A WarMonger explains the Invasion Of Iraq to a PeaceNik

[Serpent]

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? (And wasn't Kuwait torn away from Iraq by England when the goodies of the territory were being gobbled up, and hasn't Iraq and Kuwait had a long standing border dispute and other aggravations? And by the way, when we restored the government in Kuwait, was it a freedom loving democracy?)
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. 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-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 Quaida 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: 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!

[shaolin kungfu]

lol. That's hillarious.

[Laughing Cow]

Sounds like KFO distilled.

:D :D

[shaolin kungfu]

Sounds like every political conversation I've had in the last month.

[fa_jing]

A study just came out of the University of Chicago, it was written up in the Chicago Tribune, although I can't find the article online. It was in today's paper. It concluded that containing Iraq rather than invading it, would be far more economically costly, as well as several times more deadly to the Iraqi people, as Saddam kills many more per year than are likely to die in this war. In short, on paper this war is better for the world then letting things be. I find it hard to believe it will be worse. Although I am basically an anarchist from a moral standpoint (not a practical standpoint,) I cannot oppose this war. Time will tell anyway.

Apparently only 20% of people favored involvement by the US in WWII. The people don't always know best. The reason being, they don't have all the information and a well defined process for making such decisions. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

[joedoe]

LOL. Scary thing is, I can actually picture that conversation going on :D

[fa_jing]

It is completely illogical to base all decisions on the UN. If so, the many Arab countries could easily vote Israel out of existance, assuming the rest of the world abstained since it isn't their concern, which is pretty much what happens. Similarly, any country without veto power and not on the Security council, could be voted out of existance by the rest.

[shaolin kungfu]

It is completely illogical to base all decisions on the UN. If so, the many Arab countries could easily vote Israel out of existance, assuming the rest of the world abstained since it isn't their concern, which is pretty much what happens. Similarly, any country without veto power and not on the Security council, could be voted out of existance by the rest.

But none of this has even come close to happening, has it. Please, say something logical or don't say anything at all.

[joedoe]

I thought the UN was mainly a diplomatic body designed to find peaceful solutions to problems where possible. I didn't think it had any power to vote on the existence of nations.

[shaolin kungfu]

It doesn't.

[Laughing Cow]

Have to agree with Joedoe there.

The U.N. charter is very clearly defined and readily available for perusal.

If the case laid out were true we could vote the USA out of existance too.
;)

[Serpent]

If only....

[shaolin kungfu]

Where would I live if there was no america?:(

[Serpent]

In Utopia with the rest of us! ;)

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by shaolin kungfu
Where would I live if there was no america?:(

Right alongside us non-americans, and you might realise that our life ain't so bad after all.

;) ;)

[joedoe]

You could live in that land mass south of Canada :D

[shaolin kungfu]

Sounds good to me.:)

[shaolin kungfu]

The utopia thing, not the land mass south of canada. Who'd want to live there.

[fa_jing]

You're picking at straws. They could make things so bad that the people of Israel would have no choice but to pick up and leave, and it would be that way if:

1. US did not exercise it's veto power consistantly

2. Everybody didn't disregard the UN anyway. I mean, most of those anti-jewish countries do plenty of business with Israel anyway despite their ignoring UN resolutions.

"I thought the UN was mainly a diplomatic body designed to find peaceful solutions to problems where possible."

So what's all this jibber-jabber about authorizing the use of force??

[joedoe]

You will notice the bit that says where possible

[shaolin kungfu]

Right alongside us non-americans, and you might realise that our life ain't so bad after all.

I actually envy some non-americans. Their leaders do what the people want.

[fa_jing]

I did. It sounds like you're trying to have it both ways.

The question remains, how is a country supposed to react to a UN resolution that is primarily driven by countries that are interested in its ceasing to exist?

[shaolin kungfu]

Im confused. It must be my slow american brain, but i dont understand any of fa jings arguments.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by shaolin kungfu
Im confused. It must be my slow american brain, but i dont understand any of fa jings arguments.

I got a european brain and can't make sense of it either.
;) ;)

Sounds like a strong case of paranoia to me.

[joedoe]

How am I trying to have it both ways? The purpose of the UN is to try to achieve peaceful solutions through diplomatic channels. Human nature being what it is, this is not always possible.

Have you ever noticed how the security council is set up? 5 permanent members with veto power. Those 5 permanent members were selected to try and provide some sort of balance in the security council to stop the kind of thing happening that you are talking about.

However, if someone is going to go around the UN security council and try to eradicate a nation anyway, then what can the UN do? There are 4 things that could happen in this scenario - the UN passes a resolution to provide security forces to defend the threatened nation, one of the major powers has to step in and defend the threatened nation, a coalition of nations could provide forces to help defend the threatened nation, or everyone can stand by and watch while a nation is obliterated.

As many forum members have pointed out over the last few weeks, the UN is not a legeslative body and has no real power over nations other than the ability to bring diplomatic (and in some cases allied military) pressure to bear.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by shaolin kungfu


I actually envy some non-americans. Their leaders do what the people want.

Not always. John Howard should be sent to Iraq along with George Bush and Tony Blair. If the three of them are so desperate for war, they should be out there fighting it.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Serpent
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: The distinction you are failing to make is that resolution 1441 mandates military action starting Dec 7th, 2002 if it is violated. The UN does not mandate military action for every resolution broken. Thus, the issue of other resolutions being broken is a non-issue. No power has the ability to retro-actively and unilaterally veto an allready-passed resolution, which means the mandate following the violation of 1441 still stands. Thus, the legal and multilateral basis of this action is allready established. Moreover, it's simple observation of historical fact that this war has greater multilaterality than the first Gulf War: the current coalition contains more countries than did the previous.
PN: Ok, but regardless of whether or not there's a legal basis for this war, there's not a MORAL basis. We have to remember that it the government who serves us not we who serve the government. Thus, as international citizens, we must object in every manner possible to this amoral action, regardless of whether the existing power structure deems it legal or not; many amoral things have been deemed legal by amoral power structures - that doesn't make them right! War is ALWAYS wrong. We're talking about people dying here; and not just Iraqi soldiers, but women and children... even people who oppose Saddam... they will all be KILLED, we MUST oppose this!
WM: Absolutely, war _IS_ always wrong. Human suffering _IS_ always bad, no matter what. However, we live in an imperfect world. Sometimes the best we can do is advocate the least bad of the available options. Indeed, it takes a very courageous man to stand behind something which breaks his heart, because he knows there is no better choice. And isn't this the position we find ourselves in? Certainly, the second Gulf War will cause an atrocious amount of suffering, death, and loss of property upon a good number of purely innocent people. Certainly, this is such an unfortunate situation that it cannot be described in words. But, what are the other options? Saddam has killed as many people every month of his reign than the Americans killed civilians in their entire Kuwaiti, Afghanistan, and Serbian campaigns combined (and he's been in power for a quarter of a century now!). How, in good conscience, can we allow this to continue?


Originally posted by Serpent
[everything about nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons; terrorists; Osama Bin Laden; and threats to US]

WM: All of this came out after Dec. 7th, 2002; in other words, after there was allready a UN mandate for military action in Iraq. The "mistake" Bush Jr. made is that he was willing to listen and try to answer the various critiques, arguments, and hypotheticals brought up by his critics. In so doing, he was dragged into a silly series of positions which had nothing to do with his position in the first place. I would call this duplicitous. I would say that Bush Jr. tried to play politics and got burnt - so he deserves it. But do you consider it a mistake? I mean, don't you want a president who is willing to listen and try to answer critiques? Think carefully about that; it's a complicated issue. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the original and underlying position. Iraq's threats [or lack thereof] are allready well-established, and widely-agreed upon in resolution 1441, which was opposed by noone, and signed by the likes of France and Germany.


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


WM: No. Some portions of the media grossly misled you as to the nature of Blix and the UN effort in Iraq. Had you read the actual UN resports, the mistake would have been obvious. Blix and the weapons inspectors were not sent to find WMD in Iraq. Everyone knew they were there, and signed off on that belief in resolution 1441; so that includes France and Germany. The purpose of the inspectors were to confirm and supervise the destruction of known WMD. Blix, in his presentation of his findings in Iraq, was widely quoted in the media: saying that they had not found evidence of WMD in Iraq, but also not found evidence that WMD destruction was underway. From the incorrect stance which you had been led to take, that the weapons inspectors were there looking for WMD, this looks like a nonsense statement; and that is how it was widely played. However, when you read the UN reports and realize, as explained above, what Blix actually was doing there, his statement takes on meaning. His mission to Iraq was a failure.


Originally posted by Serpent
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: Actually, I was wrong. I just realized that the UN cannot rule 'against us' as the only thing we're trying to do is uphold resolutions which have allready been passed. France and Germany have alot of powers in the UN, but among them isn't the power to unilaterally retroactively veto resolutions. A new resolution would have to be passed removing such resolutions as 1441 from UN legislature; but of course, such a resolution never would pass. And France and Germany know this, which is why they haven't filed one; instead going with their only option of playing the card the media created for them.


Originally posted by Serpent
[everything about what has happened in the past]

WM: Don't get me wrong. Just because I support what we're doing here doesn't mean I support everything the US and/or all of their allies have ever done, under any president, ever. If you want to talk about other issues, let's talk about them. I have plenty of problems with things the US has done; I'm sure we'd agreed on many of them. However, it's not like you choose to be either with or against the US and that's your position for life. Hopefully we can all inform ourselves to the best of our ability and unpartisanly support those things we deem worthy of support while opposing those things we deem worthy of opposition. Personally, I'd be pretty wary of anyone who tells you to support or oppose everything done by any one group of people, be they a country, a political party, or a family.

[shaolin kungfu]

So chris, are you saying it is okay to enforce the un's wishes by not obeying them ourselves? A bit hippocritical, don't you think?

[fa_jing]

Edit: ( I need to include what I'm responding to )"There are 4 things that could happen in this scenario - the UN passes a resolution to provide security forces to defend the threatened nation, one of the major powers has to step in and defend the threatened nation, a coalition of nations could provide forces to help defend the threatened nation, or everyone can stand by and watch while a nation is obliterated."


That's a wide range of options. Are there clear guidelines for which of those 4 options is going to occur? I'd say it all boils down to the will of individual countries. I can see the value of the UN as an advisory body, but I can't see the value of it authorizing the use of force.

To clarify since I made an invective, I said you were trying to have it both ways by saying that the UN was primarily to find a peaceful solution to the problem, and then criticizing the US for not seeking the security council's approval for a war. It sounds like the UN is suffering from an identity crisis, and in fact it is.

[Serpent]

****. This Christopher M guy makes good, logical sense with clear concise points and an unbiased, open worldview.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING ON KFO!?

;)

Nice post, Chris.

:)

[joedoe]

I did not criticise the US's actions at all. Can you please point out where I did that? I believe this is what I said:


I thought the UN was mainly a diplomatic body designed to find peaceful solutions to problems where possible. I didn't think it had any power to vote on the existence of nations.

As I have said, the UN is a diplomatic body that tries to resolve conflicts peacefully. It also tries to make sure that situations like the one you outlined (eradication of a nation state) do not occur. And if its members are in agreement, then it authorises the use of force.

However, you are correct in that it really has no power to enforce anything on a sovereign nation. All it can do is try to bring pressure to bear with the support of the member nations.

[fa_jing]

100% my fault Joedoe, I lumped you in together with what was said at the end of Serpent's original post. I apologize.

Anyway Christopher M sure did have a good post.

[joedoe]

No problems :)

[Laughing Cow]

One problem with both the UN and NATO is that they were created a long time ago and some aspects of them need to be re-evaluated and adjusted.

OTOH, we can get rid of the UN and get back to the League of Nations (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/1919League2.html).

I can't see the world surviving without any form of international body that regulates interactions, trade, etc between nations.

The UN is there to stay, all we can hope that they can adjust fast enough to changing world conditions.

Cheers.

[GreyMystik]

WM: The distinction you are failing to make is that resolution 1441 mandates military action starting Dec 7th, 2002 if it is violated. The UN does not mandate military action for every resolution broken. Thus, the issue of other resolutions being broken is a non-issue. No power has the ability to retro-actively and unilaterally veto an allready-passed resolution, which means the mandate following the violation of 1441 still stands. Thus, the legal and multilateral basis of this action is allready established. Moreover, it's simple observation of historical fact that this war has greater multilaterality than the first Gulf War: the current coalition contains more countries than did the previous.

military action? it says that? when i read the actual TEXT of the resolution it did not mention this. it said "serious consequences".
regarding the claim that the current coaltion contains more countries than the previous, see here please:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63481-2003Mar20.html


Saddam has killed as many people every month of his reign than the Americans killed civilians in their entire Kuwaiti, Afghanistan, and Serbian campaigns combined (and he's been in power for a quarter of a century now!). How, in good conscience, can we allow this to continue?

also, regarding the size of the "coalition of the willing"

please provide sources for these figures.



WM: All of this came out after Dec. 7th, 2002; in other words, after there was allready a UN mandate for military action in Iraq. The "mistake" Bush Jr. made is that he was willing to listen and try to answer the various critiques, arguments, and hypotheticals brought up by his critics. In so doing, he was dragged into a silly series of positions which had nothing to do with his position in the first place. I would call this duplicitous. I would say that Bush Jr. tried to play politics and got burnt - so he deserves it. But do you consider it a mistake? I mean, don't you want a president who is willing to listen and try to answer critiques? Think carefully about that; it's a complicated issue. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the original and underlying position. Iraq's threats [or lack thereof] are allready well-established, and widely-agreed upon in resolution 1441, which was opposed by noone, and signed by the likes of France and Germany.

as i already pointed out, there was no UN mandate for military action in Iraq. let's use a little common sense here... if there was a UN mandate for military action, why did the US govt pull out of attempts to get a specific resolution condoning direct military action? In fact, why did the US govt attempt to get one AT ALL if it was already "mandated" as you stated? i have a really difficult time believing that logical discourse and a fair critique was on Dubya's mind when he "was dragged into a silly series of positions" as you put it. this administration has a history of IGNORING criticism as it sees fit and a CLOSED gov't as opposed to an OPEN one.

regarding the "inspections", you state that they (being Hans Blix, and the other UN inspectors) were not sent in to find WMD. what exactly do you think their mission was? they were there to confirm that WMD that we were aware of in the past were destroyed, and of COURSE if they found any evidence that WMD were being developed they wouldn't ignore it. To think otherwise is ludicrous. speaking of evidence, what do you make of this?

[URL=http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/5418901.htm]


His mission to Iraq was a failure.

Hans Blix' mission to Iraq was never finished, because they pulled out after being notified by the US that they should pull out. the inspectors in Iraq before never finished their mission either, hence the who point of sending them back, yes?




it's not like you choose to be either with or against the US and that's your position

i do believe that this is the crux of the "Bush Doctrine"... "you're either with us or against us" were his words, if i remember correctly. this is not a "leader" who 'unites', as he claimed to be able to do. this president DIVIDES

[red5angel]

""serious consequences""

Grey Mystik - what exactly would that be or imply? severe tongue lashing? Possibly a spanking for Saddam Hussein?

"Hans Blix' mission to Iraq was never finished"

Because Saddam Hussein consistantly and repeatedly interfered with 12 years of weapons inspections. To imply the US interfered with Hans Blix's job is ludicious without acknowledging that as well.

[GreyMystik]

i'm not going to pretend i knew what the Security Council was getting at by "serious consequences", because i don't. however, it is my opinion that if they wanted "military action" they would have specifically used that language. why not? seriously, if it was a "clear outcome" of 1441's violation, why was there so much opposition to it (it being military action) by the international community? therefore it makes sense to me to think that "serious consequences" was interpreted by Dubya and the hawks as one thing, whereas (most of) the world saw it differently. i think likely the US and hawks wanted to use "military action" type language, but "toned it down" because the rest of the world wouldn't have signed on if we had. they (most of the international community) didn't want things to be twisted around and wanted to see if other options worked. this is my guess as to why they were (and are) against "military action" given the circumstances.

Saddam Hussein's regime definately interfered with the previous rounds of inspections, i don't think anyone is disputing that. i don't really see how he "consistently and repeatedly" interfered this time around, but that probably won't ever really be proven either way in light of current events. i do know that all of the 'tricks' that i remember SH being accused of to obstruct and interfere with the previous inspections (limiting visits, having iraqi officials present during any interviews, restricting inspector access to certain sites, requiring advance notification before showing up etc) were by all accounts NOT employed this time around. i don't really see how the inspections were hindered this time, other than perhaps there were some items left off the documents (i don't purport to know whether or not this was on purpose) and/or disagreements regarding testing of certain weapons (the "missiles" that flew a few miles further than the limit, which iraq disputed because of testing methods, but agreed to destroy anyways).