[SOC] A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK

[Paul Bartlett]

Ok,

This is my (almost) 'on the fence' / Devil's advocate response (like
usual...).

The really irrirating thing is that by questioning views and responding to
posts I would appear to be aligning myself with the WMs. I'm not. I'm
trying to make sense of an extremely complex situation. It's obviously
very attractive to say, "War is bad, we must do all we can to avoid it."
and to jump on to the bandwagon and to scream and shout.

I believe that it's courageous to consider that for the greater good of all
we *might* have to wage a 'just' war.

I started doing a point-by-point critique of the below but slowly came
to realise that I was missing the point. The text caricatures, smudges and
confuses many valid points from both sides.

On *balance*, I think that 'armed intervention' is probably justified.

Whatever happens, I think that the UN is probably fatally damaged.

Paul

> A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
>
> 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?  [And
> wasn't Kuwait torn away from Iraq by England when the
> goodies of the terrirtory were being gobbled up, and
> hasn't Iraq and Kuwait had a long standing border
> dispute and other aggrivations?  And by the way, when
> we restored the government in Kuwait, was it a freedom
> loving democracy?]
>
> WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of
> today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical
> weapons to Al Quaida. 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-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 Quaida
> 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 Iraquis scuttling and hiding
> evidence from inspectors...
>
> PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief
> weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
>
> WM: Yes, but there is plently 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 dectruction 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 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!
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> SOC mailing list
> SOC@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/soc
>