hultberg.org: Mannes blog

Explain the part about the WMD again...

I guess this is as current today as it was a few months back.

Yesterday I saw Dennis Mille on TV. He did a piece on how the liberals should stop arguing about whether there were any WMD in Iraq or not. His point being that the average American doesn't care, they are happy seeing the kids on the streets of Bagdad play and smile again.

Sure, that's a point that I can sympathise with. Saddam gone is a Good Thing. But that's not really the issue with regards to the blatant lies about the WMD's and the reasons for war, is it?

Anyway, this is damn funny:

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 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.

Iraq explained to a peacenik

Random fortune brought to you by www.fortunes.nu:

:: ()