A "War Monger" Explains War To A "Peacenik"

[Nie Trink Wasser]

This was posted on Metafilter.com where the posts are starting to resemble a cb radio scream fest of leftist spin......the problem with that is that no one is able to respond or comment and it's one of the biggest blog sites on the net.

anway.....here is the big fun point to the thread :


http://www.minimumeffort.com/nutshell.html

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 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.
.......CONT..........

[kourama]

funny. Almost sounds like my arguments with creationists.

[ssibal]

Ah, the old "Israel has violated more resolutions than Iraq" nonsense....

[corplinx]

want me to make one that makes the peacenik look like jackass instead?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by corplinx
want me to make one that makes the peacenik look like jackass instead?



PLEASE

[Jedi Knight]

By Anonymous

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

We have invaded Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait. When Iraq was repelled from Kuwait, Iraq agreed to disarm. That was twelve years ago. Iraq listened to too many leftists and thought that we did not have the will to finish the war against them. We have the will, as proven by the necessity to disarm Iraq, one of the goals in the first Persian Gulf War that didn't allow that war to end because Iraq failed to adhere to its surrender agreements.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

Not true. The State of Israel has only used military power to protects its people and its national borders democratically. The State of Israel has had nuclear weapons since 1961, and has hundreds of them that it has never used proactively against its neighbors. This proves Israel is a partner of peace, unlike Iraq, which has used Sarin/VX and other chemical weapons of mass destruction against its own people. It is leftist propaganda to say that Israel has violated UN resolutions when comparing Israel to Iraq. Iraq is (was) a leftist nation-state--one of the triggers which caused it to devolve into a perversionist nation-state. The US is bringing non-leftist givernment to Iraq so it will be a truely free nation-state.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

The weapons inspectors' program was botched from the beginning. Hans Blix was number 24 on a list of those candidates to be Chief Weapons Inspector. What happened to the first 23 candidates? They were swatted aside by leftists seeking to protect Iraq's dangerous weapons of mass destruction programs, hoping that Hans Blix would lean towards protecting Iraq, which he did. Assigning Blix as the Chief Weapons Inspector only propelled the US war against Iraq, since the UN program became impotent. Mr. Blix didn't have any qualified personnel working with him as weapons inspectors either, and the numbers of inspectors used in Iraq would have taken decades to cover the entire country. It was a fiasco.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

Just like your other observations and opinions, this one is also wrong. Iraq used banned missiles since the war started and some have impacted in Kuwait and have also been used against US troops and other coalition forces. Those weapons were banned, but Iraq used them almost daily. That just proves that where Iraq lies, it also lies about WMD (which it did as well since US forces have secured WMD in Iraq as of this writing).

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?

The United States supplied Iraq with just 1% of their total military arms. Countries like France, Germany and China and others supplied over 90%.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

We sold Iraq dual-use items for their war against Iran, a dangerous nation-state that threatened peace in the region in the 1980's. Saddam Hussein was not found out to be a danger until his actions proved he was later, a point not lost on the fact that the United States is not psychic and cannot predict the future. Just because Saddam used weapons we sold him for evil purposes after does not mean the United States knew with precognitive psychic ability what he was going to do with them. That is leftist blaming and an unreality.

JK

P.S. Post the rest so I can answer all the leftist peacenik questions.

[corplinx]

PN: How can you support this illegitimate, illegal, and immoral war?
WM: There is no place for regimes like Iraq in this millenium. They imprison children for not joining their youth programs, they cut off ears of suspected dissidents, they harbor and fund terrorists. Iraq continues to pursue long range missle programs which it is forbidden to pursue, There is no way to pragmatically contain Iraq. As long as Saddam's regime stays in power, the middleeast will be one tick away from an all-out regional war since there is a looming Iraqi/Israeli conflict. We entered into a de facto commitment to disarm Iraq through treaties we entered into over 10 years ago. It has taken us this long to learn that the only way to disarm his regime is to remove it altogether.
PN: But we supported Saddam 3 administrations ago!
WM: And?
PN: But we sold him medical data he used to reverse engineer anthrax back in the 80s!
WM: Your point?
PN: But some war mongers say-
WM; I didnt say it so don't bring it up. Some war mongers may say we should destroy Iraq because he is muslim. You can't generalize that to all of us. Nor can you generalize fictitious bin laden links, imaginary UN power, or other things to us all.
PN: There are other brutal dictators out there!
WM: So?
PN: So......... Bush is a moron who wasn't even elected!

[Nie Trink Wasser]

P.S. Post the rest so I can answer all the leftist peacenik questions. [/B]


click the link !

[otyug]

Here is the entire text, from:

http://www.minimumeffort.com/nutshell.html

JK, your rebuttal has been interesting. Please continue.


---
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 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 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: I give up!

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

I've seen this assertion many times on this forum before, but has anyone ever supported this assertion with documentation? Specifically I'd like to know:
1) When did the US sell chemical weapons to Iraq?
2) When did the US sell biological weapons to Iraq? I know we sold them livestock anthrax for agricultural purposes (this is quite common), but this is a far cry from the weaponized sort of anthrax.
Please document your information w/ reputable sources.

[corplinx]

"PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the
U.S. Supreme C...- "
-from the original blog being cited



That tells me about all I need to know about that post. Anyone who is so ignorant as to believe the selected president meme is willing to believe anything and ignore the rest to keep their world outlook in check.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by corplinx
"PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the
U.S. Supreme C...- "
-from the original blog being cited



That tells me about all I need to know about that post......

I'm surprised you had to read so much to come to that conclusion.