combat vehicles in open-to-relatively-unfortified positions. A relatively low percentage of submunitions will fail to detonate on impact, and a percentage of those will present an ongoing danger of inadvertent post-engagement detonation, with attendent non-combatant casualties. The tactical alternative to the deployment of submunitions, in most cases, is to saturate the target area with napalm. With sufficient forenotice, landmines may be employed to afford similar, if longer-term, area-denial effect, though more frequently battlefield conditions and developments call for more immediate neutralization of enemy threat. On the wierd scale of awfulness of military means of destruction, submunitions are a bit less awful than either napalm or landmines. The rise in use of submunitions has been accompanied by a lessening of the use both of napalm and landmines by US forces.
Are cluster bombs illegal?
Nope. They may be unpopular, but they're "Cool to Use", more or less, as such tings go.
As a side thought, non-lethal aerosols, such as teargas and other crowd-control or temporarily incapacitating agents, are illegal. Its OK to roast or shred folks, but you can't stun them or confuse them.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace