WAR AND PEACE, IN A NUTSHELL ***** Alice: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq? Bob: We are invading because Iraq is in violation of Security Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions. A: But many of our allies, including Israel, are in violation of more Security Council resolutions than Iraq. B: 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. A: Mushroom cloud? I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons. B: Biological and chemical weapons are the issue. A: But Iraq does not have any long range missiles, and Saddam only attacks nations that are smaller or weaker than his own. B: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to. A: But lots of countries sell chemical or biological materials. We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we? B: 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. A: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer? B: 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. A: Didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait? B: Let's deal with the present, shall we? 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. A: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel? B: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq. A: He did? B: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaida poison factory in Iraq. A: Didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition? B: And a British intelligence report... A: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper? B: And reports of mobile weapons labs... A: Weren't those just artistic renderings? B: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors... A: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix? B: There is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security. A: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? B: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point. A: So what is the point? B: The main point is that resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security Council will become an irrelevant debating society. A: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council? B: Absolutely. A: The Security Council ruled that the inspectors should have more time. B: Nevertheless, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq now. A: Coalition of the willing? Who's that? B: Britain, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters. A: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war. B: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions. A: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important? B: Yes. A: George W Bush wasn't elected by a majority of voters. B: 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. A: So Americans who express disagreements are not patriotic? B: I never said that. A: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq? B: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies. A: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons. B: Iraq is obviously hiding them. A: You know this? How? B: Because we know they had the weapons 15 years ago, and they are still unaccounted for. A: The weapons we sold them, you mean? B: Precisely. A: But those materials would degrade to an unusable state over 15 years. B: There is a chance that some have not degraded. A: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade? B: Exactly. A: Well, North Korea actually has usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast, AND it has expelled weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire. B: That's a diplomatic issue. There are geopolitical considerations involved. A: Such as the billions of barrels of oil that are in Iraq but not in Korea? B: Oil has nothing to do with it. And don't even try to bring up Halliburton at a time like this. A: Okay, no mention of Halliburton or their huge, no-bid, postwar contract. Anyways, why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy? B: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Continued inspections would cost us tens of millions. A: But the war will cost us tens of billions. B: This is not about money. This is about security from terrorists. A: Doesn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, increase the number of future terrorists, and decrease our security? B: We must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won. A: What about indefinite detention of US citizens, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live? B: I thought you had questions about Iraq. A: Right. Why are we invading Iraq? B: 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. A: So if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen? B: By "world" I meant the United Nations. A: So we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations? B: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council. A: And if the Security Council vetoes our plan? B: I meant the majority of the Security Council. We have an obligation to ignore an unreasonable veto. A: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all? B: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council. A: That makes no sense. B: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Patriotic Americans should boycott french fries, no doubt about that. THE END?