This week's book giveaways are in the AI and JavaScript forums.
We're giving away four copies each of GANs in Action and WebAssembly in Action and have the authors on-line!
See this thread and this one for details.
Win a copy of GANs in ActionE this week in the AI forum
or WebAssembly in Action in the JavaScript forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Knute Snortum
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis
  • fred rosenberger

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 442
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
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 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 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!
(Source: Unknown)
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think this conversation has given answer to lot of issues which was being raised by war(so called *war against terrorism*) supporter.
Isnt it an art piece ?
The way you(please forgive me for taking ur name, TP) would like.
But its not Monty Python. So think about it seriuosly.
I wish, you will atleast appreciate the artistic merit of this conversation.
Words are not thrown on the pages apparently. All words have some meaning (deep meaning).
All the best.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1140
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Excellent!
This summarizes all the conversations we had (and are having) about this issue
Every time I saw a post supporting the war, I was tempted to reply. But I will ask myself, "What will be the reply for my post?"
I know what the reply will be. I gave up as the PEACENIK did!
[ March 20, 2003: Message edited by: R Manivannan ]
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I give up
But this line must get attention:
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
[ March 20, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
No reply in this thread ...
great ..
Looks like everyone has given up ...
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
WM: But Sadaam has murdered 2,000,000 people, he tortures children in front of their parents, he secretly builds chemical and biological weapons to use on his neighbors.
PN: But they're only Arabs.
WM: I give up!
 
Mani Ram
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1140
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
WM: But Sadaam has murdered 2,000,000 people, he tortures children in front of their parents, he secretly builds chemical and biological weapons to use on his neighbors.
PN: But they're only Arabs.
WM: I give up!


Do you think PEACENIK will justify those killings this way (or will justify them in any other way?)
HA HA....
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R Manivannan:

Do you think PEACENIK will justify those killings this way (or will justify them in any other way?)
HA HA....


He might have said:
PN: But that's okay as long as I'm not personally in any imminent danger.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
WM: But Sadaam has murdered 2,000,000 people, he tortures children in front of their parents, he secretly builds chemical and biological weapons to use on his neighbors.
PN: Ah! So the problem is not really about the disarmament of Iraq by UNMOVIC inspections and monitoring? It is Saddam himself that is the problem?
WM: Exactly. He is evil. He must go.
PN: So why did we not say that clearly in resolution 1441, that Saddam must go?
WM: How can you say that in a resolution? But the poitn is that the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated. And we are going to liberate them.
PN: Was that mentioned in resolution 1441. Liberation of iraqi people?
WM: You dont seem to get it, do you?. That is the part of the whole operation, you see. The final aim is peace in the Middle East by and democratizing them.
PN: Oh! now I see. So why don't we start democratizing our allies first? Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia? Wouldn't that be easier?
WM: Now look, those allies have not broken any resolutions. Iraq has broken so many resolutions.
PN: But you just mentioned that the final aim is democratizing ME.
WM: Yes, democratization of Palestine is the first priority and Saddam is supporting Palestinians in spreading terrorism within Iserail.
PN: So why not oust Yasser Araffat first?
WM: Because Araffat does not kill his own people. Saddam does.
PN: But Arafat sends his own people as suicide bombers to Israil, thus killing both his own people as well as Israilis.
WM: Yes but Saddam provides 25000 dollars to each sucide bomber's family.
PN:...
WM:...
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I guess this whole converstaion is moot because since Sadaam used Scuds against Kuwait City we now know that he was lying to the UN and the inspectors about not having them.
As to the rest, I really don't care. Sadaam is a murderous dictator and his people deserve better.
WM: But Sadaam has murdered 2,000,000 people, he tortures children in front of their parents, he secretly builds chemical and biological weapons to use on his neighbors.
PN: Ah! So the problem is not really about the disarmament of Iraq by UNMOVIC inspections and monitoring? It is Saddam himself that is the problem?
WM: Exactly. He is evil. He must go.
PN: So why did we not say that clearly in resolution 1441, that Saddam must go?
WM: Because the UN doesn't have the balls to remove murderers. Look how many had to die in Bosnia while the French and Germans rubbed their hands together and whined about how difficult the situation was. It was only the US who had the nerve to actually stop the slaughter.
PN: Oh! now I see. So why don't we start democratizing our allies first? Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia? Wouldn't that be easier?
WM: Because our allies haven't murdered 2,000,000 people. Are you even listening to me?
PN: But you just mentioned that the final aim is democratizing ME.
WM: When did I say that? What are you talking about? The aim is to remove a murderous dictator!
PN: So why not oust Yasser Araffat first?
WM: Because Araffat is not nearly as grave a threat. But we can get to him later if need be.
PN: But Arafat sends his own people as suicide bombers to Israil, thus killing both his own people as well as Israilis.
WM: But Sadaam uses poison gas on civilains! 2,000,000 dead! Doesn't that mean anything to you at all?!?
 
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
PN: ...
WM: ...
I was expecting that pattern to repeat again, Tom
 
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Well, just for the sake of continuation....
WM: But Sadaam uses poison gas on civilains! 2,000,000 dead! Doesn't that mean anything to you at all?!?
PN: Yes it does mean. And it did mean even when the gas was being used all the time during 1980-1990.
And when the Taliban were killing all those men, women, and children in Afghanistan, execution style, in the open football ground, did it mean to anybody at the time?. If there were no 9/11, would Afgansitan people have been liberated yet? If there were no 9/11 would the world have pressurized Pakistan? If there were no 9/11 would general public even be knowing who bin Laden is? In short, Was 9/11 necessary to happen for the world to realize and retaliate against terrorism?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
PN: In short, Was 9/11 necessary to happen for the world to realize and retaliate against terrorism?


WM: Certainly the US intervened in Bosnia and Somalia before September 11th. But I think to at least some extent the answer to that question is yes. The world has changed.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
Well, just for the sake of continuation....
WM: But Sadaam uses poison gas on civilains! 2,000,000 dead! Doesn't that mean anything to you at all?!?
PN: Yes it does mean. And it did mean even when the gas was being used all the time during 1980-1990.
And when the Taliban were killing all those men, women, and children in Afghanistan, execution style, in the open football ground, did it mean to anybody at the time?. If there were no 9/11, would Afgansitan people have been liberated yet? If there were no 9/11 would the world have pressurized Pakistan? If there were no 9/11 would general public even be knowing who bin Laden is? In short, Was 9/11 necessary to happen for the world to realize and retaliate against terrorism?



The difference is the administration that is in charge now as opposed to who was in charge when the Kobar Towers were bombed in Saudi Arabia (1996), or when the embasy was bombed in Kenya (1998)... I fully believe that if the current administration was in charge back in 1996, we would have gone after Ussama and Saddam then.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
[QB][/QB]


http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4492363,00.html
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 237
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
thanks Taariq! I needed that!
The general public of America is stupid beyond belief, if they fall for Bush's "reasons" for war. I can't stand to even look at that man anymore.
Did you see the PBS special last night? They had video clips from BEFORE the Gulf War I.
Prior to the Gulf War, Bush Sr. was saying over and over how that the business between Iraq and Kuwait had nothing to do with the USA, and also the USA had no treaties or reasons to intervene on Kuwait's behalf.
Then, Bush Sr. spent the weekend with the iron maiden (Margaret Thatcher) and suddenly he had the hots for a war! Surprise! Surprise!
This is one of the mysteries of all time. How a US president could be overwhelming AGAINST intervention, then after a weekend chit chat with Margaret, becomes a huge warmonger.
Kevin
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Kevin Thompson:
thanks Taariq! I needed that!
The general public of America is stupid beyond belief, if they fall for Bush's "reasons" for war. I can't stand to even look at that man anymore.
Did you see the PBS special last night? They had video clips from BEFORE the Gulf War I.
Prior to the Gulf War, Bush Sr. was saying over and over how that the business between Iraq and Kuwait had nothing to do with the USA, and also the USA had no treaties or reasons to intervene on Kuwait's behalf.
Then, Bush Sr. spent the weekend with the iron maiden (Margaret Thatcher) and suddenly he had the hots for a war! Surprise! Surprise!
This is one of the mysteries of all time. How a US president could be overwhelming AGAINST intervention, then after a weekend chit chat with Margaret, becomes a huge warmonger.
Kevin


Blind hatred is just that. BLIND.
 
Kevin Thompson
Ranch Hand
Posts: 237
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Paul: I guess I will respond. I can't really be for sure what in the world you are talking about.
You seem to insinuate I have a blind hatred of President George W. Bush.
If that is what you are trying to say, then you are absolutely right! I feel the same about his rich daddy too!
I have this revulsion when I look at him. I have to look away.
Kevin
 
author
Posts: 14112
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I guess this whole converstaion is moot because since Sadaam used Scuds against Kuwait City we now know that he was lying to the UN and the inspectors about not having them.


Well, according to german tv news, those are just rumours yet.


As to the rest, I really don't care. Sadaam is a murderous dictator and his people deserve better.


And, interestingly, many of those people *don't want* to be "liberated" by the US army.
 
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
KT: The general public of America is stupid beyond belief, if... whatever reason...
Come on! you know that is not true.
If you post the same message without that part, see how much more weight the important topic gets and you can expect a better reply.
Just because you posted your opinion about the stupidity of general american people, Paul got a chance to write it off as blind hatred. A few more posts from both sides and the main point - the PBS special - will soon get lost in the arguements over what can be posted and what can be censored. So you see, there are advantages of posting politely and up to the point messages.
Ok. Now continue about the PBS specials.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
This thread seems like it is heading in the wrong direction so I'm going to close it. Please see here for further information.
Thanks.
 
She'll be back. I'm just gonna wait here. With this tiny ad:
Java file APIs (DOC, XLS, PDF, and many more)
https://products.aspose.com/total/java
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!