The Cellar - Sycamore's Interactive War Diary

WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO PEACENIK
Author Unknown

PN: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WM: 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, 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 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 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 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 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 notpatriotic?

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 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.