Explanation of war...

Ctuchik

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
10,443
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 New York.

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 terrorist
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 Glaspie, 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 Qaida. Osama Bin Laden 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 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: Here... have a pretzel, instead.
 

Morchaoron

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,714
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?
this is the illusion which keeps most of these hippies going: thinking that there is always a peaceful solution... it just doesnt work that way with humans, we live on earth not in carebear land

im no warmonger but at least im not one that believes in utopias either...
 

Archeon

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
2,047
Hehe, made me chuckle that did regardless of my views on Iraq :)
 

Binky the Bomb

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
1,897
Humans are hate filled monsters when you get right down to it.
We find a fault with something/one and we use it as a justification to beat the shit out of em. Remember "Humans are stupid", i cannot stress this enough. If Saddam had used some common sence (the true 'Sixth Sence') fifteen years ago, the USA wouldn't have had a "hard on" for him in the first place (yes, i mean what i say). And if the USA had any common sence, they would have shot those passenger planes down the moment they were aware of what was happening a few years ago.

Seems heartless i know, but whats worse, 3 planes shot down taking 400 ppl with them,or the figures of that fatefull day (sept 11, if you were not paying attention). Mind you, here's food for thought. Afganistan was under Russian rule for god-knows how long, havng all manner of cruelty and suffering laid upon them, yet they attack America. Does this sound like the actions of a people with brains? Just a thought.
 

harebear

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
2,647
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War is something that I despise
For it means destruction of innocent lives
For it means tears in thousands of mothers' eyes
When their sons go out to fight to give their lives

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

War
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker
War is the enemy of all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
Handed down from generation to generation
Induction destruction
Who wants to die

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

War has shattered many young men's dreams
Made them disabled bitter and meanLife is too precious to be fighting wars
each day
War can't give life it can only take it away

War
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker
Peace love and understanding
There must be some place for these things today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord there's gotta be a better way
That's better than
War

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

Yeah. :fluffle:
 

XeffoInfil

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
393
the fact tha there is no public hard evidence nor justification of war is what chaffs my arse...but nevertheless im glad sadam is gone :) :clap:
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,137
Binky the Bomb said:
Afganistan was under Russian rule for god-knows how long, havng all manner of cruelty and suffering laid upon them, yet they attack America. Does this sound like the actions of a people with brains? Just a thought.
Of course, there is no terrorism to speak of in Russia, and I'm not referring to the Chechnyans.
 

Loxleyhood

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,228
Binky the Bomb said:
Afganistan was under Russian rule for god-knows how long, havng all manner of cruelty and suffering laid upon them, yet they attack America. Does this sound like the actions of a people with brains? Just a thought.
Cold War is over Grandpa.
 

Binky the Bomb

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
1,897
"The russians dumped on us for 20 years. Lets go attack america." Yeah, sane. Ofc, they NOW have a reason to do it to the yanks (half a million tons or falling ordinance will do that).
And as for the Chechnyans, at lest they attacked the right country (different rulers, same country).
And buddy, if u dont learn from history, not only are you doomed to repeat it, your liable to get your balls fed to you for doing it.
 

Holt

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
91
XeffoInfil said:
the fact tha there is no public hard evidence nor justification of war is what chaffs my arse...but nevertheless im glad sadam is gone :) :clap:
Friends Dad has a position to know the fact that there was hard evidence and we certainly were justified in the war, unfortunately he can't tell me what it is due to the military secrets act, but no I'm not a bullshitter and neither is he - it was the right thing to do
 

Loxleyhood

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,228
Binky the Bomb said:
"The russians dumped on us for 20 years. Lets go attack america." Yeah, sane. Ofc, they NOW have a reason to do it to the yanks (half a million tons or falling ordinance will do that).
And as for the Chechnyans, at lest they attacked the right country (different rulers, same country).
And buddy, if u dont learn from history, not only are you doomed to repeat it, your liable to get your balls fed to you for doing it.
I'm sorry, when did Afghanistan attack America?
 

Gilgamesh

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
34
Talking from personal experience from the current gulf conflict, im glad we did it cos the state that some of those poor souls were living in was unbelievable, i wouldnt wish that kind of life on any body, never mind a family with children.
it's one of those things thats hard to comment on , unless you've seen it with your own eyes.

Peace.
 

old.Whoodoo

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
3,646
Holt said:
Friends Dad has a position to know the fact that there was hard evidence and we certainly were justified in the war, unfortunately he can't tell me what it is due to the military secrets act, but no I'm not a bullshitter and neither is he - it was the right thing to do
If that was truely the case you really think we would have left Iraq as it is now? a small handful of soldiers and peacekeepers? Dont talk crap.

Your next strategic policy would read:
"Ok, first we all stand in a field, let the enemy surround us, wait till they get out they weapons then shout "HEY YOU DID HAVE GUNS AFTER ALL", then get shot.

This will prove beyond doubt that they have the stuff we thought we had, despite the fact our troops are dead, we at least know."
Or are you saying thats exactly what we did?
 

Archeon

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
2,047
Holt said:
Friends Dad has a position to know the fact that there was hard evidence and we certainly were justified in the war, unfortunately he can't tell me what it is due to the military secrets act, but no I'm not a bullshitter and neither is he - it was the right thing to do
You know thats a great idea, i think i'm going to run for prime-minister using this unbeatable stratagy.

Archeon: PEOPLE OF ENGLAND, SCOTLAND AND TO A LESSER EXTENT WALES AND IRLAND. I HAVE A PLAN, A FOOL PROOF PLAN TO GET THIS COUNTRY BACK ON ITS FEET. TO RAISE THE VALUE OF THE POUND, TO BECOME RULERS OF THE WORLD. VOTE FOR ME AND I WILL MAKE YOU GODS, EACH CIZITEN OF THE UK WILL OWN HIS OR HER OWN COUNTRY!!!... the only problem is i can't tell you how i plan to do this. THANKS


Wait, am i being serious or sarcastic? Can we have a poll on this? :rolleyes:
 

Binky the Bomb

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
1,897
I agree with Ala.
Besides, if we are to avoid wars, we gotta start training up government officials Boxing and Wrestling. Don King can run the show too "In this corner, Tony 'Noddy' Blair" and his opponent "John 'Fat controler' Prescott".

Hehe, be amusing to watch, esp if we could get all world leaders to fight there own battles.
 

Fafnir

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
3,022
Well some people in power, should not be in power. Saw an interview with the Israelian Ambassador in Sweden earlier this week, about the "palestinian problem" he said pretty much. "We have to kill them, before they kill us".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom