Politics

Finally — a simple, concise, clear explanation of why we’re invading Iraq, in the form of a dialogue between a ‘Warmonger’ and a ‘Peacenik.’

(by Bill Davidson, via jwz)

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.

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

Warmonger: 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.

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

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

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

Warmonger: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

Peacenik: 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?

Warmonger: 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.

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

Warmonger: 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.

Peacenik: 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?

Warmonger: 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.

Peacenik: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn’t the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

Warmonger: 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.

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

Warmonger: You’re missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

Peacenik: He did?

Warmonger: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.

Peacenik: But didn’t that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

Warmonger: And a British intelligence report…

Peacenik: Didn’t that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

Warmonger: And reports of mobile weapons labs…

Peacenik: Weren’t those just artistic renderings?

Warmonger: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors…

Peacenik: Wasn’t that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

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

Peacenik: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Warmonger: The fact that we can’t find any weapons of mass distruction proves that he’s hiding them from us.

Peacenik: Don’t you think if Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction hidden somewhere, the best course of action is to have UN weapons inspectors look for them and destroy them safely and without any loss of human life?

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

Peacenik: So what is the point?

Warmonger: 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.

Peacenik: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

Warmonger: Absolutely. …unless it rules against us.

Peacenik: And what if it does rule against us?

Warmonger: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

Peacenik: Coalition of the willing? Who’s that?

Warmonger: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

Peacenik: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

Warmonger: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

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

Warmonger: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

Peacenik: So it’s the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

Warmonger: Yes.

Peacenik: But George Bush wasn’t elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C…-

Warmonger: 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.

Peacenik: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

Warmonger: I never said that.

Peacenik: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

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

Peacenik: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

Warmonger: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

Peacenik: You know this? How?

Warmonger: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

Peacenik: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

Warmonger: Precisely.

Peacenik: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

Warmonger: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

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

Warmonger: Yes.

Peacenik: 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.

Warmonger: That’s a diplomatic issue.

Peacenik: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

Warmonger: 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.

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

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

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

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

Peacenik: 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?

Warmonger: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

Peacenik: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

Warmonger: 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.

Peacenik: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

Warmonger: By “world”, I meant the United Nations.

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

Warmonger: By “United Nations” I meant the Security Council.

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

Warmonger: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

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

Warmonger: Well… there could be an unreasonable veto.

Peacenik: In which case?

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

Peacenik: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

Warmonger: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

Peacenik: That makes no sense.

Warmonger: We have to liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictator no matter what anyone says.

Peacenik: You want to liberate the Iraqi people by carpet bombing their country without provocation or international support?

Warmonger: 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.

Peacenik: Here…have a pretzel, instead.

I’ll get away from the constant war/protest posts eventually, but I came across this report on CNN and had to share it: Brazilian protesters toss eclairs at U.S. consulate

More than 2,000 anti-war protesters on Friday marched to the U.S. Consulate, where they burned American flags and tossed balloons filled with pink paint.

The protesters also threw chocolate eclairs at the consulate, shouting “Let’s bombard the consulate!” In Portuguese, chocolate eclairs are called “bombas de chocolate,” which translates as “chocolate bombs.”

I’m going to collect some of the various protest news stories I find here, just for an idea of how things went…if you happen to stop by and know of any good stories/links, feel free to post them in the comments!

• Seattle: Thousands take to the streets in protest Seattle Post-Intelligencer
• Seattle: Thousands hit Seattle streets in peaceful march Seattle Times
• Seattle: Anti-, Pro-War Forces Rally KOMO TV
• Seattle: Peace Activists Gather Downtown for Spontaneous March as War Begins. The Stranger
• Seattle: Speaking out, sitting down Tacoma News Tribune
• Seattle: News of assault brings ’emptiness,’ call to action for peace movement Seattle Post-Intelligencer
• Seattle: Protesters, police stand poised Seattle Times
• Seattle: Seattle anti-war protest Sharding
• Seattle/Portland/Bellingham/Kirkland/Elsewhere: War protests clog Northwest streets, highways King 5 News
• Portland: 135 arrested in Portland anti-war protest King 5 News
• Portland: The March 20th protests from one Portlander Observing the Oblique
• Oak Harbor: Anti-war activist ventures into hostile terrain: Oak Harbor Seattle Post-Intelligencer
• Anchorage: At home, some people protest and others voice support Anchorage Daily News
• Cincinnati: Downtown war protest: Police arrest 6 people in gathering at Square Kentucky Post
• Cincinnati: War Protesters Arrested Ohio News Network
• San Francisco: Peace Protest: San Francisco East/West
• San Francisco: The Battle of San Francisco peerfear
• London: How about 2,000,000? Blogging on
• Chicago: Hundreds arrested in anti-war protest Chicago Tribune
• UC Berkely: Arrested for peaceful protest Diary for raph

After holding back for a whopping 90 minutes after Bush’s 48-hour deadline, cruise missiles started falling on Baghdad about 45 minutes ago.

Bush is just starting to address the nation.

Update: Two things stuck out at me during Bush’s speech. First, that he made sure to do his best to make it Saddam’s fault if innocent civillians get killed, because of his placing military personell and equipment in civillian areas. Second, that he already mentioned that this war could be harder and go on longer than some people expect. That didn’t take long. Bleah.

Two excellent articles have popped up over the past couple days examining Bush’s mind-numbingly painful inability to actually work with the global community to accomplish his goals, putting America in a position of being the agressor ‘rouge state’ that the rest of the world fears.

First, from Newsweek, The Arrogant Empire. This was first given to me at work by one of my co-workers, I also saw it posted by Tom Negrino. It’s a long and very in-depth article, and shows well how pitiful Bush is in comparison to his predecessors:

In diplomacy, style is often substance. Consider this fact: the Clinton administration used force on three important occasions — Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo. In none of them did it take the matter to the United Nations Security Council, and there was little discussion that it needed to do so. Indeed, Kofi Annan later made statements that seemed to justify the action in Kosovo, explaining that state sovereignty should not be used as a cover for humanitarian abuses. Today Annan has (wrongly) announced that American action in Iraq outside the United Nations will be “illegal.” While the Clinton administration — or the first Bush administration — was assertive in many ways, people did not seek assurances about its intentions. The Bush administration does not bear all the blame for this dramatic change in attitudes. Because of 9-11, it has had to act forcefully on the world stage and assert American power. But that should have been all the more reason to adopt a posture of consultation and cooperation while doing what needed to be done. The point is to scare our enemies, not terrify the rest of the world.

Secondly, from Slate, Turkey Shoot: How Bush made enemies of our allies, also posted by Tom Negrino. While the Newseek article compared Bush to the administrations of the past fifty years, the Slate article focuses more on comparing Bush’s administration to Clinton’s. Bush doesn’t come out looking any better.

Rather than make the most of the extraordinary support the world offered the United States after 9/11, the Bush administration seems almost willfully to have squandered it. In the months after Sept. 11, the administration withdrew from one international agreement after another, from the ABM treaty to the International Criminal Court. It refused NATO’s offer of help in Afghanistan, eventually accepting some troops from NATO-member countries but no shared NATO decision-making. Though German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder braved a no-confidence vote to win parliamentary approval to put German combat troops in Afghanistan, he received little thanks from Bush. Nor was he seriously consulted as Bush formulated his Iraq policy, despite (or perhaps because of) growing signs of German discomfort with that policy. Cut out of the loop, Schröder then began to exploit the anti-Iraq war backlash among German voters and become a fierce opponent of Bush on Iraq.

Gov. Howard Dean has been crossing my radar more and more recently. As it turns out, in addition to his official site, his campaign has an official weblog active (the first time a Presidential candidate has had any form of weblog, as far as I know), and there is also a privately run ‘Howard Dean in 2004’ weblog active.

I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on all of these sites, and — in a first for me — I’m seriously considering making my first ever campaign contribution. The boilerplate for the contribution request letter follows (slightly edited)…

(Via Tom Negrino and Rick Klau in the comments to Tom’s post)

I’m ~~writing all my friends on my email list~~ [posting this message on my website]{.underline} because there is something that is very important to me personally and should be important to the country. [From what I’ve seen so far,]{.underline} Howard Dean is the only candidate running for President who says what he thinks, and acts on what he says. I think he’s dead on, and he’s the only candidate making sense about foreign policy, [and probably]{.underline} health care and fiscal responsibility[, I just need to read more about those before I’m sure]{.underline}. I also think he can win [(though, admittedly, at the rate Bush is going, soon enough people will realize how much of a goob he is that the pretzel he almost choked to death on would be able to win — but I’ll still take Dean over Bush, the pretzel, or anyone else I’ve heard from so far)]{.underline}. If you don’t know about him, visit his website, read his speeches, and ~~call~~ [e-mail]{.underline} me if you want to talk about it.

I [think that I]{.underline} want ~~you~~ to get involved and contribute to his campaign. He doesn’t have the deep pockets of most of the other candidates, but I believe he will make the best president — and I ~~don’t want money to~~ [wish that money didn’t]{.underline} decide who leads this country.

Even if this is the first time you have heard of him, or if you are unsure about your support, your donation at this time will allow his voice to be heard. Please help me and others take the big money out of politics. Please contribute whatever you can — \$10.01 [(like me, since I don’t have much to spare right now)]{.underline} to \$1000.01 (a penny for the internet) — and pass it on to your friends who might be interested. Every dollar you give up to \$250 will be matched (this is only true if you tell the campaign your employer and occupation). Feel free to modify this letter [(not that anyone would do something like that, of course)]{.underline}. Do it now [dammit]{.underline}! March 31^st^ is the big FEC deadline, and we are running out of time to show the power of early netroots support.

Contribute at Dean’s website.

I [think that I]{.underline} feel so strongly about this that I’ve [kind of]{.underline} decided to take the time to ask for money for the campaign, and I hope you will also take the time to make a contribution. I’m [becoming]{.underline} convinced that if we do this, Howard will never let us down.

Thanks for considering this.

PS: If you want to get more involved, visit Howard Dean’s Call To Action blog.

(Disclaimer: The above edits are in no way meant to make fun of or belittle Howard Dean or his campaign — as I said above, I’m very strongly considering making a donation myself, and I do believe that it’s worth considering. However, as I’m still mulling it over, and can’t ever seem to quite completely kill my [possibly overly-]cynical sense of humor, I had to make my mark. So sue me.)