e. magill's Intrigue

One Version of the Iraq Argument

I have here a “PeaceNik v. WarMonger” interview that somebody on the internet decided to spread around. I have been unable to track it to its source, but I can say that it is all over the place and that I've come across it more than once. Clearly written by a liberal who is against the war, the interview insults the intelligence of those of us who believe the war to be just and portrays the “PeaceNik” movement as this clear-headed intellectual superiority. I have decided to use this site to respond to it, question by question, as if I were a third-person commentator.

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.

e.: WarMonger here is not giving the right answer to PeaceNik’s question, nor is he offering the answer supplied to us by our government. The violation of 1441 is a reason that the UN should be interested in doing something other than another twelve years of debate, sanction, and useless inspection. We are invading Iraq because of human suffering and threats to not only world peace but our own national security, not because of a UN resolution.

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

e.: PeaceNik is correct. Israel and many other nations, especially North Korea and Iran, are also in violation of UN resolutions. If the UN wants those resolutions to be effective, they should prove that they have the muscle to do something about it. Otherwise, nations will continue to flaunt these resolutions.

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.

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

e.: The IAEA weapons inspectors never said that there are no nuclear weapons in Iraq. They said that it was unlikely, but that Iraq has succeeded in collecting two of the three major components of nuclear capability and that the third, enriched uranium, would not be hard to collect over an extended period of time. Having said that, though, it is true that biological and chemical weapons are the more immediate threat.

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 terrorist networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

e.: According to Blix’s written report of March 6, 2003, Iraq did possess a UAV that could deliver a chemical attack as far as Israel and the staging grounds for missiles with comparable distances. In addition, Iraq was being forced to dismantle a small handful of Al Samoud II rockets that went beyond proscribed limitations; if they didn’t have them, what were they dismantling? However, despite this, it is true that the more immediate threat is that chemical, biological, or, eventually, nuclear weapons could get in the hands of terrorists who want to use them on the United States or her allies.

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.

e.: Yes, any country that has them is capable of selling chemical and biological weapons, including a maniacal country. This is precisely why we must end WMD proliferation.

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

e.: Just because we gave Charles Whitman a rifle and taught him how to fire it doesn’t mean that we didn’t have the right to stop him from sniping innocent civilians from a tower at the University of Texas.

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 Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

e.: April Glaspie did not green-light it. She simply said that the United States wasn’t interested in the Kuwaiti situation at that time. To trust the words of a single diplomat in a world where no two people can agree on anything is unbelievably foolish, especially when those words are ambiguous. Besides, what Glaspie said was correct; we weren’t interested in the situation until Iraq invaded, at which time we became very interested.

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?

e.: Not exclusively. The main objective was the dismantling of the Taliban into something that was no longer effective. Last time I checked, this objective was successfully completed.

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?

e.: Al Qaida is one terrorist organization. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other organizations have much easier connections to Iraq than bin Laden. However, despite that, bin Laden did say, in his television address at the start of the Afghanistan invasion, that it was time for all Muslims to come together and fight jihad. Even though he labeled Saddam a secular infidel in a dubious audio tape, it is quite easy to see that Saddam, now that the invasion has begun, is pleading with the radical Islamic contingent in terms that they can understand, comparing Iraq to Palestine, in an effort to gain the support of terrorists. To think that Saddam would not be able to sell WMDs to terrorists severely overestimates the logic and rationale of fundamentalist murderers. It should also be noted that Saddam Hussein has a Quoran written in his own blood.

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 Qaida 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?

e.: No; in fact, it turned out to be a terrorist training camp filled with atropine and guarded by Iraqi soldiers.

WM: And a British intelligence report...

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

e.: Is PeaceNik suggesting here that graduate students don’t know what they’re talking about or that old information is automatically incorrect by virtue of the fact that it is old? The British intelligence report did turn out to be pretty useless, but I challenge you to read Blix’s March 6 report and conclude that there is no evidence of terrorism or WMDs in Iraq.

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

e.: Once again, I point to the Blix report. He says that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence from a wide range of sources that points to the conclusion that these mobile labs exist.

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

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

e.: No, actually, it wasn’t. Hans Blix simply stated, in one of his oral reports to the UN, that he didn’t think that the audio tapes were convincing or proved anything. On that, I’d have to agree with him; those voices could have been anybody when you aren’t given any of the supporting evidence as to the tapes’ origins or the voice imprints of those being recorded. However, Powell provided plenty of other evidence concerning the hiding of weapons programs that went unchallenged by Blix or anyone else (aside from Iraqi diplomats).

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?

e.: Oh yes there is! Read Blix’s own report, for starters.

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

e.: That is sort of true. It is not their job to find weapons of mass destruction, only proof that the weapons we know about have been removed or destroyed. While trying to find this evidence, all the inspectors found was evidence that more weapons were being built.

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.

e.: If the Security Council were irrelevant, than we would have invaded Iraq twelve years ago and avoided twelve years of sanctions that hurt Iraqi civilians.

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

e.: Not at all. Upholding the rulings of the Security Council is what got us into this mess. 1441 was simply our way of offering it a chance to redeem itself; it failed to do so.

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.

e.: The UN never ruled against us; they merely threatened to. They were as impotent in passing a resolution making an invasion illegal as they were in passing a resolution stating that Iraq was in violation of 1441. The UN had reached a stalemate, and we were simply unwilling to sit around and do nothing with the threat of Iraq festering for another few years.

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.

e.: I still don’t understand why Turkey is on the coalition list, to be honest. However, they did not simply ask for tens of billions of dollars as if it were a bribe. All they did is request humanitarian assistance and military defense, both of which are perfectly reasonable and understandable requests from one of Iraq’s neighbors who does have something to lose by a Kurdish population infused with the spirit of liberation and freedom. It should be noted, however, that the nation with the most to lose, Israel, not only supports us and is willing to help, but they haven’t asked for anything in return.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

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

e.: Based on what? Show me these polls.

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...

e.: Here it is: the heart of the argument in the liberal mind. This is about Bush winning the 2000 election (...sigh...). Our system of laws is decided by people that we vote into office and who are put in power by our elected leaders. The U.S. Supreme Court is as much an elected body as the president is. The election was close and full of legal ramifications, and, in such a case, our system calls upon the Supreme Court to make its decision. It did. George Bush is, therefore, our elected leader. Deal with it already. Besides, judging by the polling numbers, he does seem to be speaking for a broad majority in this country.

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.

e.: Oh, brother. It is not unpatriotic to question your government, but people have as much freedom of speech to say that it is as they do to say the government and “selected not elected” administration is evil.

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.

e.: This entire line of argument is retarded on both sides. Read the Blix report and you will not question whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Anybody who honestly believes that Iraq is clean is a fucking idiot who refuses to do any independent research.

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

WM: Exactly.

e.: Um, no. The existence of WMDs alone is not reason enough to invade. However, in the hands of Saddam Hussein, a known sponsor of terrorism, a student of Stalin, and a man who honestly believes he is a reincarnated Nebuchanezzar who will be the glorious and ruthless savior of the Middle East, the existence of WMDs is a very real threat to peace.

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.

e.: They can threaten all they want. North Korea hasn’t killed anybody in decades; they are simply trying to blackmail us into giving them more diplomatic power. If you ask me, we should invade North Korea and show them that we aren’t going to take any crap from them and that we have advanced a lot in our ability to wage war in nearly a half-century. But North Korea is not the clear and present danger that Iraq is, because North Korea is making a point of posturing, not attacking. In addition, North Korea announced that they had resumed their nuclear program; announcing it is a clear sign that you aren’t going to actually use the manufactured weapons except as political leverage. Hiding your program is evidence that you intend to use your weapons, and that’s what Iraq is doing.

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.

e.: WarMonger was completely correct until he mentioned money. This is the only place on the entire planet that I’ve actually heard somebody try to say that inspections were monetarily expensive. More of a case could be made for the price that twelve years of delay cost in terms of civilian casualties at the hands of starvation, kidnapping, and torture.

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

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

e.: Yep. No argument here.

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

e.: Not really. Sure, in the short term, it will inflame, but, in the long-term, it gives us a nation in the middle east that thanks America for its liberation and shows that democracy is possible in an Arab state. In addition, you’ve taken out one of the biggest supporters of middle eastern terror on the globe and you’ve decreased the possibility of WMDs proliferating into the hands of radicals.

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?

e.: The terrorists won on 9/11. They scared the shit out of us. Now it’s time for us to do something about it, and that something is NOT appeasement. And don’t get me started on the PATRIOT ACT; I’ll bet you a million dollars that you haven’t even read it.

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.

e.: The United States has never been answerable to the international community and we’re not going to start now. We are not doing this because the UN said we should (and they did); we are doing this to serve our own interests of defense, regional stability, and humanitarian aid.

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?

e.: No.

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

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

e.: No.

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

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

e.: No.

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

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

e.: No. Besides, the Security Council is not a democracy.

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

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

e.: Look, we are not invading Iraq because of the UN. Get passed this argument.

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.

e.: I’ll agree with that. Whoever wrote this thing has successfully created the illusion that the invasion of Iraq doesn’t make any sense, by creating a fictional WarMonger who is a complete and utter retard, and by confining our motivation to the dictates of the UN.

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: Here... have a pretzel, instead.

e.: No comment.
-e. magill, 03/22/2003