всем, кто знает английский !

A WARMONGER (WM) EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENICK (PN)

WM: we are invading Iraq because it is violation of Security Council resolution 1441. A country can not be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions !

PN: but i though many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more Security Council resolutions that Iraq.

WM: well, it's not about UN resolutions ! the main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first of a smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: mushroom cloud ? but i thought weapons inspectors said that Iraq has no nuclear weapons.

WM: yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue !

PN: but i though Iraq did not have any long-range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

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

PN: but couldn’t virtually any country sell chemical or biological weapons materials ? we sold quite a bit to Iraq in the 80s ourselves, didn't we ?

WM: that's ancient history ! look, Saddam 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 murder !!!

PN: so, 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 who launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait !!!

PN: a pre-emptive first strike sounds bad. but didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about it and green-light the invasion of Kuwait ?

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

PN: Osama Bin Laden ? wasn't that the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him ???

WM: actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama on the tapes. but the lessons from the tape is still the same: they could be easily be a partnership between Al-Quaeda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein, unless we act !

PN: is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel ?

WM: you are missing the point by just focusing on the tape ! Powell presented a very strong case against Iraq.

PN: he did ?

WM: yes ! he showed satellite pictures if 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 Kurdish opposition ?

WM: and a British intelligence report...

PN: didn’t that turn out to be copied from 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 inspectors...

PN: wasn't that 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. 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 irrelevant debating society !

PN: so, the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council ?

WM: yes, absolutely ! unless it rules against us ! 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 give them tens of billions of dollars.

WM: nevertheless, they might be willing now.

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

WM: current public is irrelevant ! the majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions. i mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. this is all about being a patriot ! that's the bottom line.

PN: so, if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriots any more ?

WM: I’ve never said that !

PN: ok. so, speaking about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, if there is a small chance that they exist, should we invade !

WM: exactly !!!

PN: but North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological AND nuclear weapons, AND long enough range missiles that can reach our coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into sea of fire.

WM: well, 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 indefinitely. Iraq has been deceiving, delaying, denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions of dollars !

PN: but I thought war would cost us tens of billions of dollars !

WM: yes, but it is not about money, it is all about our 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 of our life. once we do that, terrorist 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 they actually change the way we live ?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq, not US !!!

PN: I do. So, why do we invading Iraq again ?

WM: for the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called 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 the “world” I meant United Nations !

PN: so, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council ?

WM: well, I meant the majority of the Security Council !

PN: so, we do have the obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council ???

WM: well… there could be an unreasonable veto. In which case we have an obligation to ignore the veto !

PN: and the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all ?

WM: well, then we have an obligation to ignore the damn Security Council.

PN: that makes no sense. You have just contradicted yourself !

WM: FINE ! if you love Iraq so much, you should f*cking move there !!! or may be France, with the all other gay cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It’s time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that !

PN: I give up :rolleyes !

ЗЫ: вот из-за этой фуйни мне зделали предупреждение и чуть ли не забанили из американского форума по рейвен шилду гыыыы....