Thread: Painfully true but funny...

  1. #1
    Im back! shaik786's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Bangalore, India

    Painfully true but funny...

    Author Unknown

    PN: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?

    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.

    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 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.

    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, 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 Qaida.
    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 Qaeda
    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 Qaeda 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 Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from

    PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the 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.

    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

    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 B-

    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

    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

    PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite
    radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our

    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

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

    PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security

    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

    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.
    Last edited by shaik786; 04-01-2003 at 12:44 AM.

  2. #2
    cereal killer dP munky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    guns dont kill people, abortion clinics kill people.

  3. #3
    Registered User TravisS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Wow, to tell you the truth this is by far one of the more flip-flopped interviews I've read/heard.

    Most of the time the "peacenik" is the un-informed one. Most of the time it's the "peacenik" that is struggling for replies, struggling for answers outside of what they've been led to believe. Most of the time the "peacenik" doesn't know what the hell they are arguing for, it's just the same repetitive garbage that everybody else is saying.

    I must admit though, I'm kinda glad I read this. I take a neutral stance in this war, I certainly don't want this war and don't think it's truly justified (for many of the very good reasons pointed out in this interview), but I support our troops and whatever their actions may be.

  4. #4
    Confused Magos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Wha? Reading that I thought it was a joke by someone. It was a real interview? LOL .
    Anyway, that read was exactly what I needed on this otherwise tiresome day.

    Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
    Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

  5. #5
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    > Reading that I thought it was a joke by someone.

    It is... The cheese eating surrender monkeys deal was lifted directly from the Simpsons.

    Jeez, first the Liechtenstein thing, now this. You guys gotta learn how to tell the jokes from the real thing.

  6. #6
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    "You guys gotta learn how to tell the jokes from the real thing."

    That's getting harder and harder these days.

  7. #7
    100 posts. i feel special
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    sounds like an excellent idea to me. we can just sell chemical and biological weapons to any country we want to annex and then invade 10 years later. given 200 years or some the us could rule the world. muhahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! (joking)
    yum, yum potatoes!!!!!

  8. #8
    cereal killer dP munky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    >>cheese eating surrender monkeys
    i heard that on the daily show just like, 2 nights ago
    guns dont kill people, abortion clinics kill people.

  9. #9
    Registered User TravisS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Hehe, maybe I should have read a little more of it. I didn't even see that far down into it

    This has good potential to be real though, the facts are in their place.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Forced moves trouble!!
    By Zishaan in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-27-2007, 06:57 PM
  2. Simple thread object model (my first post)
    By Codeplug in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-12-2004, 11:34 PM
  3. MCI CD Player
    By soutine in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-02-2001, 05:03 PM
  4. True or False Quiz (Need help)
    By Twiggy in forum C Programming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-12-2001, 04:25 AM
  5. Problems with resource files
    By Unregistered in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-31-2001, 08:45 AM