Heartland

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!

That's a very humorous article, but it strangley doesn't mention

1)the million Iraqis Saddam has killed, and the four million forced to flee into exile

2)the fact that You can't use diplomacy with a despotic madman, we have tried diplomacy since 1991, it has flat-out failed

3)That Hans Blix has been led a merry dance in Iraq, he has not been allowed the freedom to go where he wants in Iraq/interview who he wants etc.

4)That the majotity of Britains and Americans are in favour of the war

5) That there is no evidence that the war will lead to a rise in anti-Western terrorism

6)That Bush and Blair have repeatedly made it clear that the crises in Israel/Paleastine is next on their agendas

7)That the countries on the security council opposed to war are not opposed for moral reasons, they are opposed as they are making a lot of money out of Saddam's regime, especially France and Russia

8)That the fact that in the past, politicains sold weapons to Iraq etc. is 100% irrelevant- it's history, it's been done, so what, it's not Tony Blair's fault

the anti-war propaganda in this crises is even more ridiculous than the pro-war propaganda

LOL

Black Shuk wrote:


4)That the majority of Britains are in favour of the war

Really?

apparently, according to the latest polls.

Just because a million people protested in London, just means a million are against it. What about the other 59 million Brits?

Black Shuk wrote:apparently, according to the latest polls.

Just because a million people protested in London, just means a million are against it. What about the other 59 million Brits?

Well, if we remove the percentage of the population that are children, sick, elderly, in prison, neutral or just too bloody apathetic to protest, there are rather fewer than 59 million left.
Democracy is a funny thing, out of a population of 60 million you will find
that once you add up those eligible to vote and then check the percentage of those that actually bothered to vote, governments are generally elected by less than fifty percent of the population, which is hardly a majority (in Amerca I believe the figure can be as low as 23%)! But hey, that's something the current Bush regime knows all about using to their advantage.
But back to war protests - now that British troops are risking their lives in combat there is a large percentage of the population that feel obligated to support the troops. Some people find it hard to reconcile being able to be opposed to the war and yet still supportive of the men and women currently risking their lives. Others, still, assume that being against the war is being pro Saddam. No one is disputing he's an evil c**t, but so are Mugabe and Sharon. Given the current domestic problems in America (and Britain) it might be an idea for Bush to look closer to home before tryiong to "save" the rest of the world.
I don't think the long term interests of the Iraqi people are going to be best served by being able to order a Big Mac!
I can't deny that war is sometimes necessary but in this case it clearly is far from justified. I want all the troops home alive and well and I don't want to see anymore widows and orphans made in the name of American Globalism.
I recommend that you read Michael Moore's Stupid White Men to gain an insight as to why your government is disliked by so much of the world - and it ain't because they're jealous of your freedom or wealth.
On a final note democracy by its very nature should be the will of the people, not imposed by some third party that assumes it is morally higher.

Failing that, if you truly believe the war is justified and that America is only trying to make the world safe for liberty and democracy, I suggest you enlist and go and fight for it.
That I would respect.

In the words of AE - I don't hate Americans, I just wish you would try and live up to the ideals of your constitution.

You make some fair points, Erudite, But I have always been 100% in favour of this war (not just now that our troops are in there), and I think many more people have always been in favour than the obnoxious anti-war protestors would have us believe.

The protestors etc. DO NOT represent 'the people's view', I don't recall any protestors asking me for my opinion.

And as for reading Michael Moore's book, I don't think it will be unbiased, as he is so strongly against the war. I also can't stand the guy- He's the sort of guy who will protest against anything and everything just for the hell of it, he loves the sound of his own voice.

As elsewhere, I will agree to disagree. I'm always wary of getting too heavily involved in discussions on religion or politics in a forum like this.
Suffice to say, neither Bush or Blair have managed to convince me that this war is necessary. Hell, Blair can't even convince his own cabinet.
That's not to say some good won't come out of it. I don't and still don't approve of what happened in Afghanistan but at least hundreds of thousands of women now have the right to education and decent medical care again.
The whole problem I have with this 'War On Terror' is that there is no clearly defined enemy. It's just too convenient IMHO.
I also don't like the current trend in America to suppress anti war sentiments. It's rather too reminiscent of the MaCarthy style witch hunts in the 50's, and appears in direct contradiction of the much vaunted freedom of speech everyone's so proud of.
We're letting the government steal our civil liberties under the guise of allegedly protecting us.
It has got to stop!

As for Mr Moore, whatever you think of his politics and views the facts and figures quoted in his book are easily checked. That much is unbiased.
I'll stop ranting now.
Like I said, I'm happy enough to accept we're not going to agree on this one.

Interesting theory here......as simple as the US needs to prevent OPEC changing oil trading moving to the Euro.....

http://www.mediamonitors.net/williamclark1.html

""The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 80 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."