[wordup] Cheese-eating surrender monkeys

[Adam Shand]

wow!  that might be the most unpopular post i've ever made.  nearly 10 
people unsubscribed, and i just thought it was funny.  ah well.

in the interests of keeping the conversation going (though i don't 
actually think this conversation is going anywhere useful), here is a 
response.

adam.

From: Jos Willard <jji_w at yahoo.com>

Yeah,

And If I get to write my oponent's arguments for him, I'd never lose
either.

How about a few responses (not originaly mine, but then if someone's
going to write my words for me, I'd prefer it be this guy than the one
who wrote the original arguments)  Also, keep in mind that this was
circulated (and responded to) prior to the first missile launch, so
some of the statements (on both sides) are dated:

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.

No we are invading Iraq because they violated the cease-fire of 1991.
We gave them 12 years to stop. They won't. We'll do it for them

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.

The inspectors also said Iraq didn't have SCUDS.

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.

No, they have the al-Samoud II. Which they clearly didn't destroy a
fraction of. They also have Frog missles, also banned. All of which can
hit our allies.

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?

In fact, this is the best argument for war, PN. These were commonly
available chemicals used for legitimate purposes, and we sold far less
than Germany and France. If a Dictator cannot be trusted not to convert
pesticide and vaccine stock to weapons, he can't be allowed to maintain
power.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic
murderer?

We sold items that were legitimately needed by the Iraqi people. Would
you have us starve them? Have them die of disease? Perhaps you would,
that's why your side wants containment instead of regime change. The
violence of containment is not as graphic, the deaths less visible, and
therefore less troubling.

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?

No, she did not.

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?

No, the point of Afghanistan was to remove a regime that supported
terrorism. Really, you should read more than the Workers World, old
sock! The point of Iraq is to change a regime that supports terrorists,
among them AQ.

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.

Actually...it _is_ 100% certain it is Osama, stop playing patsy for
this dope smoking, maggot infested freak, WM!

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a
secular infidel?

You should read more about the culture of the area. They _invented_ the
saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

Yes, he did. Remember the audio tapes of Iraqi officers discussing
hiding WMD's?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate
student paper?

And the facts remain current, as affirmed by Blix's last report.

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

No, the Iraqis provided video tapes,but would not let UNMOVIC inspect
them.

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from
inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector,
Hans Blix?

Not entirely. Blix's last report lists _twelve_ areas where the Iraqis
were being less than forthcoming. Including Antrax and VX.


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?

Yes, there is. Blix admitted in an interview with Peter Jennings
Wednesday morning that he believed that there were still WMD's in Iraq.
In fact, he made a public statement that he thought that Saddam
wouldn't use **the wmd's he had**.

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?

That's the first rational thing you've said yet, PN. Comming down from
the buzz? But you're right. There is no point to more inspections.


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.

Go have a beer, WM. You must have got a "contact" from this guy. A
consequence of the Security Council not upholding its ruling is that it
now irrelevant. 1441 was the last chance not only for Saddam, but for
the UNSC.

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?

It can't. They have already approved 1441. As well as 647 and 648 which
give us the right to resume hostilities.

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.

You really aren't up on current events, are you? That offer was taken
off the table.

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...

No, he was elected by the Electoral College. The Supreme Court ruled
that if one county was counted, all had to be. Never the less, _every_
recount conducted after the election has affirmed the result that Bush
won.

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?

Short term memory loss, eh PN? That's the first sign its time to cut
back. Go back to the top and start again.

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.

Actually, they have.

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.

Actually, we know from the UNSCOM report of 1998...five years ago.
Because the inspectors couldn't find any SCUDS...yet there are pieces
of them laying about the Kuwaiti desert.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

No, we never sold them Chemical or Biological weapons.

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade
to an unusable state over ten years.

You thought wrong. I would've imagined a fellow such as yourself would
have better knowledge of chemical properties. Anyway, Mustard and
particularly Antrax does not degrade.. And it was Five years ago.

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.

They are next. Bill Clinton left us with the fiction we could fight two
wars at once. We were already committed to Iraq.

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.

And costing a million Iraqi lives.

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?

No. Those that would commit terror against us will regardless of our
stance in Iraq. In fact, ending Containment means we can leave Saudi
Arabia. This will _reduce_ terrorism.

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?

They do. The world changed on 9-11. We are trying to make that change
as slight as possible. Eliminating regimes that support terrorism will
achive that.

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

There goes that short term memory thing again. Start at the top, read
again, until you get it.