Understanding our position in Iraq

[Silver Hilton]

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A
PEACENIK
By Bill Davidson

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 New York.

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 terrorist 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 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 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.

PN: Here... have a pretzel, instead.

[The Fishing Geek]

One correction. My wife pointed out that the story about April Glaspie giving Iraq the "green light" to invade Kuwait was fabricated by Iraq themselves. Frontline did a great show about the whole thing, and the transcripts can be found here.

[ 04-02-2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: The Fishing Geek ]

[metalhead madness]

:depressed: :depressed: Well this flag wearin citizen choses not to wait and see if sadaam has wmds. Of coarse he does. He certainly has the money to produce them. AGAIN just my opinion. What I will say is I'm not sure what gives us the right to force a leader out of his own country, but then again I'm not privy to all information. Our fore fathers trusted our goverment and I guess I will have to as well. I do hope that many innocent lifes are not lost on both sides.

[speyfly]

Thanks SH. The war proponents just don't make much sense. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

One thing about Kuait, they were stealing oil from Iraq but that is another story.

[ 04-02-2003, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

[mirage]

Makes cents too somebody. I am reminded of same (sane)? reasoning behind the first world war. you know the one, the war to end all wars. that nice friendly war that begat world proverty and revenge. the result was ww2. My point is the war does not cure mid eastern problems. :depressed:

[fisheromen]

Another fine example of liberal disinformation. Check the facts of much of what was said and the whole thing just sort of unravels.

[crabbait]

Yeah, what he said! And we owe to ourselves and to our children to continue to preempt these evil nations until we are secure and rule the world.......er something..... at least until we and our oil supply are secure(d).

We don't have to take no lip from nobody and the sooner everybody else realizes that it is a rerun of a bad movie and we ain't watchin it the better off they will be! We ain't afraid to kill everybody until we are safe! [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

[El Shaddai]

Silver Hilton- You have got to be kidding. I expect better from you. I expect baseless conjecture from many others and they usually don't disappoint......your posts are usually a little better thought out, even if I disagree with them at times.

[ultralight]

Silver Hilton,

Very logical and entertaining PEACE of work there!

[The Fishing Geek]

I welcome anyone to dissect the "disinformation" in the piece above. Please. I've already started, so go ahead.

[speyfly]

Don't worry Geek, they can't but I am sure they will come up with some one-liner's.

[ 04-03-2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

[El Shaddai]

TFG, Speyfley et al- In a previous post I commented that most people will believe what they want to; even in the absence of truth or facts. "Dissecting" the editorial would be a very worthwhile excersise if in fact truth or facts really mattered to you. "Dissecting" the editorial would also be incredibly simple as much of it is lacks a factual premise which in turn leads to incorrect and somewhat naive conclusions.

Do something different.........challenge your own feelings. Look for the inconsistency between what you feel and what is factual or correct. Not only will it strengthen your reasoning skills; the light may just come on.

[speyfly]

Just like I said Geek, they can't

[blacktail]

I think it's about time we got a conservative moderator to help even things out around here.

Mike

[The Fishing Geek]

What's wrong with the moderation done in this forum, blacktail?

[blacktail]

Geek,

I probably should not have posted that as I usually refrain from doing so before I take a deep breath.

I don't want this to turn into a mess, so I will explain my post.

I do not have a problem with the moderation done on this board. I realize you guys do a thankless job and more often than not it's not a pleasant one.

However, it is fairly obvious that the moderators that also regularly post in LIG seem to lean pretty far left on most issues that come up.

Maybe the addition of someone with different views and beliefs would be a healthy move for this forum?

Just my thoughts.

Mike

[speyfly]

Blacktail I have to ask, what does your political slant have to do with anything? I really don't understand what you are trying to say.

[El Shaddai]

blacktail- We don't need a conservative moderator any more than a liberal one. I am an infrequent poster (mostly due to time constraints) however, I feel it is incumbent upon me to validate my position or invalidate others erroneous positions.

My point is, if you have a position then it is your responsibility to state and if necessary, defend it. The main problem with most conservatives is that they lack the will to combat the liberal and moderate ideaology that runs rampant on this board and in our great country. The irony is that that most true liberals struggle with truth; therefore, hit them where they are weakest. Truth, truth and more truth...you may have to dance a bit, but it is rare indeed to find a liberal with the ability to carry a debate more than a few rounds.

Don't take this as a rebuke; take this as a "call to arms." This country has great people with the right ideals. We just need to speak up and say enough is enough. Remember, the truth will set us free!

[The Fishing Geek]

Thank you for eloquating your statement. Those of us who are moderators here at iFish are very concerned about making sure that we are level-handed in our moderations. There is constant checking and rechecking behind the scenes to make sure that we are identifying all Acceptable Use Policy violations equally, regardless of where the person stands on topics.

If anyone feels that we missed something, or has questions regarding why we moderated, or didn't moderate, a specific topic, feel free to contact us in private.

[The Fishing Geek]

Interesting use of a wide-tip paintbrush, El Shaddai. I look forward to any and all facts that you can bring to the debate. With such a name as yours, I can expect quite a delivery.

[ 04-03-2003, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: The Fishing Geek ]

[Kruechief]

Have you noticed how quickly he claimed that lofty prize of moderator? I mean member number 3199??? :whazzup:

Think of this. If you turn his member number over it is 6613! If you take that "4" and subtract it from the 10 Commandments that equals "6". Need I say more?

In the very least he is a witch and do you know what we do with witches???

Krue

I agree with blacktail, unless he is going to be publicly humiliated, unjustly targeted, censored and suspended. :shocked: In that case he is on his own.

[ 04-03-2003, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: kruechief ]

[The Fishing Geek]

Would you feel better if I told you that my previous incantation here at iFish had a number under 1000? And does it matter?

[Kruechief]

TFG,

It was a joke???

I thought you would get it by the Monty Python line. :whazzup:

Loren [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

[El Shaddai]

speyfley- Your impudent bravado betrays your position. In fact, it is all you seem to bring to the table.

TFG- It seems as if my brush has been a bit of a laser lately with regards to some of the baseless conjecture found in your posts the last two days. I could certainly increase the "dissection" of your erroneous positions but what's the point? If a position is neutralized with one statement then why make two? Public humiliation is not really necessary.....is it?

[Kruechief]

:shocked: [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img]

Krue

[The Fishing Geek]

Sorry that I didn't catch the kidding, Krue. One of my concerns when I took this position was that someone would question my relatively-high member number. If you search the 2001 archives for fobbman (now showing as a guest, but I was under 1000 member number) you will find my previous life.

El Shaddai:

Would you either debate or get out of the kitchen? The whole "I would debate you but I'm too good for it" stance is empty words.

[speyfly]

El Shaddai, as usual the right can only throw barbs since they hold a position that cannot be defended. Take it to the play ground El.

[El Shaddai]

speyfley- The truth often cuts like a knife or perhaps a barb. In this case, I will give you the last word...I must go pick up my daughter from church...good night.

[The Fishing Geek]

I thought you only had a son...

[True]

I would think that it would be blasphemous to take such a name? Unless...nah, couldn't be, could it?

True

[speyfly]

El, when the message paints you into a corner your only recourse is to attack the messenger. Take a break and be sure to come back when you feel like debating an issue. The personal attacks show your lacking the necessary stuff to converse by discussing the topic.

[Stratocaster]

heres my impression of speyfly

[ 04-03-2003, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

[Kruechief]

FD,

Here's mine:

[img]graemlins/program.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Krue

[True]

Speyfly,

It looks like El Shaddai wasn't the only one painted in a corner...

True

[crabbait]

So now we will throw the most insulting bunch of smilies instead of calling names? How quaint.

What next.....make faces at him?

[True]

Crabbait,

That's called the "Crushing grip of reason" tactic.

True