PDA

View Full Version : Warmonger explains war to peacenik



patfromlogan
22nd March 03, 09:35 AM
WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO 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.


PEACENIK
But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation
of more security council resolutions than Iraq.


WARMONGER
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.


PEACENIK
Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had
no nuclear weapons.


WARMONGER
Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.


PEACENIK
But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking
us or our allies with such weapons.


WARMONGER
The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists
networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.


PEACENIK
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?


WARMONGER
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.


PEACENIK
We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry
lunatic murderer?


WARMONGER
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.


PEACENIK
A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador
to Iraq, Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of
Kuwait?


WARMONGER
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.


PEACENIK
Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill
him?


WARMONGER
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.


PEACENIK
Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a
secular infidel?


WARMONGER
You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
presented a strong case against Iraq.


PEACENIK
He did?


WARMONGER
Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaeda poison factory in
Iraq.


PEACENIK
But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq
controlled by the Kurdish opposition?


WARMONGER
And a British intelligence report...


PEACENIK
Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate
student paper?


WARMONGER
And reports of mobile weapons labs...


PEACENIK
Weren't those just artistic renderings?


WARMONGER
And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...


PEACENIK
Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector,
Hans Blix?


WARMONGER
Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be
revealed because it would compromise our security.


PEACENIK
So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?


WARMONGER
The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find
evidence. You're missing the point.


PEACENIK
So what is the point?


WARMONGER
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.


PEACENIK
So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?


WARMONGER
Absolutely...unless it rules against us.


PEACENIK
And what if it does rule against us?


WARMONGER
In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.


PEACENIK
Coalition of the willing? Who's that?


WARMONGER
Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.


PEACENIK
I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of
billions of dollars


WARMONGER
Nevertheless, they may now be willing.


PEACENIK
I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.


WARMONGER
Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will
by electing leaders to make decisions.


PEACENIK
So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is
important?


WARMONGER
Yes.


PEACENIK
But George B-


WARMONGER
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.


PEACENIK
So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not
patriotic?


WARMONGER
I never said that.


PEACENIK
So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?


WARMONGER
As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass
destruction that threaten us and our allies.


PEACENIK
But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.


WARMONGER
Iraq is obviously hiding them.


PEACENIK
You know this? How?


WARMONGER
Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are
still unaccounted for.


PEACENIK
The weapons we sold them, you mean?


WARMONGER
Precisely.


PEACENIK
But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade
to an unusable state over ten years.


WARMONGER
But there is a chance that some have not degraded.


PEACENIK
So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist,
we must invade?


WARMONGER
Exactly.


PEACENIK
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.


WARMONGER
That's a diplomatic issue.


PEACENIK
So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?


WARMONGER
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.


PEACENIK
But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.


WARMONGER
Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.


PEACENIK
But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim
sentiments against us, and decrease our security?


WARMONGER
Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we
live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.


PEACENIK
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?


WARMONGER
I thought you had questions about Iraq.


PEACENIK
I do. Why are we invading Iraq?


WARMONGER
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.


PEACENIK
So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find
a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?


WARMONGER
By "world," I meant the United Nations.


PEACENIK
So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?


WARMONGER
By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.


PEACENIK
So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?


WARMONGER
I meant the majority of the Security Council.


PEACENIK
So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security
Council?


WARMONGER
Well ... there could be an unreasonable veto.


PEACENIK
In which case?


WARMONGER
In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.


PEACENIK
And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at
all?


WARMONGER
Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.


PEACENIK
That makes no sense:


WARMONGER
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.


PEACENIK
I give up.



>>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

Vargas
22nd March 03, 09:40 AM
And don't forget the oil, Pat, it's all about the oil.

"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

patfromlogan
22nd March 03, 11:43 AM
Hey baby killer!

How about logic? Are there any faults in this article? (Did you bother to read it?) Point them out or admit defeat.

Now I gotta run down to the protest, or rather drive down in my sticker covered Volkswagen van (two beds, great stereo, TV, and a vhs with lots of porno), and seduce all the young (very very young) girls. First I'll git 'em stoned and then....


I'm sure you are having fun, on those copters with all the other guys, with all that power vibrating under your butts....sounds kinda gay to me. Think of me partying like crazy with my young, very young, girls friends that I pick up at the demos while you’re out there on maneuvers with all the real men, defending my rights - and it's all about the OIL, as she said yesterday after the protest."I'm so tight you had better get the lubricating OIL and put it here, oh yes! There! And there! And back there too!"


>>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

I Give BJJs
22nd March 03, 12:21 PM
I'm sure you are having fun, on those copters with all the other guys, with all that power vibrating under your butts....

Is anyone else as turned on by this as me?

Vargas
22nd March 03, 12:24 PM
Sticks and stones, dude, sticks and stones. . .




And with all this talk of 'vibrating butts' and lubricating oil, I better go have a 'staff meeting', if you know what I mean.

"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

patfromlogan
22nd March 03, 12:51 PM
Hey Napalm Lover,

on that other thread I'll try to answer your questions (more or less what to do now?) and you'll answer mine. Is there flaws in this article?

>>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

Vargas
22nd March 03, 01:32 PM
PEACENIK
"Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had
no nuclear weapons."

If they don't, it's because Israel blew up the reactor at Osirak in the 80s with U.S.-built F-16s. If he does, do you really think 40 inspectors in a country the size of California will find them in four months? Please.

"PEACENIK
But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking
us or our allies with such weapons"

Patriot crews are intercepting SCUDs and low-tech UAVs being launched at Kuwait right now. The only reason nothing has been launched at Israel is because JSOC owns (insert Brandiessansoo picture here) western Iraq. Nice try, but no cigar.

"PEACENIK
Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill
him?"

Uh, no, not really. It's quite hard to track down one scumbag and kill him, especially in his own backyard. Al Quaida is bigger than one man. The point of Enduring Freedom was to destroy the offensive capabilities (ie camps, training sites, etc. . .) of Al Quaida. Stop watching Jerry Bruckheimer movies and join the real world.

"PEACENIK
So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist,
we must invade?"

There is no "small chance" about it. Iraq has WMD. No if, ands or buts. Take my word for it, I can't get more specific than that. Why the hell would Jordan and Saudi Arabia let us launch off their soil? They know the truth, just like every other country in the world knows the truth. Saddam has chem and bio weapons and wants nukes really bad. Trust me, this is fact, not opinion.


I'll post more rebuttals but, alas, I have errands to run to. To be continued. . .

"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

poet
22nd March 03, 01:43 PM
pat -
"Hey baby killer!"
"Hey Napalm Lover,"

In the other thread you ask him to respnd to what was said not what he infered.
I agree, and unless I misread something this is what you are doing!
You both disagree but argue the topic not each other, please.
"Can't we all just get along?"

"I do not agree with what you have to say but, I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

elipson
22nd March 03, 02:19 PM
Hey Vargas, I was under the impression that Saudi and Jordan weren't officially allowing US troops to use there land?
You might know more than me though.

And I echo poets sentiment, argue the topic and not each other.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

Vargas
22nd March 03, 03:36 PM
Did I say Jordan and Saudi Arabia were allowing U.S. troops to use their land? Hmm, I guess if CNN doesn't report something, it doesn't exist, right? :)

Believe me, there is a lot going on right now that isn't showing up on the news. Take heart, though, in the knowledge that things are going pretty much all our way, at least for the moment. Even I'm surprised, though, at how much the average Iraqi loathes Saddam Hussein and his family.

"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

I Give BJJs
22nd March 03, 03:46 PM
LOL @ baby killer and napalm lover

Sheol
22nd March 03, 03:50 PM
There are a number of low-profile/under-the-table agreements... just as there were in the Gulf War. Let's just say that "officially" there are no agreement to move through certain countries... but that doesn't mean that they aren't permitting personnel and equipment to 'pass thru' or briefly 'stop'.

elipson
22nd March 03, 06:36 PM
I guess if CNN doesn't report something, it doesn't exist, right? :)
Damn straight man! If CNN dont report it, it aint real!!

But actually I just read something on cnn hinting towards Jordan being used for airborne troops.
I think Saudi is sitting out of this one though, their ppl hate the states.


"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

The Wastrel
22nd March 03, 09:10 PM
Yeah, the Saudi royal family is more progressive than their own people. Figure that one out.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

poet
23rd March 03, 01:07 AM
The Wastrel -
"... the Saudi royal family is more progressive than their own people."

Bedoin (sp) nomads are more progressive than the average Saudi.

Sorry I din't say that.

"I do not agree with what you have to say but, I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Sheol
23rd March 03, 01:27 AM
Wastrel:

Actually, there's an easy answer to that.... Where did members of the Royal attend college? :D

The Wastrel
23rd March 03, 01:31 AM
Oh yeah, I meant figure out what the consequences are for their public political statements. Apparently there's huge difference between closed door and open door sympathies in Saudi Arabia. Prince Bandar is widely considered the best representative of the King's real intentions. While the King goes around placating the extremes of his people.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

PizDoff
24th March 03, 04:10 PM
lol at first post......



--
Hard work, Patience, Dedication.
The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed later.
No brain, no gain.