- Peacenik: Why did you say we are 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 Glaspie, 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
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 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.
-
-
- Comment
- From Jeffrey S. Mospan
- MospanJS@corning.com
- 3-20-3
-
- Dear Jeff,
-
- First I would like to say I enjoy reading your website.
I am a conservative who tries to get
- as much information and different points of view on many
topics before I make my own decison on what I think about them.
-
- Today, I read the piece labeled 'Warmonger Explains
War With Iraq To Peacenik'
- and a few things came to me that I thought were a little
incorrect. First, the peacenik states that Israel is also in violation
of Secuirty Council resolutions along with many of our allies. As we all
know this is factual. The difference is that we had a war with Iraq to
free a nation it invaded. When Iraq lost, signed a peace accord, they were
bound by stipulations that they must follow( to disarmwas one of them).
Israel and our allies have not done these things- so it is a little different
situation. Iraq has not followed the terms of the ceasfire agreement.
-
- Second, inspectors have stated that Iraq does not have
a nuclear weapons program not nuclear weapons. There is a big difference.
Iraq could still possess nukes it bought and hid them. The inspectors
just don't know and they have stated that.
-
- Third, it is correct that Iraq does not have any long
range missiles to hit us armed with chemical or biological weapons. However,
they are able to use them on their neighbors who are our allies and also
they could( and probably have) given these weapons too terrorists.
-
- Fourth, it is completely false that the United States
sold any chemical and biological weapons to Iraq during the 80's . Every
major news source and the government agency involved with these type of
weapons have stated that this is false since the first gulf war. It would
be against the law for the US to sell these type of weapons to Iraq. During
the Iraq & Iran war the US was not for either side. And the US did
not want to see either side win. The US wanted a stalemante( balance of
power). If anything, we helped Iran with the whole Iran-Contra affair
instead of Iraq. If Iraq recieved these types of weapons from American
companies it did so illegally. The one nation who has sold biological
and chemical weapons to them and have admited it is France.
-
- Fifth, not only was the point of invading Afghanistan
to catch Osama but was also to crush Al Qaida and remove the surpressive
Taliban regime that supported international terrorism.
-
- For the rest of the article a lot of it is specualtive
and highly quetionable(either side of the argument). But today Hans Blix
stated that Iraq was not cooperating-hence violating resolution 1441.
-
- I feel this letter was written by a "peacenik"
and very well choreographed to support their argument. I personally wish
that we did not have to go to war. But I support our president on this
decision. Actually if Clinton had dealt with Iraq properly this never
would have happened. It should have been his administrations policy to
take this kind of stance against Sadam. I think after the war is over
a lot of questions will be answered. Lets just hope and pray there is
not a large amount of lives lost on both sides. If you post his letter
please do not include my e-mail address. Thanks and take care.
|
