Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debate on the war, in a nutshell

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Debate on the war, in a nutshell

    This is just funny... unless you're for the war in which case you might be less amused. But it's not like whoever wrote this covered everything, nor did he have any problems overlooking some facts for both "sides".

    It does however, sound like a whole lot of debates (I use this term loosely) I've seen on the internet. Take it for the humor it is and you'll get a chuckle.

    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.

    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!
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

  • #2
    "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

    Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Chuck
      just a funnier notice, chuck, did you know that your smilies can be explained both ways?
      Attn to ALL my opponents:

      If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

      Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

      Comment


      • #4
        You know I was going to counter with my own little skit. Then I remembered, I'm, unlike the author, I didn't form my opinion about the war from watching the nightly news. I've been to a pro war and anti war rally, and I found it disturbing. People were basically repeating what they heard on television. Obviously, that's how the author of that article felt.

        People hate to be wrong. We could liberate Iraq, and it become a great nation, people will stay say we're War Mongers. So screw them. I don't pay attention to peace nuts who get their opinion from a single source. The author of the webpage came here, he'd just get creamed by professional debating force.
        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          I think that was hilarious. Shows two very divergent points of view.

          I guess some things are just more important to some people than others.
          Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

          Comment


          • #6
            Here is a little skit I cooked up; Shows how original I am

            *read to the sound of early '80's arcade music*

            In A.D. 2003
            War was beginning.
            Saddam: What happen ?
            al-Sahhaf: Somebody set up us the smart-bomb.
            Ramadan: We get signal.
            Saddam: What !
            Ramadan: Main screen turn on.
            Saddam: It's You !!
            Bush: How are you gentlemen !!
            Bush: All your WMD are belong to us.
            Bush: You are on the way to destruction.
            Saddam: What you say !!
            Bush: You have no chance to survive make your time.
            Bush: HA HA HA HA ....
            Saddam: Take off every 'zig' !!
            Saddam: You know what you doing.
            Saddam: Move 'zig'.
            Saddam: For infinite justice.
            Our forefathers died to give us freedom, not free stuff.

            I write books about zombies as E.E. Isherwood. Check me out at ZombieBooks.net.

            Comment


            • #7
              I thought it was hilerious as well.
              There are only 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary, and those that dont...

              Comment


              • #8
                I'll try to argue these point by point from the perspective of someone who supports the war. I bypassed many of the nonsensical' arguments:



                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 we are technically still at war. When you have a cease-fire agreement that ends a war and that agreement is violated then the war resumes. For 12 years, we made an attempt to enforce the cease-fire agreement with sanctions and various other "containment" measures. However, over time members of the coalition began to peel away the the containment measures because they viewed them as effectively punishing the Iraqi people rather than their intended target (the regime of Saddam Hussein and his ruling Baath party). Also the argument can be made that some nations wanted the sanctions lifted in order to benefit from lucrative business deals with the regime. There are dozens of "bonus" reasons to invade Iraq, (not the least of which is the failure to comply with 17 U.N. resolutions, support for international terrorism, brutal and sick torture of the Iraqi people etc.) , but in my opinion the single most steadfast argument is that Saddam failed to honor the terms of the cease fire agreement after the first gulf war, and clearly never intended to do so.

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

                WM: Israel is a sovereign nation unlike Iraq, and is not bound by the U.N. since despite its ambitions, the United Nations is just a debating society and not a world government. The case of iraq is different in that they lost a war and agreed to comply with a set of demands but then failed to honr them. Had Saddam not agreed to these demands in the first place, we would have(and should have) continued on to Baghdad and drove him out of power. Also since other countries our are allies, we are not inclined to attack them since they pose no threat to our national security.

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

                WM: Thankfully, the Israelis bombed the Iraq's nuclear reactor built by the French and named after Jacque Chirac) in 1981. Iraq has continued to try to obtain nuclear weapons, and once they do our options will be far more limited. Also, we do know that they have chemical and biological weapons since they have used them in the past, and refuse to account for current whereabouts of many tons worth of these agents.

                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 sponsor which would give Iraq a deniability. Imagine a scenario in which a nuclear bomb detonates in New York. No matter how much evidence the U.S. would provide that a specific country sponsored the attack, the "international community" would likely claim that the proof is insufficient to justify any retaliation.

                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: We did not sell chemical and biological weapons to Iraq.
                The American Type Culture Collection, a Manassas, Va.,-based nonprofit that makes biological cultures and products available for research purposes around the world, shipped anthrax strains to Iraq in the 1980s — providing the basis for the charge that "we" gave Saddam anthrax.

                But the culture collection isn't an arm of the U.S. government. Nor did it intend to give the material to Iraq for nefarious purposes.


                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: We did not give a "green light". She basically said something along the lines that we do not like to interfere in inter-arab disputes.

                PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

                WM: No, the point of invading Afghanistan was to eliminate Afghanistan as a staging base for his terrorist organization, and to drive the Taliban out of power since they were harboring terrorists and allowing them to operate and engage in military activities against the United States.


                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: The problem with North Korea is a South Korean problem. South Korea has made clear it does not want to take the north Korean threat seriously and since we are guests of that country it is up to them how they want to deal with it. The number of lives lost in a potential war with North Korea, (not just American but also South Korean) would number in the hundreds of thousands. Therefore the threshhold for attacking North Korea is much higher due to the repercussions so diplomacy gets higher priority in this instance. North Korea does provide an example of how our options would be severely limited in the case of Iraq if they manage to obtain nuclear weapons and use them to blackmail us.
                "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kid kool
                  When you have a cease-fire agreement that ends a war and that agreement is violated then the war resumes.


                  But wasn't the cease-fire basically sanctioned by the UN? Therefore, it would take UN aproval to overturn the cease-fire, wouldn't it? And wasn't the original UN resolution only relevant to the liberation of Kuwait, and not to the overthrow of Saddam?


                  Israel is a sovereign nation unlike Iraq
                  At what point did Iraq 'lose' its sovereignty? A lack of sovereignty assumes a lack of domestic government. Iraq obviously has its own government, and it is (or at least was) in full control up until recently. Who has the power to 'take away' sovereignty anyways?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Martin Schenkel


                    But wasn't the cease-fire basically sanctioned by the UN? Therefore, it would take UN aproval to overturn the cease-fire, wouldn't it? And wasn't the original UN resolution only relevant to the liberation of Kuwait, and not to the overthrow of Saddam?



                    At what point did Iraq 'lose' its sovereignty? A lack of sovereignty assumes a lack of domestic government. Iraq obviously has its own government, and it is (or at least was) in full control up until recently. Who has the power to 'take away' sovereignty anyways? [/B]
                    Excuse me?

                    America was the leader of the so-called UN Coalition, and now, all of the members are backing out of the coalition leaving the USA alone. In my opinion, since the US is the remaining member of the coalition, we reserve the right to resume the war if the rest of members are unwilling to implement the enforcements immediately and without any conditions attached like chasing after business deals WHILE Saddam was in office!

                    Iraq lost its sovereignty when it signed that cease-fire agreeing to accept the terms imposed upon Iraq. Since then Saddam has failed to live up to his promises, and in fact have been reneging them ever since. Iraq lost the war, and must follow the victors' conditions. Thus, Iraq does not have any sovereignty to start with.

                    The UN cannot avoid the FACT that it signed a CEASE-FIRE not a formal treaty. The truth is nobody in the UN is willing to go to war which proves that most of them are a bunch of chickens who would rather go chasing the business deals and oil than sending their young men to protect and spread the Western ideals -- freedom, liberty for all, opportunities to walk on streets without fear, and more.

                    France and the other countries made some deals with Saddam WHILE in office, that proves they do not care about Iraqi people, and are more hypocritical than us. In fact, we as America were forbidden to do any contract bidding in Iraq or do anything with Saddam because of embargos. How come is it France and the other countries have ignored the embargos and dealt with the murderous tyrant?

                    Dan
                    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                    "Aim small, miss small."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Martin Schenkel


                      But wasn't the cease-fire basically sanctioned by the UN? Therefore, it would take UN aproval to overturn the cease-fire, wouldn't it? And wasn't the original UN resolution only relevant to the liberation of Kuwait, and not to the overthrow of Saddam?
                      The fact that it was a U.N. operation does not prevent the U.S. from acting in it's national defense interests. Saddam's regime clearly would not have remained in power if they had not agreed to the demands set forth at the end of the cease fire. Since we were the lead participant in the coalition in the first gulf war, it is important for the United States to enforce the cease fire because our credibility is at stake. Therefore it is in our national interests, regardless of the U.N's will (or lack thereof) to enforce the terms of surrender. The original U.N. resolution was relevant to the liberation of Kuwait, but the cease fire included other obligations, which Iraq has never fulfilled.

                      At what point did Iraq 'lose' its sovereignty? A lack of sovereignty assumes a lack of domestic government. Iraq obviously has its own government, and it is (or at least was) in full control up until recently. Who has the power to 'take away' sovereignty anyways? [/B]
                      Iraq "lost" its sovereignty by agreeing to a set of demands to be imposed upon it after the gulf war. In other words a domestic government in Iraq did not have the power to trump or nullify these demands.
                      "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        kid kool....

                        Originally posted by kid kool


                        The fact that it was a U.N. operation does not prevent the U.S. from acting in it's national defense interests. Saddam's regime clearly would not have remained in power if they had not agreed to the demands set forth at the end of the cease fire. Since we were the lead participant in the coalition in the first gulf war, it is important for the United States to enforce the cease fire because our credibility is at stake. Therefore it is in our national interests, regardless of the U.N's will (or lack thereof) to enforce the terms of surrender. The original U.N. resolution was relevant to the liberation of Kuwait, but the cease fire included other obligations, which Iraq has never fulfilled.



                        Iraq "lost" its sovereignty by agreeing to a set of demands to be imposed upon it after the gulf war. In other words a domestic government in Iraq did not have the power to trump or nullify these demands.
                        Looks like we said the same thing....

                        kinda scary? We must be the only conservatives here on the forum....or am I just a paranoid guy who hates everybody in sight? Hehe...

                        Dan
                        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                        "Aim small, miss small."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cheetah772


                          Excuse me?

                          America was the leader of the so-called UN Coalition, and now, all of the members are backing out of the coalition leaving the USA alone. In my opinion, since the US is the remaining member of the coalition, we reserve the right to resume the war if the rest of members are unwilling to implement the enforcements immediately and without any conditions attached like chasing after business deals WHILE Saddam was in office!
                          That's an interesting perspective. Incidentally it's one that the Bush administration does not seem to share. Resolution 1441 and the proposed (but never reaching the UNSC) second resolution to authorize war being defacto admissions as such.

                          Nobody really recognized what you are suggesting and it is really a technicality. So is the following:

                          There was no time limit imposed on Iraq to disarm.

                          We really don't want to go down this path because it's pointless. It was never in the Whitehouse reasoning and is, as I said, nothing more than a technicality. By virtue of technicality, Iraq is not in breach of Resolution 687.

                          Regardless, the UN charter forbids the action on Iraq, technicality or no technicality.

                          But technicalities aside, it's dishonest to cite the UN and it's resolutions as cause for war when the US has dismissed it outright. Moreover, the liberal use of the US veto makes just makes that kind of assertion seem hollow.

                          I don't feel the UN is relevant at all. It's been useful for three things (and when I say useful I don't necessarily mean good):

                          1. A way for statesmen to consult one another and talk.

                          2. A way to drive international agencies such as the WHO, WFP, etc.

                          3. A way for strong nations to impose their will on weak nations.

                          From a legal standpoint, the only justification I see for war is self-defence and no matter your opinion on it, nobody can deny that the US case is controversial and arguable. I personally find it to be weak, but obviously there's a lot of disagreement there.

                          The only pro-war argument that I personally have found merit in and one that I wrestled with for a while before "choosing a side" was the humanitarian argument. However, when all is said and done, it's a pragmatic argument based on predicting a very uncertain future. In the same way, I am left wondering whether the precedent the US (specifically, as the only superpower in the world and one that many countries look to for guidance) sets in Iraq will result in more suffering overall. I do not know the answer to that and it would be disingenuous for me to suggest I do. But given that I don't see it as any less likely than a clean-cut campaign in Iraq that doesn't have backlash, I simply won't make the judgement call and revert to my principles.

                          In principle my opposition to the US action in Iraq is crystal clear. I've said this before but will say it again:

                          Ignoring legalities and ideals which give me enough reason alone - given a choice of "with the US or against the US" without argument, consensus or debate, then I am against the US as I reserve my right to freedom and sovereignty.
                          "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                          – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cheetah772

                            The UN cannot avoid the FACT that it signed a CEASE-FIRE not a formal treaty.
                            Technically, the UN did not sign anything. Ceasefire or treaty.
                            It was signed by General Amhad for Iraq and General Schwarzkopf for the US.

                            If you read the transcipts, you'll see that General Ahmad refered to the delegates present as "the US side". No mention is made of the UN.

                            I know this is a petty point to raise, but nonetheless true.
                            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tigersqn


                              Technically, the UN did not sign anything. Ceasefire or treaty.
                              It was signed by General Amhad for Iraq and General Schwarzkopf for the US.

                              If you read the transcipts, you'll see that General Ahmad refered to the delegates present as "the US side". No mention is made of the UN.

                              I know this is a petty point to raise, but nonetheless true.
                              I would like to see this FACT now Cheetah772, where did the UN sign a CEASE-FIRE?
                              There are only 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary, and those that dont...

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X