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 that the U.S., and 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 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, 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 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 Qaeda 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 Qaeda 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 PLAGIARIZED 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 B-
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: Catch-22! if we can't find them, that just means they're
hidden? How do we know when they are destroyed? How do we know they're
hidden now?
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, even when all evidence points to the contrary, 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, fascism in airports, 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 what 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.
[David and Melora add: But please don't
really give up! Take action!]