vampireuk
06-03-03, 07:23 AM
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 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.
:rofl :D
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 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.
:rofl :D