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 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 coundn'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 Quaeda 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!

What is so interesting about something we have heard a thousand times now? If you havent heard these arguments by now, your head is in the sand.

There is proof now, that Iraq held back from the inspectors weapons that should have been turned over to them. These weapons may now be used on our troops.

Anyone that doesnt see that Iraq is a terrorist nation by now, will never be convinced.

The Iraqi government is forcing young boys to fight, or have thier families and themselves killed. They are also killing prisoners of war. They are using suicide bombers on our military, and have threatened to do it on our soil. They are also putting, what our military considers a target, next to civilians, figuring we wont attack these sites. They dont care about the citizens, they use them as pawns.

On a talk show I listen to. A mistress of Saddam, who fled Iraq, spoke of his insane ways.

Saddam had become impotent. Any woman that he was supposed to have sex with, that couldnt get him "up", was killed. He also, to get himself excited, would watch executions before having sex.

Does this sound like a man that can be trusted to run a country? It doesnt to me.

There are so many more examples of terror I could speak of, but I dont have the time.

This war is going to save lives in the long run. I back this Presidents decision to go to war. This doesnt make me or anyone that supports this a
WARMONGER. That is silly, propaganda.

Mag

PS: wjskin, whats YOUR position on this? My guess, is that you are the "Peacenik". I dont think a supporter of the war would post such dialog.

Indeed, I'm curious wjskin, you're a liberal? Did you vote? for whom? If you voted for Clinton, how did you feel about his attacks? Boz? "the Caribbean for God's sake?" Were you in support of or opposed to liberal use of the military? or is it just when conservatives use the military? Like Dashole supporting Clinton taking action against Iraq, but denouncing Bush? That is a hypocrite "pure and simple". How about you? A hypocrite? Or simply opposed to war or military action in any circumstances? Anxiously awaiting your response.

standing by, waiting for the aFOREmentioned SKIN to respond...

Yo Skin! Is this a hit & run? Come on now, enquiring minds want to know.

Mag

I thought the post was entertaining.

Skin can't comment right now. He is on the phone with Peter (dickhead) Arnett.

Mags,

Are you saying that you feel we are at war with Iraq because Saddam is an evil man? Evil to his own people, I could agree with. But, what evil has been perpetuated on the United States that we would aggressively pursue this course? I'd like to hear the tangible evidence (not political hearsay or conjecture) that makes you believe we should follow this course.

Also, could you embellish on the "proof" that Iraq "held back" during weapon inspections? Your sources, please? Fox news "reports" need not be applied.

And what was/is the tangible evidence that convinced YOU that Iraq is a "terrorist" nation? A terrorist to his own people? I can believe that. A terrorist to our nation? How, specifically? If it's that clear, after all, then what's all the fuss about?

And how will this war save lives in the long run? Will it make those who commit terrorist acts fear us? Will it take the weapons of terrorism out of their hands? Where are you going with this?

Finally, I noted you took umbrage to the term "warmonger". I don't blame you. I take umbrage to the term "peacenik", as well.

There is a time and place for everything...unfortunately, even war. My question is...should now be the time or Iraq, the place?

PS- Get used to the triteness of these arguments. It's not the number of times we actually hear them, it's the amount of time we put aside to actually try and understand them.

As I suspected... no ba!!s. Comfortable with asking questions, but not with answering them...

Directed at the aFOREmentioned SKIN.

Robby,

To answer one of your questions, I never supported any of Clinton's military forays, although I did support Bush I in the Persian Gulf conflict. Kind of a paradox, eh?

Now, before you start crying "hypocrite", tell me about how you supported the "president" in the 8 years prior to Bush II? I'm curious about just how much of a "patriot" you really are.

Robby,

Do you suppose it's excessive testosterone that makes you thirsty for war?

Always questioning,

wjskin

I questioned his motives and our interests. We have clear interests in the middle east, we had none in bozniahurtseagomassmurderya. Somalia? meals on wheels? That's not what the military was built for. They kill people and break things and they're really good at it. The Monica missiles? launched at the height of the now infamous scandal? A clear tac at diversion from the issue of the day. All in all, Clinton never "used" the military successfully at all. He decimated it. He cut funding and destroyed moral. Check that out with any of the military folks who post here. He was a disgrace, but if he were going in to Iraq, as he should have, I would support him in a just war.

Peace through strength skin... The price of freedom is vigilance.

(how will this war save lives in the long run? Will it make those who commit terrorist acts fear us? Will it take the weapons of terrorism out of their hands? Where are you going with this?)

wjskin it's a Damn Good Start... I hope every Nation who wants to Commit Terrorists Acts against the United States or any Country Joined with the USofA will think Twice about it!!!! What Proof do you Need?? do you Need someone to rub your Nose in it also??? I supported Clinton for 8 Long Years and before him a Man I respect... and Following him another Man I Respect... But I never Respected Clinton I only Followed Orders that were passed down from his being in Command...I Respected and Will Respect the Office he Held!!!! as for this you are refering to... I have been on many Missions to the Gulf... many that should not have been... if this were cleaned up 12 years ago like it should have been...you seem to be one of the lost and one of those who wouldn't listen if you had facts in your Lap... Ignorince is Bliss!!!!!
I am not a War Monger but I am a Military Member who and when I have to, will do my Job to Protect my Country and Have!!!!!
it is now that people should stand behind the Troops and support getting this Mission Accomplished rather than spit on the troops and support there retoric BS that doesn't support Squat!!!!
Speak out against whoever you would like... but remember there are guy's like myself who Love my Country and sometimes when Provoked have a right to go to it's defence!!!!!

Hog

Hog,

You sound like quite the idealist (not that there's anything wrong with that). I'd like to believe our action against Iraq would have our terrorist enemies "shaking in their boots". But, realistically, do you honestly think THAT will happen? Sorry to be the cynical one here.

Part of being a military man is following orders...dare I say, right or wrong? Isn't part of your discipline falling in line regardless of what your opinion might be? And you're telling me, "ignorance is bliss"? Start offering me some anti-biased military truths (an oxymoron? You be the judge) that should be dropping into my lap like missiles from the skies. My ears might start to perk right up.

Sorry, but I don't buy into the fact that you love your country anymore than I do, just because you served in the military. And beating your chest doesn't make me feel any better about you either.

But, do I support our troops? You bet I do (not that I'd expect you to understand anything other than black and white, though). Our president and his policy? Seriously doubtful. Unless, I get some substantiated evidence that everything happening over there is for our freedom and not to buy the next election or a symptom of the "Monica missiles" that Robby mentioned (yet so aptly failed to make the connection with the "Osama missiles" while rattling his cage about Clinton), I'm not buying. Sorry, I just don't follow orders (or bull****e) too well, I suppose.

As I stated before.. if it was in your Lap you would not listen to it... you would take it from who it came from and that would be it... I will only State that if you yourself are a Peacenik and actively demonstrating against this War... then you Yourself are Guilty of not Supporting the Troops no matter what you say Different... Our Men and Women are in it up to there A$$'s and to support them is to back the Administration all the way down to the Troops!!!! not one or the other.. it is a Whole!!!! after they are returning home do and say what you want... but during this time they are hearing the contraversial (sp) BS while there giving it there all on the Battle Field and it Boggels the Mind with Bull**** that is Un Needed at this time!!!!! I'm not pounding my Chest and you will never see me do that... but I have been known to Bust a few Jaws of Clowns who push there luck!!! and I stand by the grounds of... I do not Trouble Trouble Less Trouble Troubles Me!!!!!! and Many Peacniks enjoy looking for Trouble... Running their Yappers when they don't even know what there talking about...What Proof would you Need? another 911 with one of the Terrorists wearing an Iraqi T-Shirt??? or maybe some of the Deadly Bio Chemicals dumped in your local Drinking water... but then if there isn't a name on the containers that they find saying Iraq on them then you wouldn't fathem to believe there could be a chance they came from there???
Violation of Sanctions is enough for me... this should have been takin care of 12 years ago... and I truely believe if it had there would not have been a 911... this is just a stepping stone on the War on Terror... back it or not thats your Right... but it is also my Right to Fight it.. and My Honor to do the same!!!!
just don't go crying to anyone when a Jihad fixes your Zipper for you when they think you make a good Target!!!

Hog

wjskin, obviously you are brainwashed.

Even if Saddam only killed and abused his own people, would you think its OK? Why?

Next, missiles were discovered by inspectors right after Saddam said there weren't any. The destruction of these were shown on TV. Also, didn't you hear about the chemical factory discovered?

You don't get it. The inspectors weren't supposed to have to look for these things. Iraq was supposed to turn over these weapons voluntarily. They didn't.

Are we then, supposed to trust him when he says there aren't any other weapons? NO! Of course not!

Next, Israel is an allie. Do you know what that means? Suicide bombings were financed by Saddam. $25,000 per suicide. This is terrorism. Allies help each other in these situations.

I gave you some examples of Saddams irrational behavior. Do you need a bunch of them to realize that he is dangerous, and shouldn't have the opportunity to develop and use nuclear or chemical devices? Don't be ignorant.

I quote you:
"And what was/is the tangible evidence that convinced YOU that Iraq is a "terrorist" nation? A terrorist to his own people? I can believe that. A terrorist to our nation? How, specifically? If it's that clear, after all, then what's all the fuss about?"

You have stated here that you couldn't care less about the innocent people of other nations. Your character is flawed!

You would probably drive right by a woman in distress because it doesn't directly affect you. This country isn't self centered. We help others when it is necessary.

How will this save lives in the long run? Saddam has gassed thousands of his own people. He has also tortured and killed many who just disagree with his politics. Like tongues and heads cut off. Isn't this terrorism?

This war will have less casualties than the numbers already killed by Saddam. That's how lives will be saved, by stopping this murdering of his own people and others unforeseeable at this time.

Ending these types of killings will save lives.

You appear to me to be a coward. Also an ignorant left winger. Your apparent lack of respect for others lives, unless they live in this country is a disgrace.

Mag

wjskin, sorry I got a little pissed at you. I got a little excited and didnt mean to call you a coward.

Mag

wjskin

i don't know what you said, nut i have printed it to read tomorrow. it looks too interesting to read on a monitor.