< < <
Date Index
> > >
Why war is necessary: An Explanation
by Seyed Javad
16 March 2003 15:22 UTC
< < <
Thread Index
> > >

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!


Express yourself with cool emoticons. Get MSN Messenger today.
< < <
Date Index
> > >
World Systems Network List Archives
at CSF
Subscribe to World Systems Network < < <
Thread Index
> > >