'Warmonger'
explains why we are at war to
'Peacenik'
[Author
Unknown] PN: Why did you say we are 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 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 who
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 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 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.
|