• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Daddy, why did we attack Iraq?

Phuz

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2000
4,349
0
0
/Copy
/Paste

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?

A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?

A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?

A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?

A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?

A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those wea! pons our government said they did.

A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?

A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?

A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?

A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a coun! try lets its people be exploited for Americ an corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?

A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?

A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?

A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?

A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?

A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?

A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortu! red.

Q: Like in Iraq?

A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?

A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?

A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?

A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.

A: Well, anyway, they also don't h! ave freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?

A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?

A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United
States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?

A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?

A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?

A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?

A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?

A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?

A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?

A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did hey chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?

A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?

A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?

A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if hey cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?

A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?

A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?

A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?

A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.

A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.

A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?

A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?

A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.

A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?

A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?

A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?

A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French Fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?

A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?

A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?

A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?

A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?

A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?

A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?

A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time all the better.

Q: Why?

A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side anyon! e who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?

A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?

A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head.

A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works, now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Good night, Daddy.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Stop telling facts!!


:D
Facts?

This could be fun.

Just one to start, I don't want to hog all of the fun for myself.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?

A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Powell Reveals $43 Million in New Aid to Afghans

"...
We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations. We provide our aid to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's warring factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. We hope the Taliban will act on a number of fundamental issues that separate us: their support for terrorism; their violation of internationally recognized human rights standards, especially their treatment of women and girls; and their refusal to resolve Afghanistan's civil war through a negotiated settlement.

..."
 

Tal

Golden Member
Jun 29, 2001
1,832
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Stop telling facts!!


:D
Facts?

This could be fun.

Just one to start, I don't want to hog all of the fun for myself.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?

A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Powell Reveals $43 Million in New Aid to Afghans

"...
We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations. We provide our aid to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's warring factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. We hope the Taliban will act on a number of fundamental issues that separate us: their support for terrorism; their violation of internationally recognized human rights standards, especially their treatment of women and girls; and their refusal to resolve Afghanistan's civil war through a negotiated settlement.

..."
Quit it Etech. You're gonna ruin the bedtime fairy tale.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: CrazyPerson
so when are you going to have this published
You actually think he wrote that and didn't copy and paste without attribution.

 

CrazyPerson

Platinum Member
Jan 15, 2003
2,161
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: CrazyPerson
so when are you going to have this published
You actually think he wrote that and didn't copy and paste without attribution.

You actually think I wrote that and didn't copy and paste without attribution.

[/quote]
 

Phuz

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2000
4,349
0
0
Hey etech, you had a beef with only one thing? Come on, try and shoot down some more.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Phuz
Hey etech, you had a beef with only one thing? Come on, try and shoot down some more.
First, I would like to know what site you copied it from and why you didn't give a link?

Besides, I already said I didn't want to hog all of the fun, but I'll give you a hint.

"Simplistic cookie cutter diplomancy"

PS, what is your reply to the fact being wrong that I proved? Why did they find it necessary to lie?








 

Tal

Golden Member
Jun 29, 2001
1,832
0
0
Originally posted by: Phuz
Hey etech, you had a beef with only one thing? Come on, try and shoot down some more.
One was enough. j00=0wn3d
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Tal
Originally posted by: Phuz
Hey etech, you had a beef with only one thing? Come on, try and shoot down some more.
One was enough. j00=0wn3d
I once found a word misspelled in a book once, no really.

Psst, we did fund these guys in the past.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: Tal
Originally posted by: Phuz
Hey etech, you had a beef with only one thing? Come on, try and shoot down some more.
One was enough. j00=0wn3d
I once found a word misspelled in a book once, no really.

Psst, we did fund these guys in the past.
The Taliban?, got a reference to that? Remember, the Taliban was not formed until 1994.

A misspelled word is a mistake, putting in a deliberately misleading passage does not seem to be of the same magnitude.

 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,941
4
0
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?

A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
China tortures it's own people? Because they have the death penalty towards political dissidents? To the Chinese, being against the collective is the worst of crime... but that doesn't make it any worst than say, locking people up for life for 3 strikes for shop lifting.

And slave wages? Maybe compared to the US, but those workers are working quite comfortably in China.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: Tal
Originally posted by: Phuz
Hey etech, you had a beef with only one thing? Come on, try and shoot down some more.
One was enough. j00=0wn3d
I once found a word misspelled in a book once, no really.

Psst, we did fund these guys in the past.
The Taliban?, got a reference to that? Remember, the Taliban was not formed until 1994.

A misspelled word is a mistake, putting in a deliberately misleading passage does not seem to be of the same magnitude.

We funded the same people via the CIA in the 80's who later formed the Taliban. No I did not bother to link it, but I believe you know that anyway. You certainly know we aided Bin Laden.

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Hayabusarider

We funded the same people via the CIA in the 80's who later formed the Taliban. No I did not bother to link it, but I believe you know that anyway. You certainly know we aided Bin Laden.
The US government also give welfare to people who later commit crimes, does that mean the US government funded their criminal activities?

Aided bin Laden or aided the Mujahadeen of which he was a member. Do you see any distinction between the two?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
What I see etech is that countries who try to manipulate others often get bit in the azz later. It happens to the French, the Russians, and to us. We could go into South America, or CIA in Iran, but I am not interested about making this a huge issue. I am waiting to see what happens with the Kurds in the next 10 years or so. Nobody knows, but we are going to find out.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
What I see etech is that countries who try to manipulate others often get bit in the azz later. It happens to the French, the Russians, and to us. We could go into South America, or CIA in Iran, but I am not interested about making this a huge issue. I am waiting to see what happens with the Kurds in the next 10 years or so. Nobody knows, but we are going to find out.
"The US government also give welfare to people who later commit crimes, does that mean the US government funded their criminal activities?

Aided bin Laden or aided the Mujahadeen of which he was a member. Do you see any distinction between the two?"

I seem to be running into people today that cannot answer a question directly. Would you care to try again on the two that I posted above?

 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
The US did support the Taliban.
The US had interest in building a pipeline that would run from the Caspian Sea region through Afghanistan to the Indian subcontinent. The US saw the Taliban as a source of stability in Afghanistan during the 1990s. They believed the Taliban would be the victors in the conflict taking place there so the US wanted them on their side so for much of the 1990s the United States supported the Taliban?s rise to power, both by encouraging the involvement of US oil companies, and by implicitly tolerating Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two of its key regional allies, in their direct financial and military support for the Taliban.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Zrom999
The US did support the Taliban.
The US had interest in building a pipeline that would run from the Caspian Sea region through Afghanistan to the Indian subcontinent. The US saw the Taliban as a source of stability in Afghanistan during the 1990s. They believed the Taliban would be the victors in the conflict taking place there so the US wanted them on their side so for much of the 1990s the United States supported the Taliban?s rise to power, both by encouraging the involvement of US oil companies, and by implicitly tolerating Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two of its key regional allies, in their direct financial and military support for the Taliban.
By support you mean we didn't take active action against them.

Well, isn't that what many of you want. The US left them alone and did not interfere with them until they started supporting Al-Queda and would not extradite the criminals hiding in their country.

You are going to have to make your mind up. Either you want the US to be isolationist and not interfere with countries like the 90's Afghanistan or the US is going to have to be involved. Which is it?

You can't have it both ways.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
What I see etech is that countries who try to manipulate others often get bit in the azz later. It happens to the French, the Russians, and to us. We could go into South America, or CIA in Iran, but I am not interested about making this a huge issue. I am waiting to see what happens with the Kurds in the next 10 years or so. Nobody knows, but we are going to find out.
"The US government also give welfare to people who later commit crimes, does that mean the US government funded their criminal activities?

Aided bin Laden or aided the Mujahadeen of which he was a member. Do you see any distinction between the two?"

I seem to be running into people today that cannot answer a question directly. Would you care to try again on the two that I posted above?
Sure, I will reply, but I will not tolerate attitude. When I become rude to you, then you may start. If you do otherwise, I will simply ignore you as I would any other.

The analogy breaks down because the US does not pay people on welfare to commit violent acts. We funded and aided people like Saddam and Bin Laden for our own purposes to do violence. When you do this, you risk it coming around and biting you.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
C'mon, that's pretty lame. You don't like the valid points it raises, so you dismiss the whole piece based on one nit. Can we hold you to the same standard?

Originally posted by: etech

First, I would like to know what site you copied it from and why you didn't give a link?
Interesting to know, but irrelevant to the value of the piece.

Besides, I already said I didn't want to hog all of the fun, but I'll give you a hint.

"Simplistic cookie cutter diplomancy"
Of course it's simplistic. There's no way one could explore all of the intricacies of foreign relations in a thousand posts, let alone one. That doesn't invalidate the fundamental insight this offers. Our foreign policy is often hypocritical, misguided, and fatal to innocent people who live on the wrong side of an arbitrary border. Phuz's post captures that quite nicely.

PS, what is your reply to the fact being wrong that I proved?
Immaterial, remove it. It's unfortunate that the author didn't do his or her homework more carefully, but one mistake doesn't refute the whole thing. It's a drop in the bucket; the remainder stands up just fine without it.

Why did they find it necessary to lie?
What's the difference between a lie and a mistake? Is every misstatement, every exaggeration, every misunderstanding a lie?

-----
Phuz, don't know where you found this, but thanks for posting it. Can you provide a credit? I intend to forward it to many people, and I'd like to attribute it to its author.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
"The US government also give welfare to people who later commit crimes, does that mean the US government funded their criminal activities?

Aided bin Laden or aided the Mujahadeen of which he was a member. Do you see any distinction between the two?"


Welfare is a bribe of insufficient influence. As in the issue with the Taliban. Increase the $ and both will adhere.

If you take the old womans arm and help the poor soul across the street does not the other arm go as well?
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Hayabusarider

The analogy breaks down because the US does not pay people on welfare to commit violent acts. We funded and aided people like Saddam and Bin Laden for our own purposes to do violence. When you do this, you risk it coming around and biting you.
Has bin Laden ever indicated in any way that his fight with the US is because we aided the Afghani people in their fight against the communists?

As I said before, which way do you want it, isolationist or involved? If the US is involved than mistakes will be made, no one or no country is perfect but compared to the price that would be paid for being isolationist, I prefer involved. You?


Bowfinger
C'mon, that's pretty lame. You don't like the valid points it raises, so you dismiss the whole piece based on one nit. Can we hold you to the same standard?
You think that is the only "mistake" deliberate or not , in that piece?

Bowfinger, a question for you. Should the US use the exact same foreign policy strategy for every country in the world while ignoring reasons as to why a policy for one might be wrong for another? Yes or no?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY