In a nutshell...
 

I have to thank NetRodent for pointing me in the direction of OrwellToday.com in another thread... I happened across this because of it, and it's basically everything in a nutshell. This is what the hippies in the streets should be quoting if they knew what they were talking about...

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 coundn'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!

heh
thats one long post.

Better to have one long one that sums up all of the bullshit that has been argued and bitched about on GFY the last few weeks than all of the small pointless posts I've been reading lately.

:thumbsup

I agree. All this war bs is kinda annoying IMO.
I'm moving to Mars.

I love contrived arguments. With them you can prove, black is white, up is down, and Iraq is a good while America is evil.

Humans are evil, nothing more.

You confuse me with your riddles sir. I never know if you are insulting me or agreeing with me. The tone is so... middle ground.

arguing with yourself, writing it down, & posting it as a basis to prove a point is a bit strange :1orglaugh

Anyone care to summarize that?

First of all, I didn't write this. Duh. Second of all, I would love for anyone to prove to me that any of the above arguments of the Peacenik are false? I am not trying to insult anyone, but I seriously would love to see proof. So, anyone have anything? If not, then I believe the "contrived" thoughts of the writer justify themselves very nicely.

:321GFY

Is there some denial that the above scenario is not actually what has been happening?

All "evidence" submitted to support claims of WMD have been proven by weapons inspectors to be either unfounded, false or fraudulent.

This "war' shit has degenerated into swearing black is white.

Even before Bush entered the White House, an attack on Iraq was on the game plan. Wolfowitz papers illustrate this in detail.

Saddam is evil there is little doubt, but the US has no credibility to "assume" any action based on it's prior decades of dealings with Iraq, it's assistance in bringing Saddam to power in the first instance and it's "blind eye" to genecide and arms supplying over a number of years.

By "contrived" I mean the War Monger always makes the worst possible assertions, never counters any of the peaceniks claims, and basically allows the Peacenik to stear the discussion away from faults in the Peacenik's arguments. I'm not going to respond to the whole thing (its too gosh darn long), but here are a few selected counters...


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

Just because they didn't find any doesn't mean Iraq doesn't have any. OJ Simpson was convicted even though a lot of evidence pointed to him.

--

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

Iraq has missles capable of hitting Turkey, Isreal, Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked those countries are our allies.

--

PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

Of course many countries could sell chemical and biological materials, the difference is in likelyhood.

--

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?

If I recall correctly the April Gillespie remarks about the US not having an opinion were based on the Iraq/Kuwait border dispute. Saddam didn't ask
her if the US would permit him to invade and plunder Kuwait.

--

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

Didn't Stalin and Hitler have secret no-aggresion pact even though each side publically though the other was scum? Relationships are not always what they seem. If you're eager to assume the worst about US government conspiracies, shouldn't you also assume the worst about Iraqi/Bin Laden conspiracies?

--

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.

Exactly. North Korea was allowed time to develop all of those nasty weapons. Better to stop Iraq now, rather than later when we have to face an armed Iraq and an armed North Korea. The North Korean issue will be undoubtably be addressed in due time.

--

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

Possibly, but peaceniks claimed this would happen during the first gulf war. However, while it may temporarily decrease security, it will in the long run increase security since an the Iraqi economy will be rebuilt after the war. The current situation breeds more hatred and extremism than the alternative.

--

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?

12 years it has called. When is enough, enough? While we should heed world opinion, we must look to our own self interest first.

--

The peacenik obviously picked up a few facts here and there, but has problems connecting the dots.

Since when did making mistakes mean you shouldn't attempt to correct them?

Interesting arguments... I wish I could find a side to stand on and a side to stand against, but the fact of the matter is that we are all being deceived by everyone, and those that we should be believing we don't trust... the problem is that no one knows which is which, trust Bush and forget Saddam or trust Saddam and forget Bush. All in all, as sad as it is, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks because we are not in charge of our country, the gov't is... and there are times when the gov't doesn't properly represent the people of the US, and to be honest, it's not really clear if that representation is being made honestly at this point or not. So, after all this nonsense arguing on a message board called "GoFuckYourself.com", I think I'm just going to sit it out and see what happens. After all, that's really all any of us can do in this situation. Shrug. I don't mind being one of the "lows" that Orwell was talking about in 1984, but at least I will not be used as a tool for either side since both sides are corrupt in their own special ways. I only fight the battles that I know ANYONE can win.

With that said, I'm out. Sleepy times. Thanks for your response NetRodent. :thumbsup

NetRodent:

"Since when did making mistakes mean you shouldn't attempt to correct them?"

Ah... sorry.. I never realised these were all mistakes! Gimme a break! Was US foreign policy just a series of mistakes next?

The US has NO credibility to act in any capacity with honor regarding Iraq (or many other places!) - tis a fucking disgrace and blot on the landscape on this planet.

Quick summary if ya got a retention span to absorb....

"In Iraq, the US record speaks for itself: it backed Saddam's party, the Ba'ath, to capture power in 1963, murdering thousands of socialists, communists and democrats of all shades; it backed the Ba'ath party in 1968 when Saddam was installed as vice-president; it helped him and the Shah of Iran in 1975 to crush the Kurdish nationalist movement; it increased its support for Saddam in 1979, the year he elevated himself to president, helping him launch his war of aggression against Iran in 1980; it backed him throughout the horrific eight years of war (1980 to 1988), in which a million Iranians and Iraqis were slaughtered, in the full knowledge that he was using chemical weapons and gassing Kurds and Marsh Arabs; it encouraged him in 1990 to invade Kuwait when the Arabic-speaking US ambassador in Baghdad, April Glaspie, told him on July 25 1990 that the US had "no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts" when she knew that Saddam's forces were only one week away from invading; it backed him in 1991 when Bush suddenly stopped the war, exactly 24 hours after the start of the great March uprising that engulfed the south and Iraqi Kurdistan (US aircraft were flying over the scenes of mass killing as Iraqi helicopter gunships were aiding Saddam's forces crush the uprising); and it backed him as the "lesser evil" from March 1991 to September 11 2001 under the umbrella of murderous sanctions and the policy of "containment". - Sami Ramadani is an Iraqi political exile and a senior lecturer in sociology at London Metropolitan University.

someone kill that fucker's sig. It's gotta be a violation of TOS.

There are two sides to every story.

Nice try at putting words in my mouth. I never said US foreign policy was just a series of mistakes. YOU implied that the US had made mistakes in the region. Its interesting that you evade the question and attempt to put the worst possible spin on it.

Lets here some reasons for this. In your own words. Don't go copy and pasting other people's opinions. Lets see if you can formulate a logical reasonable argument. So far all I've seen from you are non-sensical insults and copy-paste jobs.

Nice jab, pity you feel threatened enough to have to resort to that. I read the original article when it was posted earlier. Did you?

What was the alternative? Sure it sounds horrendous now, but is that statement the whole story of Iraq in 1963? Of course not. How did the US back Saddam? Any evidence of this? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I'm not aware that it did.

The US supported Stalin too. I suppose Roosevelt is to blame for the Gulag. What form did this support for the Ba'ath party take?

Stability is generally preferrable to turmoil. Any emerging Kurdish state would have had designs on part of Turkey as well. With Turkey being a member of NATO, things could have gotten very bloody had they been allowed to progress.

The enemy of our enemy is our friend. You seem to forget that during the Iran was a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism. This was the era of jihad's, islamic terrorism (sponsored by Iran). Iraq's use of chemical weapons was hardly sanctioned. It was widely condemned at the time.

Also, I wish you anti-war people would get your arguments straight on the chemical weapons situation. Was it Saddam who gassed the Kurds or was it Iran? You can't have it both ways.

A very misleading statement. The "no opinion" was in relation to Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait not on the invasion, occupation and plundering of Kuwait.

The war stopped after Iraq was expelled from Kuwait and it agreed to disarm. The US bowed to world opinion NOT to take out Saddam. I will agree with professor Ramadani, here in that it is regrettable that the uprisings in the north and south were not supported.

I don't follow how sanctions and containment can be perverted into "backing"? Seems a bit like the author is trying to pin the blame for everything wrong with Iraq on the US, which coincidentally seems to be what you, Webby, are doing.

Damn, NetRodent, I wish I could literate my thoughts as well as you. Thank you for so eloquently stating just how there is always another way to look at facts. It's all relative, really. Most people will believe what they want to believe and even hear/see what they want to see. Period.

its called a summary

"I would love for anyone to prove to me that any of the above arguments of the Peacenik are false?"

There only true if your a peacenic.

The real truth is Iraq and the rest of the world will be far better off when Sadam gets his ass kicked out of there. Fucking peacenics will never get rid of him.

NetRodent:

Na.. I ain't gonna waste time answering your shit... As for the cut and paste, that was used to show the US track record. Find plenty more if you wish, the facts are commonly accepted by others, - others apart from the blinkered...

Back to the point, the US has no credibility to assume anything on Iraq - tis just some ignorant Admin full of arrogance going on yet another "US adventure"..... I actually wonder if there is *any* intelligence in the White House - it sure ain't evident.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Webby
[B]NetRodent:

You disappoint me. I had hoped you'd actually be able to conduct a rational discussion. But if you're more comfortable spouting unsupported invective, I understand. Tuck your tail between your legs and be gone.

What arrogant, elitist dribble. Do you truely believe that people cannot disagree with our opinions without being blinkered or brainwashed? Could that be because you are those very things?

Didn't you make already make this post? :sleep