A Warmonger Explains War to a Peacenik
Topic started by Peacenik (@ cache1-2.jed.isu.net.sa) on Sun Mar 23 03:18:01 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.
A Warmonger Explains War to a Peacenik
By Bill Davidson
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jwz/176218.html
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 New York.
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 longrange missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
WarMonger: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorist 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, April Glaspie, 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 Bin Laden 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 Qaida 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 Qaida 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 Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...
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 all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
PeaceNik: Here... have a pretzel, instead.
Responses:
- Old responses
- From: mx (@ cache3-2.jed.isu.net.sa)
on: Wed Mar 26 01:39:30
THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH
Paulo Coelho
http://www.opendemocracy.net/other_content/article-1033-satire.jsp
From the world's most popular novelist, Paulo Coelho, an open letter of praise for President Bush.
Thank you, great leader George W. Bush.
Thank you for showing everyone what a danger Saddam Hussein represents. Many of us might otherwise have forgotten that he used chemical weapons against his own people, against the Kurds and against the Iranians. Hussein is a bloodthirsty dictator and one of the clearest expressions of evil in today’s world.
But this is not my only reason for thanking you. During the first two months of 2003, you have shown the world a great many other important things and, therefore, deserve my gratitude.
So, remembering a poem I learned as a child, I want to say thank you.
Thank you for showing everyone that the Turkish people and their parliament are not for sale, not even for 26 billion dollars.
Thank you for revealing to the world the gulf that exists between the decisions made by those in power and the wishes of the people. Thank you for making it clear that neither José María Aznar nor Tony Blair give the slightest weight to or show the slightest respect for the votes they received. Aznar is perfectly capable of ignoring the fact that 90% of Spaniards are against the war, and Blair is unmoved by the largest public demonstration to take place in England in the last thirty years.
Thank you for making it necessary for Tony Blair to go to the British parliament with a fabricated dossier written by a student ten years ago, and present this as ‘damning evidence collected by the British Secret Service’.
Thank you for allowing Colin Powell to make a complete fool of himself by showing the UN Security Council photos which, one week later, were publicly challenged by Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq.
Thank you for adopting your current position and thus ensuring that, at the plenary session, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin’s anti-war speech was greeted with applause – something, as far as I know, that has only happened once before in the history of the UN, following a speech by Nelson Mandela.
Thank you too, because, after all your efforts to promote war, the normally divided Arab nations were, for the first time, at their meeting in Cairo during the last week in February, unanimous in their condemnation of any invasion.
Thank you for your rhetoric stating that ‘the UN now has a chance to demonstrate its relevance’, a statement which made even the most reluctant countries take up a position opposing any attack on Iraq.
Thank you for your foreign policy which provoked the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, into declaring that in the 21st century, ‘a war can have a moral justification’, thus causing him to lose all credibility.
Thank you for trying to divide a Europe that is currently struggling for unification; this was a warning that will not go unheeded.
Thank you for having achieved something that very few have so far managed to do in this century: the bringing together of millions of people on all continents to fight for the same idea, even though that idea is opposed to yours.
Thank you for making us feel once more that though our words may not be heard, they are at least spoken – this will make us stronger in the future.
Thank you for ignoring us, for marginalising all those who oppose your decision, because the future of the Earth belongs to the excluded.
Thank you, because, without you, we would not have realised our own ability to mobilise. It may serve no purpose this time, but it will doubtless be useful later on.
Now that there seems no way of silencing the drums of war, I would like to say, as an ancient European king said to an invader: ‘May your morning be a beautiful one, may the sun shine on your soldiers’ armour, for in the afternoon, I will defeat you.’
Thank you for allowing us – an army of anonymous people filling the streets in an attempt to stop a process that is already underway – to know what it feels like to be powerless and to learn to grapple with that feeling and transform it.
So, enjoy your morning and whatever glory it may yet bring you.
Thank you for not listening to us and not taking us seriously, but know that we are listening to you and that we will not forget your words.
Thank you, great leader George W. Bush.
Thank you very much.
- From: nakkiran (@ 202.187.144.2)
on: Thu Mar 27 05:16:44
I thought Mr Bush wants to liberate the iraqi people. Please Mr liberator please come to my country BURMA and liberate us too.We have been fifty years under military rule. We would appreciate that. You can bomb as much as you want we havent got much to loose. Dont worry about press there is hardly anything like that here.Nobody would even talk to any press bcos we have been silent for so many years we forgot how to talk. We are waiting for a liberator like you who will take interest in other countries. By the way, on the way to here you can also liberate cuba(I always hated castros beard but dont forget the cigars i simply love them), Libya(by the way col Qadfi has got beautiful body guard, pleae be nice to them atleast)and whole of africa otherwise let me put it "free africa from africans",maybe teach chirstianity to these arabs so that they wont fly any more planes into your buildings, ask the indians to nice to pakis and stop wasting by firing missiles at each other, and definately tell north koreans to behave. We are waiting.Please help us. If liberation is what you mean by killing people we too want to be liberated which much better than to live in BURMA.
- From: ks (@ cache4-2.jed.isu.net.sa)
on: Mon Mar 31 03:56:25
http://truthout.org/docs_03/033103A.shtml
Resignation Letter from Another U.S. Diplomat
"I do not believe in the policies of this Administration and cannot defend or implement them. It is with heavy heart that I must end my service to America and therefore resign due to the Administration's policies."
[ ... ]
"I cannot support the Administration's unnecessary curtailment of civil rights following September 11. ... Solitary confinement without access to legal counsel cuts the heart out of the legal foundation on which our country stands. Additionally, I believe the Administration's secrecy in the judicial process has created an atmosphere of fear to speak out against the gutting of the protections on which America was built and the protections we encourage other countries to provide to their citizens."
Received from Truthout.org on March 29, 2003
Letter available on line at: http://truthout.org/docs_03/033103A.shtml
Truthout.org Editor's Note:
The following is a copy of Mary Wright's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wright was most recently the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. She helped open the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in January 2002. Yet another diplomat has quit over Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. EmbassyUlaanbaatar, Mongolia March 19, 2003 Secretary of State Colin PowellUS Department of StateWashington, DC 20521 Dear Secretary Powell:When I last saw you in Kabul in January, 2002 you arrived to officially open the US Embassy that I had helped reestablish in December, 2001 as the first political officer. At that time I could not have imagined that I would be writing a year later to resign from the Foreign Service because of US policies. All my adult life I have been in service to the United States. I have been a diplomat for fifteen years and the Deputy Chief of Mission in our Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan (briefly) and Mongolia. I have also had assignments in Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Grenada and Nicaragua. I received the State Department's Award for Heroism as Charge d'Affaires during the evacuation of Sierra Leone in 1997. I was 26 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and participated in civil reconstruction projects after military operations in Grenada, Panama and Somalia. I attained the rank of Colonel during my military service.
This is the only time in my many years serving America that I have felt I cannot represent the policies of an Administration of the United States. I disagree with the Administration's policies on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea and curtailment of civil liberties in the U.S. itself. I believe the Administration's policies are making the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place. I feel obligated morally and professionally to set out my very deep and firm concerns on these policies and to resign from government service as I cannot defend or implement them.
I hope you will bear with my explanation of why I must resign. After thirty years of service to my country, my decision to resign is a huge step and I want to be clear in my reasons why I must do so.
I disagree with the Administration's policies on Iraq
I wrote this letter five weeks ago and held it hoping that the Administration would not go to war against Iraq at this time without United Nations Security Council agreement. I strongly believe that going to war now will make the world more dangerous, not safer.
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator and has done incredible damage to the Iraqi people and others of the region. I totally support the international community's demand that Saddam's regime destroy weapons of mass destruction.
However, I believe we should not use US military force without UNSC agreement to ensure compliance. In our press for military action now, we have created deep chasms in the international community and in important international organizations. Our policies have alienated many of our allies and created ill will in much of the world.
Countries of the world supported America's action in Afghanistan as a response to the September 11 Al Qaida attacks on America. Since then, America has lost the incredible sympathy of most of the world because of our policy toward Iraq. Much of the world considers our statements about Iraq as arrogant, untruthful and masking a hidden agenda. Leaders of moderate Moslem/Arab countries warn us about predicable outrage and anger of the youth of their countries if America enters an Arab country with the purpose of attacking Moslems/Arabs, not defending them. Attacking the Saddam regime in Iraq now is very different than expelling the same regime from Kuwait, as we did ten years ago.
I strongly believe the probable response of many Arabs of the region and Moslems of the world if the US enters Iraq without UNSC agreement will result in actions extraordinarily dangerous to America and Americans. Military action now without UNSC agreement is much more dangerous for America and the world than allowing the UN weapons inspections to proceed and subsequently taking UNSC authorized action if warranted.
I firmly believe the probability of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction is low, as he knows that using those weapons will trigger an immediate, strong and justified international response. There will be no question of action against Saddam in that case. I strongly disagree with the use of a "preemptive attack" against Iraq and believe that this preemptive attack policy will be used against us and provide justification for individuals and groups to "preemptively attack" America and American citizens.
The international military build-up is providing pressure on the regime that is resulting in a slow, but steady disclosure of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). We should give the weapons inspectors time to do their job. We should not give extremist Moslems/ Arabs a further cause to hate America, or give moderate Moslems a reason to join the extremists. Additionally, we must reevaluate keeping our military forces in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Their presence on the Islamic "holy soil" of Saudi Arabia will be an anti-American rally cry for Moslems as long as the US military remains and a strong reason, in their opinion, for actions against the US government and American citizens.
Although I strongly believe the time is not yet right for military action in Iraq, as a soldier who has been in several military operations, I hope General Franks, US and coalition forces can accomplish the missions they will be ordered do without loss of civilian or military life and without destruction of the Iraqi peoples' homes and livelihood. I strongly urge the Department of State to attempt again to stop the policy that is leading us to military action in Iraq without UNSC agreement. Timing is everything and this is not yet the time for military action.
I disagree with the Administration's lack of effort in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Likewise, I cannot support the lack of effort by the Administration to use its influence to resurrect the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As Palestinian suicide bombers kill Israelis and Israeli military operations kill Palestinians and destroy Palestinian towns and cities, the Administration has done little to end the violence. We must exert our considerable financial influence on the Israelis to stop destroying cities and on the Palestinians to curb its youth suicide bombers. I hope the Administration's long-needed "Roadmap for Peace" will have the human resources and political capital needed to finally make some progress toward peace.
I disagree with the Administration's lack of policy on North Korea
Additionally, I cannot support the Administration's position on North Korea. With weapons, bombs and missiles, the risks that North Korea poses are too great to ignore. I strongly believe the Administration's lack of substantive discussion, dialogue and engagement over the last two years has jeopardized security on the peninsula and the region. The situation with North Korea is dangerous for us to continue to neglect.
I disagree with the Administration's policies on Unnecessary Curtailment of Rights in America
Further, I cannot support the Administration's unnecessary curtailment of civil rights following September 11. The investigation of those suspected of ties with terrorist organizations is critical but the legal system of America for 200 years has been based on standards that provide protections for persons during the investigation period. Solitary confinement without access to legal counsel cuts the heart out of the legal foundation on which our country stands. Additionally, I believe the Administration's secrecy in the judicial process has created an atmosphere of fear to speak out against the gutting of the protections on which America was built and the protections we encourage other countries to provide to their citizens.
Resignation
I have served my country for almost thirty years in the some of the most isolated and dangerous parts of the world. I want to continue to serve America. However, I do not believe in the policies of this Administration and cannot defend or implement them. It is with heavy heart that I must end my service to America and therefore resign due to the Administration's policies.
Mr. Secretary, to end on a personal note, under your leadership, we have made great progress in improving the organization and administration of the Foreign Service and the Department of State. I want to thank you for your extraordinary efforts to that end. I hate to leave the Foreign Service, and I wish you and our colleagues well.
Very Respectfully,
Mary A. Wright,
FO-01 Deputy Chief of Mission
US Embassy
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
- From: Raghu (@ 217.158.120.226)
on: Mon Mar 31 11:21:10
ha ha,
I thought junior Bush said, he can capture President Hussain in a matter of days, oh dear, what went wrong.
this bloody americans always underestimate their oponents, ha ha
what is this crap about friendly fire, oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez, don't chant such craps, oh I 4got some thing else, Friendly fire, Technical faults, sand storms seems only to affect the americans, what joke, admit the truth, most of the USA army and the helicopters were gunned down by hostile fire!
Tell your friend about this topic
Want to post a response?
Back to the Forum