From the inimitable Ernie Hancock's radio show
This was forwarded to me by one of my sponsors. I read it on my
Morning Show and had a few e-mails requesting it so I thought it might
be of interest to many.
A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of
council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in
more security council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq
have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking
well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for
or our allies with such weapons.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather
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,
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-
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry
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
Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could
biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself
released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us,
partnership between the two.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to
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
partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of
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
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be
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
You're missing the point.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution
threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security
will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security
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
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
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
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however
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
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
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
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
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
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical,
biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can
west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND
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
inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying,
denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of
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
sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the
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
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
Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now
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
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
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
all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott