Why war is necessary: An Explanation

Greetings,

It is an intersting dialog between two parties: for war and against war

seyedjavad

From: "Leo Tolstoy"

To: seyedjavad@hotmail.com

Subject: Fwd: Why war is necessary: An Explanation

Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:17:48 +0000

>From: "Altaf Bhimji"

>Reply-To: Altaf Bhimji

>To: ISJ , altaf@people-link.net

>Subject: Why war is necessary: An Explanation

>Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 08:09:38 -0800

>hold up a light for peace on March 16th - check for local listings

>here:

>http://www.globalvigil.org/

>A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK

>By Anonymous

>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 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 Quaida. 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-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 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!