actually, mag, it does not say much of anything of singificance and it is
very much slanted to one side.
by the way they have captured a chemical weapons facility said to be huge by
the news report. so much for efficency of inspections.
and the exections of 7 american p.o.w. s today shows just how nice saddam
actually is. such a person certainly desaerves to have people on our steets
supporting him. makes you want to go out and do some more protesting doesn't
it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Magenta Raine
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 3/23/2003 7:41 PM
Subject: Fwd: [joan-list] OT - Warmonger and Peacenik Debate
--part1_bc.357d4733.2bafae3a_boundary
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_bc.357d4733.2bafae3a_alt_boundary"
--part1_bc.357d4733.2bafae3a_alt_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi friends,
I think this piece says just about everything on both sides! ;-)
Mag
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--part1_bc.357d4733.2bafae3a_alt_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"
FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">Hi friends, <BR>
I think this piece says just about everything on both sides! ;-)<BR>
<BR>
Mag <BR>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</FONT></HTML>
--part1_bc.357d4733.2bafae3a_alt_boundary--
--part1_bc.357d4733.2bafae3a_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from rly-xm01.mx.aol.com (rly-xm01.mail.aol.com
[172.20.83.102]) by air-xm03.mail.aol.com (v92.17) with ESMTP id
MAILINXM33-81f23e7d0ebf3a5; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:32:49 1900
Received: from [66.162.149.41] ([66.162.149.41]) by rly-xm01.mx.aol.com
(v92.16) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXM17-5ed3e7d0e9837b; Sat, 22 Mar 2003
20:32:11 -0500
Received: from 66.162.149.40 by 66.162.149.41; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 17:32:06
-0800
Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38] by 66.162.149.41;
Sat, 22 Mar 2003 17:25:30 -0800
Received: from [log in to unmask] by imo-d06.mx.aol.com
(mail_out_v34.21.) id c.95.2b99dc47 (15877) for
<[log in to unmask]>; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:25:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from aol.com (mow-m29.webmail.aol.com [64.12.137.6]) by
air-id07.mx.aol.com (v92.17) with ESMTP id
MAILINID74-3e053e7d0cfd147; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:25:17 -0500
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Errors-To: [log in to unmask]
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: Bulk
X-Listserver: Macjordomo 1.5 - Macintosh Listserver
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 17:25:17 -0800
From: [log in to unmask]
To: Multiple recipients of *joan-list <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [joan-list] OT - Warmonger and Peacenik Debate
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
The following was sent to me by Ann McCormick.
Hope you all enjoy as much as I did. _ Donna
A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
By Victor Forsythe
Dedicated to the Love it or Leave it crowd
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 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 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!
*************
To unsubscribe from this list or to make any changes to your
subscription,
please send an e-mail message to: [log in to unmask]
Visit the Joan Baez Web Pages at: http://www.joanbaez.com
--part1_bc.357d4733.2bafae3a_boundary--
|
