New Trend Magazine (

[Biggest Islamic web site in the U.S.]
P.O. Box 356, Kingsville, MD 21087.
Phone: 410-435-5000.

Disclaimer: Views expressed are not necessarily shared by editorial committee.
Responses (positive or negative) up to 250 words are welcome.
Names will be withheld on request.

Author Unknown 

PN: Why did you say we are we 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 

PN: But I thought that the U.S., and 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 

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 

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 Bin Laden 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 

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 PLAGIARIZED 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 inspectors... 

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the 
chief weapons inspector, Hans 

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 


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 

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 

WM: I never said that. 

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading 

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: Catch-22! if we can't find them, that just 
means they're hidden? How do 
we know when they are destroyed? How do we know 
they're hidden now? 

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 

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance 
that such weapons exist, even 
when all evidence points to the contrary, we must 

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 

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 

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, fascism in airports, 
and the Patriot Act? Don't 
these change the way we live? 

WM: I thought you had questions about 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 

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do 
something, such as find a 
peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to 

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 

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 

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto. 

PN: In what 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. 

2003-05-13 Tue 18:32ct