[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

[ba-unrev-talk] Why the US absolutely HAD to invade Iraq

Hello, all:    (01)

This would have been funny if it were not so sad.  I don't hold any brief 
for that monster Saddam Hussein - but the following amazing arguments almost 
exactly represent the arguments of the Bush-Blair Bunch for invading Iraq.  
I believe there must be a good case for declaring them all to be war 
criminals (along with Saddam Hussein).    (02)

Why the USA HAD to invade Iraq    (03)

This was sent to me by a friend who got it from a
friend, so I don't know the source.
GSCHANDY    (04)

Beautiful spring day in Minnesota    (05)

By Bill Davidson    (06)

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?    (07)

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.    (08)

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in
violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.    (09)

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.    (010)

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no 
nuclear weapons.    (011)

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.    (012)

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us 
or our allies with such weapons.    (013)

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorist 
networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.    (014)

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?    (015)

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.    (016)

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic 
murderer?    (017)

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.    (018)

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?    (019)

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.    (020)

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill
him?    (021)

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.    (022)

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a
secular infidel?    (023)

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
presented a strong case against Iraq.    (024)

PN: He did?    (025)

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaida poison factory in
Iraq.    (026)

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq 
controlled by the Kurdish opposition?    (027)

WM: And a British intelligence report...    (028)

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an Out-of-date graduate
student paper?    (029)

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...    (030)

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?    (031)

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from
inspectors...    (032)

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector,
Hans Blix?    (033)

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be
revealed because it would compromise our security.    (034)

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?    (035)

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find
evidence. You're missing the point.    (036)

PN: So what is the point?    (037)

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.    (038)

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council?    (039)

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.    (040)

PN: And what if it does rule against us?    (041)

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade
Iraq.    (042)

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?    (043)

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.    (044)

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of
billions of dollars.    (045)

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.    (046)

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.    (047)

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its
will by electing leaders to make decisions.    (048)

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is
important?    (049)

WM: Yes.    (050)

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the
U.S. Supreme C...    (051)

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.    (052)

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not
patriotic?    (053)

WM: I never said that.    (054)

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?    (055)

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass 
destruction that threaten us and our allies.    (056)

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.    (057)

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.    (058)

PN: You know this? How?    (059)

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are
still unaccounted for.    (060)

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?    (061)

WM: Precisely.    (062)

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade
to an unusable state over ten years.    (063)

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.    (064)

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we 
must invade?    (065)

WM: Exactly.    (066)

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.    (067)

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.    (068)

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?    (069)

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.    (070)

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.    (071)

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.    (072)

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim
sentiments against us, and decrease our security?    (073)

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we 
live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.    (074)

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?    (075)

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.    (076)

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?    (077)

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.    (078)

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?    (079)

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.    (080)

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?    (081)

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.    (082)

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?    (083)

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.    (084)

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security 
Council?    (085)

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.    (086)

PN: In which case?    (087)

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.    (088)

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at
all?    (089)

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.    (090)

PN: That makes no sense.    (091)

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.    (092)

PN: Here... have a pretzel, instead.    (093)

G.S. Chandy    (094)

G.S. Chandy
Interactive LogicWare Ltd (ILW)
Camp - Mumbai
c/o Sahi Oretrans Pvt Ltd
30 Western India House, 3rd Floor
Sir P.M. Road, Fort
Tel.: +91-22-2281 0033 (7 lines)    (095)

Hyderabad address:
c/o La Multi InfoSystems Ltd
Road No 2, Banjara Hills
(Annapurna Studio Lane)
Hyderabad - 500 034
Tel.: +91-40-5657 3328, 5657 3329
+++++++++++    (096)

>From: Henry K van Eyken <vaneyken@sympatico.ca>
>Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
>To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
>Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Warped thinking, &c.
>Date: 01 Apr 2003 07:21:44 -0500
>I just read about an eighth civilian killing at a check point:
>"...  U.S. Marines shot dead an unarmed driver and badly wounded his
>passenger south of Baghdad, just hours after the previous deaths at a
>checkpoint near the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf.
>The deaths are another blow to U.S. and British hopes of convincing
>Iraqis to welcome an invasion whose stated goal is to oust President
>Saddam Hussein, not combat the population...." (ref.
>Those deaths are the direct consequence of a military massively blending
>into a civilian population, a crime being committed by Iraq's Baath
>regime. When people the world over protest against a U.S. invasion of
>Iraq, that is one thing; but when people get incensed against American
>troops killing in self-defense because of Baathist criminality, that is
>quite another. One must wonder about the feebleness of human minds not
>to be able to make that distinction.
>Now, back to that invasion. It is unfortunate that political leaders in
>the U.S. and the U.K. keep on stating that one aim is the liberation of
>the people of Iraq, especially because the governments of both countries
>were quite prepared at one time or another to not invade Iraq provided
>Saddam Hussein and presumably his regime would rid themselves of weapons
>of mass destruction. That regime failed to meet the three conditions
>laid out in U.N. resolution 1441. Had this regime met those conditions
>then neither country would have officially cared about the plight of
>Iraq's civilians under Saddam's cruel dictatorship. I take the professed
>concern for Iraqi citizens to be a ploy to sway the Americans and
>British to support the military action against Saddam - an appeal to
>righteous emotions. This is a typical tool in political campaigning, one
>that contributes to politics being so dirty.
>The most important reason for citizens of the world to support the
>action against Saddam and his regime (not against Iraq) is the danger
>those personalities pose to the world community. Leaving them in place
>can only make matters worse over time, especially when one considers
>that people like these produce an offspring steeped in criminal
>mentality. As is shown by putting innocents in harm's way.
>Unfortunately, the objective of removing criminals from the world
>community (quite in line with removing criminals from any smaller
>society) is tainted by perceived greed for power, influence, money,
>economic advantage, etc. It ought be an objective for humans to evolve
>their institutions in a way that greed will become less and less of a
>legitimate motivational factor and do so without removing the needed
>leadership strengths to make society function for the benefit of all.
>That aim calls for a great deal of true understanding of humans and
>their environment, i.o.w. grasp of fundamentals need to replace poorly
>substantiated convictions. Digital augmentation is an important part of
>that process ("tool system"). It complements a desirable understanding
>of humans ("human system").
>Diligent learning must substitute for shouting.
>P.S. For those unfamiliar with the terms "tool system" and "human
>system," see the first session of Doug Engelbart's Colloquium.
>    (097)

Find a partner. For life. http://www.shaadi.com/ptnr.php?ptnr=hmlql 
Meet@Shaadi.com    (098)