Reply
Sun 23 Mar, 2003 12:02 pm
A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO AN INQUISITIVE CITIZEN
Inquisitive Citizen (IC): Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger (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.
IC: 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.
IC: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the UN weapons inspectors said Iraq had no
nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
IC: 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.
IC: 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.
IC: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry, lunatic
murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold to Saddam, but rather what Saddam
did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on K*, 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.
IC: 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
attack immediately.
IC: Is this the same audio tape where Osama bin Laden calls Saddam a
"secular infidel"?
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented
a strong case against Iraq.
IC: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory
in Iraq.
IC: 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...
IC: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate
student paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
IC: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraquis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
IC: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the UN's 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.
IC: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
descruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence.
You're missing the point.
IC: 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.
IC: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council?
WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us. Of course!
IC: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
IC: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Spain, for starters.
IC: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of
billions of dollars.
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
IC: 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.
IC: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is
important?
WM: Yes.
IC: But doesn't the Constitution say only Congress can declare war?
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our president, because he's
acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot.
That's the bottom line.
IC: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not
patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
IC: 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.
IC: But the UN inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
IC: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are
still unaccounted for.
IC: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
IC: 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.
IC: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we
must invade?
WM: Exactly.
IC: 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.
IC: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow
the UN inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying,
deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens
of millions.
IC: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
IC: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim
sentiments against us, and further 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.
IC: But every one has admitted there is no evidence linking Saddam
Hussein or Iraq with the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Almost every one of the
alleged terrorists were from our "ally" Saudi Arabia, none were from Iraq.
WM: Yes, but this is not just about terrorist attacks. It's about our
national security.
IC: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security,
color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Aren't they supposed to
protect us? And don't these change the way we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
IC: I do. I'd like to know 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.
IC: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a
peaceful solution, would we have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
IC: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
IC: So, we have an an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: Well, I meant the majority of the Security Council.
IC: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security
Council?
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
IC: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
IC: 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.
IC: That makes no sense.
WM: Look, 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.
IC: I give up!
(Source: Unknown
A reaasoned, logical dialogue long, from am
Very very nice piece from Unknown Source! Kudos! I'm going to spread the word elsewhere.
Author !! Author!!
Come on, who wote that!!!
I don't know who wrote that. It was sent me by a friend from Belgium, who works for NATO. It was signed "Source Unknown."
Logic outside the framework of logic is a joke or a propaganda.
Logic outside the framework of logic? I take that to mean that you disagree with the implied refute of the solid basis for Invasion in mama's article?
If you don't agree, say so. Labeling the opposition's opinion as propaganda is kinda cute, but no less a rhetorical trick.
...That dialogue makes you want to laugh until you realize it's real, and people are dying right now as a result.
...Has anyone heard anything about why four days after the war has started, they haven't used all those chemical, and mass-destruction weopons. We know they have them, because Bush says so. and bush is an honorable man...... Right?
If anyone wonders why we are really there, allow me to paraphrase a statement made popular during the first Bush Administration:
......"IT'S THE OIL STUPID!" (I say that affectionately
)
I can make (seemingly) logically correct propositions that are actually irrelevant, in multiple ways. Here is a crude example:
If a person voted to R.N-r, then the person did not vote to A.G-e.
If a person did not vote to A.G-e, the person supported G.B-h as a situation.
If G.B-h is the president the situation is as it is.
--therefore
A person who voted to R.N-r made the current situation (at least partly).
So, please do not let me write seemingly logically correct political logic forms. I am afraid that it is used as a propaganda.
This kind of dialogues is an old trick of spreading propaganda in the general public. This is actually working as a political tool devised by some professionals. You should be careful about treating it. This is a professional work.
And not only that, but tea prices in China have risen.
Great sense of humor, Satt!
I had a FEELING there was some diabolical China Tea connection!!!!
But seriously, I'm begging somebody, tell me, where are the weopons? Come on Satt enlighten me.............. Er, in english.
satt_focusable wrote:So, please do not let me write seemingly logically correct political logic forms. I am afraid that it is used as a propaganda.
This kind of dialogues is an old trick of spreading propaganda in the general public. This is actually working as a political tool devised by some professionals. You should be careful about treating it. This is a professional work.
It works better that the US propaganda pro war. Someone stated on this forum= "
This is the worst sold war in history" And in my perception this is because there a NO believable arguments for attacking the Iraqi.
I am not responsible for pro-war propagandas nor anti-war propagandas, I have another point of view on the current situation different from views seen in those propagandas, which comes from my history reading.
Tartarin wrote:Great sense of humor, Satt!
You had already noticed it before me. :wink:
Satt - if you have something to say, please say it. Couching it in cloudy phrases just doesn't make it.
Professional in what sense? Ypu mean like the everyday spin put out by the propaganda people in the administration?
And I would venture to say that most of us here read quite a bit of history - I have learned things here I never knew, and i've done a bit of reading myself.
Snood...watch what you say. China may be next on the list.
Professional in the sense being paid or performing the work as a part of roles of the writers' occupation. Here, occupation does not exclude that in NPO.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace