The War "In A Nutshell" - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-02-2003, 12:14 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 10:48 PM
Normal The War "In A Nutshell"



http://www.minimumeffort.com/nutshell.html

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!
__________________

__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 12:23 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 12:18 AM
very interesting!!
__________________

__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 01:02 PM   #3
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:48 PM


That is sooo spot on. Exactly why Bush couldn't convince any but the Coalition of the bribed.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 01:18 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:48 PM
Here's my version:

PN: Why are we invading Iraq?

PL (Pro-Liberator, not War Monger): Reason 1: We think Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and if he does, he will one day use it on us. Reason 2: Saddam is an evil tyrant who tortures his own people day in and day out.

PN: Well, what if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction?

PL: Chances are, he does, because he used chemical weapons against his own people, and we have seen no evidence to suggest he destroyed it. In fact, we have discovered chemical weapon suits, antidotes, and material used to train terroists in chemical warfare.

PN: BUt he said he doesn't have them, and if he did, wouldn't the UN have found them?

PL: You trust the word of a man who has gassed his own peope, rapes women, and uses people as human shields? He knew when the UN was coming - you don't think he hid the weapons?

PN: But, what if he doesn't have them?

PL: Then Reason #2 is a great reason to get rid of him. We are liberating Iraq.

PN: Oh, but you will be hurting innocent Iraqi citizens.

PL: Excuse me? Do you know that a great many Iraqi citizens would gladly put their lives on the line to get rid of Saddam?

PN: Well, war just isn't right in any circumstances.

PL: If the Allies hadn't gone to war against Hitler, you'd be speaking German right now, and all Jews, homosexuals and who knows what else would all be dead.

PN: Well then, the people of Iraq should rise up themselves.

PL: They can't. Saddam has all the power and would crush any insurrection in a split second.

PN: Well, I still don't believe in this war.

PL: I've gotta go now. But I want to leave you with a very memorable quote: "All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing".
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 02:16 PM   #5
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 03:48 AM
oliveu2cm:

great one, thanks, that fits for almost all pro/anti war dicussions )))

80sU2isBest:
I'm still curious if the US will accept a democratic election if the Ayatollah wins (remember that was the reason why they sold all the weapons of mass destruction to Saddam and helped him with US espionage pictures to use it against his neigbour)

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 02:39 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
80sU2isBest:
I'm still curious if the US will accept a democratic election if the Ayatollah wins (remember that was the reason why they sold all the weapons of mass destruction to Saddam and helped him with US espionage pictures to use it against his neigbour)

Klaus

Klaus--In my view the U.S. had damn better accept a democratic election, no matter who wins. If they choose the Ayatollah, he wins; he's the President, inaugurate him! Otherwise there will be hell to pay.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 02:51 PM   #7
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:48 AM
Re: The War "In A Nutshell"

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm


http://www.minimumeffort.com/nutshell.html

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
Reading this I was laughing incessantly.
I think in reality the warmonger would be much less patient to answer that many questions.
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 04:11 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 03:48 AM
I'm surprised the PeaceNik even bothered to ask these questions
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 04:21 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 12:18 AM
I think it does very well to bring out the weak reasons behind going to war!
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 04:24 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:48 PM
Re: Re: The War "In A Nutshell"

Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS

I think in reality the warmonger would be much less patient to answer that many questions.
Actually, I was thinking pretty much the same thing about the Peacenik. About halfway through, many would start resorting to spitting on cops, blocking highways, staging "die-ins", and other "constructive" protests.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 04:26 PM   #11
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:48 PM
And the Warmonger would become impatient and start an illegal preemptive war.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 04:30 PM   #12
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:48 AM
Re: Re: Re: The War "In A Nutshell"

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

Actually, I was thinking pretty much the same thing about the Peacenik. About halfway through, many would start resorting to spitting on cops, blocking highways, staging "die-ins", and other "constructive" protests.
Sure. War is more constructive?
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 04:55 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:48 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: The War "In A Nutshell"

Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


Sure. War is more constructive?
It is, and you are just a Russian Hippie.

Remember we gave you free speech
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 09:03 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:48 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: The War "In A Nutshell"

Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


Sure. War is more constructive?
Nice one-liner, ALEXRUS (and great followup, whenhiphopdrovethebigcars). However, please stick to the subject. This about the reactions and conduct of people who support and people who oppose the war, not about the war itself.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 10:41 PM   #15
New Yorker
 
brettig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: heehee, ask george
Posts: 3,194
Local Time: 09:48 PM
John Clarke and Brian Dawe!!
__________________

__________________
brettig is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com