How to sell a WAR about OIL without actually mentioning Oil...

[hooch]

Inquisitive Citizen (IC): Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

Warmonger (WM): We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council Resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions.

IC: 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.

IC: Mushroom c loud? But I thought the UN weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

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

IC: 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.

IC: 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.

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

WM: The issue is not what we sold to Saddam, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

IC: What about our green-light to 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 bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

IC: 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 attack immediately.

IC: Is this the same audio tape where Osama bin Laden calls Saddam a "secular infidel"?

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

IC: He did?

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

IC: 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...

IC: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

IC: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

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

IC: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the UN's 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.

IC: 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.

IC: 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.

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

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us. Of course!

IC: And what if it does rule against us?

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

IC: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Spain, for starters.

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

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

IC: 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.

IC: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

IC: But doesn't the Constitution say only Congress can declare war?

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our president, because he's acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

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

WM: I never said that.

IC: 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.

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

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

IC: You know this? How?

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

IC: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

IC: 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.

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

WM: Exactly.

IC: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, & gt; 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.

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

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the UN inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

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

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

IC: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and further 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.

IC: But every one has admitted there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraq with the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Almost every one of the alleged terrorists were from our "ally" Saudi Arabia, none were from Iraq.

WM: Yes, but this is not just about terrorist attacks. It's about our national security.

IC: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Aren't they supposed to protect us? And don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

IC: I do. I'd like to know 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.

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

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

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

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

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

WM: Well, I meant the majority of the Security Council.

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

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

IC: In which case?

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

IC: 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.

IC: That make s no sense.

WM: Look, if you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

IC: I give up!

 

[distanced]

I just want to be a pretty little princess with pigtails that still breast feeds from a nurse named Ulga that grew up as an imbred mogaloid on the hills of Uraguay.

 

[Frackal]

Great post!!! Obviously distanced can't respond to it

 

[distanced]

my dick is still bigger than yours

 

[Frackal]

highly unlikely nazi boy

 

[hooch]

Doesn't this sound like the Pre-war hype we heard or what???

 

[musclebrains]

Excellent post, maybe the best summary I've read of the depressingly self-contradictory dissembling to justify the invasion. Maybe the only thing it lacks is a statement that by eating French fries, inquisitive citizens are directly responsible for the deaths of soldiers.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Inquisitive Citizen (IC): Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

Warmonger (WM): We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council Resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions.

IC: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.

Israel is the only one as far as I know that has violated more resolutions. Our allies control the security council, how could they get ganged up on?

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.

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

He probably doesn’t, but Khidhar Hamza who headed the Iraqi nuclear weapons program from as early as 1980 until 1994 says Iraq will probably have a nuclear weapon by 2005.

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

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

If they have chemical or bio weapons why wouldn’t they have scuds, with a 400 mile range? And whats to stop them from sending suicidal militants to release WMD in America?

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

IC: 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?

true

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.

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

Yup. Along with pretty much all of Europe & the USSR

WM: The issue is not what we sold to Saddam, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

IC: What about our green-light to the invasion of Kuwait?

What about the fact that the security council offered 11 resolutions to the Iraqis to end the invasion peacefully by withdrawing without a war? The Invasion by Iraq was on August 1 1990. After 11 ignored security council resolutions threatening force and condemning the invasion (the first on August 2nd), force started on January 14th 1991.

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

IC: Osama bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

Yup, and to disrupt al Quada.

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 attack immediately.

IC: Is this the same audio tape where Osama bin Laden calls Saddam a "secular infidel"?

Probably. I suggest you study up on the Salman Pak terrorist camp 40 km south of Baghdad.

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

IC: He did?

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

IC: 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...

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

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

IC: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

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

IC: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the UN's 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.

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

Other than finding thousands of gas masks and doses of atropine (a nerve agent antidote) in areas controlled by the Iraqi government. That’s not hard evidence though, just circumstantial evidence.

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

IC: 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.

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

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us. Of course!

IC: And what if it does rule against us?

It can’t the US has a veto

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


IC: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

46 countries. Desert storm only had 32. NATO has 19. The security council has 15.

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Spain, for starters.

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

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

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

True

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

IC: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

IC: But doesn't the Constitution say only Congress can declare war?

They did, in October of 2002 with the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our president, because he's acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

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

Disagreeing with the government isn’t a bad thing.

WM: I never said that.

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

To promote Regime change and, on the side, eliminate WMD.

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

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

Then why are there thousands of gas masks & atropine doses lying around whenever coalition forces take over an Iraqi controlled area?

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

IC: You know this? How?

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

IC: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

IC: 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.

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

This war probably isn’t about WMD, it is about regime change. I think the WMD is just a cover to justify regime change, just like the bombing of the Maine was used as a justification for war with Spain.

WM: Exactly.

IC: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, & gt; 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.

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

Because we tried 11 resolutions to end the Gulf war peacefully and they all failed, and we tried 12 years of diplomacy to get them to comply with the cease fire they signed, which failed too.

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the UN inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

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

Who said money was a concern for endorsing inspections?

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

IC: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and further 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.

That’s like saying not brushing your teeth will cause your abusive father to get mad. What should we do, walk on our toes hoping the arab world doesn’t explode at the drop of a hat?

IC: But every one has admitted there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraq with the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Almost every one of the alleged terrorists were from our "ally" Saudi Arabia, none were from Iraq.

WM: Yes, but this is not just about terrorist attacks. It's about our national security.

Read about the Salman pak camp http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/
At least 6 of those 19 had stolen identities, we don’t know where they came from.

IC: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Aren't they supposed to protect us? And don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

IC: I do. I'd like to know why are we invading Iraq?

Regime change

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.

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

IF we lost a war and signed a cease fire, then probably.

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

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

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

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

We have a veto, nothing gets into the council that would threaten US, Russian, Chinese, French or UK interests.

WM: Well, I meant the majority of the Security Council.

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

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

IC: In which case?

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

IC: 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.

IC: That makes no sense.

Nope

WM: Look, if you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

IC: I give up!

As well you should. I myself don't care how justified the war is, i am concerned with the end result. If this war didn't result in regime change i wouldn't support it.

Besides, in 1991 Iraq signed a cease fire, meaning the war was still on but hostilities had ended as long as Iraq kept up its end of the bargain. Iraq has not kept up its end, so the cease fire has ended in accordance with Security council resolutions 678, 687 & 1441. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/18/1047749750291.html

 

[HansNZ]

How to sell a WAR about OIL without actually mentioning Oil...

Amen hooch.

But sadly you're dealing with people who have been indoctrinated by American nationlism from a young age. Trying to talk sense to these people is like trying to argue with a religious fundamentalist - you may as well save your breath.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Re: Re: How to sell a WAR about OIL without actually mentioning Oil...

Amen hooch.

But sadly you're dealing with people who have been indoctrinated by American nationlism from a young age. Trying to talk sense to these people is like trying to argue with a religious fundamentalist - you may as well save your breath.

I'm open to debate.

For the record, i don't give a shit why the invasion is occuring i just prefer to topple the Iraqi regime.

This war of oil will cost the US $80 billion dollars. Seeing how we only import about 7% of our oil from Iraq i don't see how we'd be breaking even.