This was e-mailed to me. I think it's pretty good, might be flawed in some of it's observations, but overall, it makes many good points.

> > [SATIRE] Dialogue between a peacenik and a warmonger
> >
> > 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 Iraquis scuttling and hiding evidence from
> > inspectors...
> >
> > PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons
> > inspector,
> > Hans Blix?
> >
> > WM: Yes, but there is plently 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
> > dectruction 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 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 the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to
> > boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that!
> >
> > PN: I give up!
> >
>
>
> =====
> "If we do not demand unconditional respect for the
> inherent DIGNITY of EVERY human life, we undermine the
> foundation of democracy and grant the state authority over
> humanity that is nothing less than tyranical.
> The state exists for humanity, not humanity for the state."
>