a warmonger explains war

[august spies]

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK

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!

 

[Marauder]

Thanks for that. Precisely. Though it lacks the "...who'd be speaking german by now if it hadn't been for us"-ditty at the end of "move to france" to make it perfectly representable.

 

[theallknowing1]

So true So true

That is the best commentary I have heard about the war so far. Two thumbs up for August Spies, champion of THE TRUTH.

 

[Haltickling]

Bravo, augustspies! This article evokes some kind of deja-vu from my previous discussions here.

As Marauder hinted, it lacks the reference to America's rescuing Europe because containment hasn't worked. Folks, America only entered the war when Hitler had already gobbled up most of Europe, and only after Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. That was hardly a preemptive strike. America entered the first Gulf War because Saddam had invaded Kuwait, and practically the whole civilized world supported America then!

Okay okay, I shut up now...

 

[Dave2112]

Personally, I could care less about past history. We've all done things for each other in the past, I just never thought we owed anyone anything for helping out. Redrugding all of this is only adding fuel to an already out-of-control fire.

 

[qjakal]

Yeah...

And it's such a factual and balanced look at the issue...lol.Q

 

[Admiral Trouser]

Absaloute genius. I commend you!

AT

 

[t s s]

*applauds* very well stated!!😉

 

[qjakal]

Well stated?

It's not exactly genius to frame the questions and then the answers and have it come out the way you want it to...lol...watch:

PN: Don't you think the inspections will work? Let's give it a chance!

WM: Most of us consider 12 years quite a lot of "chance". Maybe it's all that giving advance notice and waiting outside the gate for a few hours to enter. Those crafty inspectors could hardly have been fooled.


You can do this with any of the above "points" made in the thread in reverse....not exactly a huge trick. Q

 

[t s s]

well stated as in he gets his point across 😀

 

[Marauder]

Very true, Q. Unfortunately, the above (humorous) post comes frighteningly close to the way the discussions turn out to be. I agree wholeheartedly that the entire exchange can be done in reverse.

Instead of saying how lopsided the post is, and also instead of concocting another fictional "exchange" with the Peacenik as the butt of the joke, it would be challenging and quite worthwhile to try and make up a conversation where the Warmonger can explain to the Peacenik why the war is happening, and convince him with logic in a realistically conceivable way. Same goes for the other way around.

Want to give it a try? If you want to, we could start up a thread and start tossing arguments back and forth in a civil way, really trying to convince while being open for the slight possibility that the opposing party may be right (like, a discussion). I think it would be refreshing to see this touchy issue explored without having people resort to populistic, polemic dogma, generalizations and hearsay. What do you say?

 

[t s s]

*applauds even louder* extremely well stated!!

 

[qjakal]

No problem...

I'm up for it...the problem I see developing is that the questions themselves become a point of contention. You say "convince with logic", and I say it's obvious because the last Gulf War ended with a proviso that certain conditions, if not complied with, were sufficient "cause" for a resumption of hostilities. Why do we need to debate the legitimacy of a clearly defined issue...and so it would go, back and forth ad naseum. We could try, but I think there's a chasm in the basic beliefs that would cause it to go astray. Nonetheless, if a party is thrown, I'll be there! Q

 

[Marauder]

The question, then, is what should be discussed. The legitimacy of the war? The use of/for it? The justification?

The core problem is the question whether this war is a good idea, not whether it is legit. My standpoint (The "peacenik" one) is not that the war in and of itself is wrong. I'm opposed to the way it has been carried out, including the reasons for waging it at this point in time, the way that it was prepared, and now the way it is executed. I'm also disagreeing with the way it is being justified.

It won't be easy to formulate a topic that addresses all of these issues while still providing a platform for discussion. I do believe, however, that such a topic can be found. How about this: "Why is it so hard to reach consensus on the Gulf War issues"? It might be a good starting point.

Back to you, Q.

 

[Hitman]

You know what all you peacenicks or whatever the hell you call your selfs maight as well shut the hell up because the fact of the matter is we are there and we will not leave till the job is done. So all of your bitching is doing absolutly nothing especially all those from other countrys.

 

[red indian]

"...gobbled up most of europe".............

......the operative word being "most", however, one corner of some not so foriegn field, stayed forever England.

 

[Marauder]

You know what all you peacenicks or whatever the hell you call your selfs maight as well shut the hell up because the fact of the matter is we are there and we will not leave till the job is done. So all of your bitching is doing absolutly nothing especially all those from other countrys.

See now, Hitman, this is exactly what this thread is about - the inability of hardliners on both sides of the issue to have a civil discussion about the subject. Posts like yours are over the top and unproductive, as they add nothing to the discussion. Furthermore, they open up the poster, in this case you, to ridicule and attack. Those kind of posts will be either ignored, counterattacked or be followed by a host of congratulatory support from likeminded folks. Neither of these three possibilities has any merit in a discussion. It would be a good idea to refrain from generalized "assault posts" like this. Instead, why not back your own take on the issue with logic and facts? Or why not posting something contributing to the discussion at hand?

You state that the U.S. and Britain have moved in and are waging war. We all know that. You also say that they will stay until they have accomplished their mission. That is speculative. The mission in Afghanistan was not officially accomplished, neither was the mission of GW1 accomplished in full. So saying that it will be this time around is speculation based on personal wishful thinking, although I have to admit that it is quite likely that the outcome of the war will be a victory for the "coalition of the willing".
These points, however, do not justify your demand that all "Peaceniks" cease to protest the war. Just because something is happening doesn't automatically make it right, and neither does it void the right of free expression.

 

[qjakal]

Left ya alone..

Sheesh..ya leave for an hour or so, and whammo...things happen. Hey, Blade2 was on, and there's some things more important than even the internet.

Well, I surely agree that all these "yay for us" and "amen" responses are the height of idiocy.

Not sure I'm the guy for representing the "justified" side. I have serious issues with much of the overall action as well. Launching this war should have been a UN decision, but the UN has failed to uphold it's own basic purpose, so it rendered itself moot. The violations of their edicts could hardly be any more clearcut and pervasive. When confronted with that sort of blatant partisianship, it's difficult not to discard the results.

I also have no problem with legitimate rational discussion and protests. But the constant stupid "It's all about oil" and "He's finishing his Dads business" grate on ones nerves and sensibilities. The sheer number of possible reasons for any conflict are myriad, and this one in particular is extremely convoluted.


Anyway, I'd love to see ONE centralized well monitored thread for discussion, rather than all these drive by potshots...

Q

 

[Marauder]

Hey, Blade2 was on, and there's some things more important than even the internet.

I understand perfectly, Q - I just started Planescape:Torment again, and AUGH WHY DID I DO THAT I'M SO STUPID I'LL NEVER GET ANY SLEEP well anyway, back to the topic 🙂

I like the idea of one big thread, centering on a limited number of issues (it will get out of hand otherwise). If you haven't cooked something up by tomorrow, I will - but for now, I really should try to leave the screen and collapse, before I'm tempted to go back to the Nameless One.

 

[Hitman]

I am sorry. Its hard not to take some of this stuff being said personal when it seems like every body is attacking the US, My home Country, all the time. I know some of those soldiers over there fighting so when something like this pops up its hard not to take it personal. Agin I am sorry. But I still belive in this war 100%.

 

[Haltickling]

Very true, Q. Unfortunately, the above (humorous) post comes frighteningly close to the way the discussions turn out to be. I agree wholeheartedly that the entire exchange can be done in reverse.

Instead of saying how lopsided the post is, and also instead of concocting another fictional "exchange" with the Peacenik as the butt of the joke, it would be challenging and quite worthwhile to try and make up a conversation where the Warmonger can explain to the Peacenik why the war is happening, and convince him with logic in a realistically conceivable way. Same goes for the other way around.

Want to give it a try? If you want to, we could start up a thread and start tossing arguments back and forth in a civil way, really trying to convince while being open for the slight possibility that the opposing party may be right (like, a discussion). I think it would be refreshing to see this touchy issue explored without having people resort to populistic, polemic dogma, generalizations and hearsay. What do you say?

While this would certainly be an admirable and laudible effort, I'm afraid it won't happen, neither here nor elsewhere. Why?

First, we all rely on second-hand information. None of us has his own secret service in place. All we know is what is presented in the media. And as long there are people who consider Fox News or Al-Jazeera unbiased and propaganda-free, there will never be a consensus what really happened. We will probably never learn what really happened anyway, as the winner always dictates what will go down in history books.

And there is a lot of propaganda, of course. Politicians repeating the same words over and over like a Tibetan mantra, the news filtered to make them suit the public opinion, "embedded" and therefore hardly objective journalists, and "experts" who have spent most of their life in the region, thus equally biased.

Second, there's a psychological aspect called "selective perception". That's nothing evil. Our brain can only compute things we have heard of or at least can imagine. The complete sum of our personal experiences and emotions dictates what we will accept and what we reject. That's why there's never one single, ultimate truth for everybody. People perceive the same objects or actions in completely different ways. That's not a theory, it's well-proven scientific fact. So we won't even agree if we all had the same informations. We filter out unknown news that don't correlate with our emotions and experiences automatically.

Third, this is not a technical issue where things can be weighed, measured, or counted. It is a psychological, even a basically ethical question, colored with our basic political views. Look how many "experts" appear on all TV channels, and how often they contradict each other (at least on German TV; I've yet to see such a controversial discussion on CNN). My opinion: Give an academic enough time and a huge amount of paper, and he will prove everything to you, even the contrary.

Not even all the Iraqis in exile agree but on one issue: Saddam has to go. I think most of the world agrees there (even the Arab leaders, if only secretly). Even the "peaceniks" agree with that. But: does the end justify the means (question of morals philosphy)? Can you solve such a dilemma with military actions (political science issue)? What will come when the war is over? Only a liberated Iraq? What about the other opressive regimes in the middle East? What about North Korea which is, IMO, a much bigger threat to the world? How will this war and the Transatlantic Rift affect world economy? How will it affect the further political developments in the world?

That's where speculations come in. I'm afraid you can't pick out a single topic and discuss it without the other questions. This is not a closed system, it's all very open and dynamic. It's quite natural that we are not able to dicuss a single argument rationally, without political and emotional anxieties. We're humans, not robots, and about 90% of our actions are results of emotions, no matter how hard we try to deny it.

So it's simply impossible to discuss this with rational arguments only. We could try to discuss it without personal attacks, but there will always be a few who'll sabotage this noble aim. Sorry!

 

[Marauder]

Well put, Hal. However, the proposed discussion was not meant to solve anything. World politics are not going to be comprehended on the internet, and the middle east conflicts won't be solved by discussing them on a fetish forum, no matter how well the discussion goes.

The discussion I was proposing carries only one merit - the possibility of understanding one another. I can still protest the war, but I'd like to understand the pro-war folks. I'd like them to explain to me exactly why they think the war is good and why they assume that it will solve more problems than it causes. Likewise, I wish to try and bring my point across - that the war is not bad per se, but that the way it happened could hardly be any worse. That I'm not hating the U.S., but that I'm deeply disappointed by the countries' actions. I don't want to break us all into a group hug and sing Cumba Jah, But I want to see people curtly nodding at each other and saying "I understand why you feel that way. I still disagree, but only time will tell who was right." After all, it's not like we're the ones fighting.

 

[qjakal]

A voice of reason...

well put Hal...very logical and nicely presented as well!

I think Marauder has hit the perfect word--- "disappointed". It's what most of the US feels in those we consider close allies. Given the basic premise of the action taken in Iraq, it seems to us that neutrality at worst, would have been the correct decision. There may be reasons, both political and financial, for some European countries to disapprove of Saddams removal. These reasons may be compelling enough for them to stand aside, but to actively work against the interests of the United States is an entirely different matter, and not one taken lightly by us during this stressful time. This war is indeed an extension of the original Gulf War, and though many of the citizens of the US may appear to you to be pro-war, it's more of a decision to finish this job, and right a few wrongs as well. We SHOULDN'T have left him there in the first place, but that doesn't excuse leaving him there forever. We SHOULDN'T have supported his regime at ANY time, but that doesn't justify never opposing an evil dictator. There may indeed be worse spots in the world, but perhaps finishing what we started here IS more important on many levels for us and the world. If only the Middle East was as clearly defined a situation....sigh. Perhaps that area is where the European Union could show it's muscle and influence. I don't think the US has a good solution, other than a military one, which won't fit that problem in any way. Many think it doesn't "fit" in Iraq either, but I disagree strongly. This atrocity of a government needs to be shoehorned out, and that's what we do best.

Anyway, let's hope rational discourse resurfaces soon, and the aftermath in Iraq proves that events were justified.

Q

 

[Hitman]

I am thinking with more of a clear head now, As I have said I supprot this war and think it is the right thing to do. But I want to hear how you think we could get Saddam out of power with out useing any kind of force.

 

[Marauder]

One way (the only one I can think of right now) to get rid of Saddam's regime would have been:

Using people who understand the historical, cultural and religious background of the region to formulate a plan that would remove Saddam's regime by bringing into life a new group of people. Funding could have been directed to this new resistacne through the religious leaders. Many of them are opposed to Saddam's regime, never mind that he builds huge mosques. Through them, it would have been possible to rally the people of Iraq against Saddam, as pretty much all of his soldiers are religious (or so I think, I'm not one of said experts on the middle east). By doing it this way, one ould have had a growing resistance movement that didn't have the western world as their nominal head. People would have known that they are fighting for their own countrymen, not some foreing nation. Given time, they would have accepted the need for outside support, and as soon as they'd ask for it through their leaders, the western world could've stepped in and provided them with supplies. Eventually, they would have overtaken Saddam from the inside out, feeling grateful for the outsiders and having the feeling that they did it on their own and that the western world didn't want to occupy their home country.

This plan would need a lot of work on the details, and maybe it's not possible they way I thought it up. Such work would need to be done by experts who know the percentage and mindset of the sects and groups that are active in Iraq.