explaining war to a peacenik

[JackC 0]

This lot arrived in my e-mail.



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 weapon 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 Qi'eda, 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 Qaida 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 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!

[jtval 0]

just a quick way to explian war to a peace nic.....


punch them(preferably someone the care deeply about) in the mouth. if they hit you back or get angry or defend themselves...ask why?

My photos

My Videos

[payback462 0]

Quote

if they hit you back or get angry or defend themselves...ask why?

bwahahahaha, good one

[DYEVOUT 0]

Quote

if they hit you back or get angry or defend themselves...ask why?

. . . . before kicking them in the head.

----------------=8^)----------------------
"I think that was the wrong tennis court."

[jtval 0]

actually the orig post is funny as hell too.

My photos

My Videos

[AggieDave 6]

hehehe, I like how yall think.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

just a quick way to explian war to a peace nic.....


punch them(preferably someone the care deeply about) in the mouth. if they hit you back or get angry or defend themselves...ask why

this "argument" had a LOT more weight a year ago when it came to fighting Al Quaida.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jtval 0]

well someone has to get punched... LOL

(thats the other side of the "arguement" lol)

My photos

My Videos

[skydivegirl 0]

Quote

hehehe, I like how yall think.

Me too

Pink Mafia Sis #26

[MC208B 0]

September 11, 2001. United States of America. That should explain it.

[DYEVOUT 0]

Where the hell are the lefties ??

I figured they'd be on this one like white on rice !!

What gives ??

----------------=8^)----------------------
"I think that was the wrong tennis court."

[falxori 0]

Quote

Where the hell are the lefties ??

we took care of them on another thread

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[jtval 0]

haha! im a lefty....left handed!

My photos

My Videos

[PhreeZone 20]

Got a link to where Iraq attacked us on that date?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[jtval 0]

im sure one can be fabricated! lol

My photos

My Videos

[DJL 235]

"September 11, 2001. United States of America."

What, for invading Iraq? From Condoleza Rice:

"We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al-Qaida going back for actually quite a long time,'' Rice said. "We know too that several of the (al-Qaida) detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al-Qaida in chemical weapons development.''

That there have been "contacts" and "some training" is not grounds for attacking them. This is NOT why we should attack them. There are plenty of reasons why we SHOULD but the war on terrorism is not one of them.

Edit: People believing this and giving in to this bullshit promotion by the administration is scary. Did you buy your duct tape yet? Idaho, are you ready for that Iraqi sneak attack? It makes me sick that Bush would try to use the emotions we have over Sept 11 to try to promote this conflict. He lost my vote and that of any intelligent Americans.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,991]

>punch them(preferably someone the care deeply about) in the
> mouth. if they hit you back or get angry or defend themselves...ask
> why?

What do you tell them if they just hold you down then call the cops? And what do you tell the cops?

[jtval 0]

i hope the cops are french LOL

My photos

My Videos

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

>punch them(preferably someone the care deeply about) in the
> mouth. if they hit you back or get angry or defend themselves...ask
> why?

Generally, peaceniks (I think the definition of peacenik here is anyone who thinks walking across the street to hit someone you don't like is silly -- right?) would rather spend their time on stuff besides thinking about war, preparing for war, and cleaning up after war.

That way I have time for all the other, more important stuff.

It seems that people who spend all of their time preparing for violence find a lot more of it. They can counter it, yes, but it's still there. I've managed to make it to 48 without ever having to either punch or shoot anyone!

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DJL 235]

"more important stuff. "

Yeah, go light one up you hippy.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[jtval 0]

yea I agree with ya.
But Im a sarcastic fool! lol
the punch in the mouth comment is kinda like what happened to the people who were working that fateful day. but on a smaller scale.

I do (edit to add the following word)NOT like war and I want all of my friends /bro's + sis' in arms to come home unscathed.
but the world is what the world is. I can go on with enjoying my life but those that simply went to work that day cant


(no I know its NOT osama we're attacking but I do think there is SOME legitimacy in this war)
as far as personal fighting...I never was a fighter but I nevre rlet anyone walk all over me either

My photos

My Videos

[Snowflake 0]

Quote

He lost my vote and that of any intelligent Americans.

Since most Americans aren't intelligent and don't want to know the truth it doesn't matter.

[wmw999 2,447]

Don't worry, JT -- I'll just have 6 of my peacenik friends (it'd be 10 if you were a Marine) hold you down and blow pot smoke in your ears.

Bwahahahaha!

(edited to add: funnin' ya, and I sure hope it was obvious enough that I look like an idiot for having added this)

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jtval 0]

Quote

Don't worry, JT -- I'll just have 6 of my peacenik friends (it'd be 10 if you were a Marine) hold you down and blow pot smoke in your ears.

Bwahahahaha!

Wendy W.

HAHA. promise? will you do that for my retirement party! lol

My photos

My Videos

[billvon 2,991]

>Where the hell are the lefties ??
>I figured they'd be on this one like white on rice !!

If you want an argument, read the original post. All the arguments we've had are there. Unless you want to have em all over again, but that seems pointless.