War Monger or PeaceNik?

[VooMan]

http://www.minimumeffort.com/nutshell.html

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 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 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 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 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!

[RawAlex]

Round of applause...

nice to hear the story told from the other side once in a while....

Alex

[XXXManager]

Its been a long time since I have read such a stupid post.
Only a very "bright" fella could author such BS.
If thats the best arguments and logics a PK can come up with for the war - maybe its not the place for a PK to state his/her opinions.

Nice quote :rokk:

[Almighty Colin]

Here's another one!

http://www.canada.com/national/features/ir...E5-E7DD1A6C3BAC (http://www.canada.com/national/features/iraq/story.html?id=29495289-85DB-4EC4-9FE5-E7DD1A6C3BAC)

The position of the government of Canada is clear. We have always clearly said that we would go to war only with the authority of the Security Council. Now clearly if the Security Council did not give its authority, that would not necessarily mean we would not go to war. But it is clear that we have never gone to war in the past except with the express written authority of the Security Council. Unless you count Afghanistan. Or Kosovo.

It couldn't be clearer. This war is unjustified under the Charter of the United Nations. On the other hand, we have always clearly said that Resolution 1441 of the Security Council provided all the authority needed to go to war; there was no need to vote on a second resolution. That said, the fact that a second resolution existed that never came to a vote clearly supersedes the first resolution, which did.

It's perfectly clear. The Americans lack the authority to launch this illegitimate and unnecessary war, which can only bring great suffering and instability to the region. At the same time, clearly it is their privilege and right to do so, and we wish them Godspeed.

It's as clear as can be. The inspectors should have been given more time to do their jobs. Force was unnecessary; inspections were working. In fact, they were working so well that we circulated a paper saying they should end in two weeks: If Iraq did not disarm by March 28 we would go to war.

It's clearer than clear. We have always said there was no proof Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, we agreed that he had to be disarmed of the weapons there was no proof he had. In fact, there was clearly no need to disarm him. The mere presence of all those American troops was enough to prevent him from doing anything with them. The President has won.

So we always give praise to the Americans. Saddam would not have made the concessions he did if the President hadn't threatened to use force, unilaterally if necessary. Clearly, this makes the UN more needed now than ever: to prevent the Americans from using force unilaterally.

It's as clear as day. Regime change is not authorized by the United Nations. We do not support regime change in Iraq: After all, if we're going to go knocking off every genocidal dictator with a taste for weapons of mass destruction who has invaded two of his neighbours and defied 17 U.N. resolutions over a dozen years since a ceasefire that was never honoured in a previous war duly authorized by the Security Council, well, where do you stop?

However, we are supportive of our American friends in their effort to get rid of Saddam.

At the same time, we believe that having fought a war to disarm him, the Americans should leave him in power, assuming he still is (we have not yet decided whether he should be restored to power once he's gone). But we agree with the official Opposition: He should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity and brought to justice. There is no contradiction. He could serve out his sentence on weekends.

It's quite clear. We are not participating in this war. We have always said, however, that we would participate in the last war, the war against terrorism. So when Canadian warships are deployed to escort U.S. ships through the Persian Gulf on the way to Iraq, or when Canadian officers direct bombing runs on Iraq from AWACS aircraft, they are not fighting in the war in Iraq, they are fighting in the war on terror. Though there is clearly no link between the two, whatever those American morons say.

That is not an anti-American remark, and we regret any inference that it was somehow reflective of our personal opinions.

Do we make ourselves clear? We are not contributing ground troops to this war. That is to say, we are, but they are not in Iraq. That is to say, they are, but they are not in combat. That is to say, they are. But we do not support them being there.

Let us be clear. We are in favour of UN resolutions but against their enforcement; against the use of force but in favour of the threat of it; against fighting the war, but in favour of winning it. This is part of Canada's unique national identity. Other countries may support the war without participating in it. Only Canada is participating without supporting it.

That's because there's an important principle at stake here. The principle, as the Prime Minister said clearly in the House just the other day, is that we want to "show" that Canada is an independent country, able to make up its own mind about whether to go to war. That is why we have always clearly said we would go along with whatever the Security Council decides. Or fails to decide. Whatever.

At any rate, we clearly have the support of a majority of Canadians, the ones who tell our pollster that although they do not want a war, they would accept one.

What could be clearer?

[Almighty Colin]

Note: Canada rocks! One of my favorite countries.

[gigi]

HAHAHAHA Colin....that is so true, and exactly how it feels to live in Canada right now...lmao :P

As for the first article...I like that too....very funny...I think the whole world is talking in circles.... :zoinks:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by gigi@Mar 31 2003, 02:46 PM
I think the whole world is talking in circles.... :zoinks:
Me too but I refuse to get off this ride.

[VooMan]

I received that link from someone whom I consider to be a good friend, but also someone who is on the opposite side of the debate than I... I thought we had agreed to disagree and not talk about it anymore...

Should I feel offended since he made a point of telling me that the above conversation was "spot on" although it in no way represents how I feel?

Or should I feel sad that after so much time this person actually thinks I fall into this category?

To be honest, I feel kinda sad...



Last edited by VooMan at Mar 31 2003, 08:33 PM

[Sly]

Colin, that was hilarious. And although I'm not Canadian, everything in that article seems "spot on" from an outsiders perspective.

I love how the world governments all "think for themselves", yet need permission from the UN to wipe their own ass.

[RawAlex]

Yup, the Canadian government has tied itself into little knots on this one... not wanting to get involved, not wanting to walk away, not wanting to dis the UN, not wanting to piss off the US, not wanting to be seen agreeing with France, not really having a vote in the UN anyway...

Public opinion polls up here seem to be pretty much split on the war... but there is great support for not giving in to the US on the issue...

Canada will almost certainly be there to clean up the mess when the fighting is done.

Alex

[gigi]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 31 2003, 07:45 PM
Canada will almost certainly be there to clean up the mess when the fighting is done.
I have to say Alex...that's a little harsh no? LOL

Yeah, Canada will be there alright....we'll be helping clean up with hockey sticks and beer. What a better way to introduce democracy to the Iraqi people?? :rokk:

[gigi]

Cooo Roo Coo Coo Coo Coo Coo Coo!!!!!

[RawAlex]

gigi, it's the truth - Canada pretty much always ends up cleaning up when the party is over... playing "UN peace keepers"... even when there isn't any peace to keep.

Alex

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Sly@Mar 31 2003, 10:10 PM
Colin, that was hilarious. And although I'm not Canadian, everything in that article seems "spot on" from an outsiders perspective.

I love how the world governments all "think for themselves", yet need permission from the UN to wipe their own ass.
Actually, I thought BOTH of them were pretty funny.

And why is it that any time another soverign country wipes it's ass without the blessing of the U.S., somebody has to start faulting the U.N.? :rolleyes:

[gigi]

Originally posted by VooMan@Mar 31 2003, 05:23 PM
I received that link from someone whom I consider to be a good friend, but also someone who is on the opposite side of the debate than I... I thought we had agreed to disagree and not talk about it anymore...

Should I feel offended since he made a point of telling me that the above conversation was "spot on" although it in no way represents how I feel?

Or should I feel sad that after so much time this person actually thinks I fall into this category?

To be honest, I feel kinda sad...
As for your friend Voo,

The war is a touchy subject for everyone and some people can be very passionate about their position, and in that thread, attempt to 'convert', or, attempt to prove someone else's position as 'faulty'.

I wouldn't feel badly. It's just human nature.

I would just explain to your friend that for you, the article wasn't 'spot on', and that you honestly don't want to discuss it anymore.....

Personally, I'm tired of it all. My brain can't hold much more information....who said what, when, where and how. I can barely manage to file what information I know about the war now, let alone bring any more information into it....lmao :P

For me, I liked the article...it hit a few nails on the head for me...and I bet others felt the same, but with different nails....and yet others, who didn't relate to it at all.

Gawd, I wish I could just grab a few beers right about now.....how long does this pregnant thing last again? :hic:





Last edited by gigi at Mar 31 2003, 10:05 PM

[VooMan]

I did just that GiGi... End of conversation. :awinky:

How far along are you now? :D

[gigi]

21 weeks tomorrow... (who's counting? LMAO!)...I passed the half way mark last week. This kid won't be popping out until Mid August... *sigh*

If only I could pass my uterus over to hubby for one night of beer and pretzels I'd be in heaven....hehe

:)