Daddy, why did we attack Iraq?

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
You think that is the only "mistake" deliberate or not , in that piece?

Probably not, but I'm not the one attacking it, or at least discounting it. If you feel it is so inaccurate, show us where and how. On the whole, I think it is a pretty perceptive look at our foreign policy.

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?

First, you're changing the subject. Second, when you ask such a loaded question, I have plenty of options besides a simple yes or no. Nonetheless, to answer your question simply, no, of course not. I didn't say otherwise, nor does this piece require taking such an extreme position.

 

[etech]

Quote

-etech-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, you're changing the subject. Second, when you ask such a loaded question, I have plenty of options besides a simple yes or no. Nonetheless, to answer your question simply, no, of course not. I didn't say otherwise, nor does this piece require taking such an extreme position.

No, that is the subject of much of that piece. paraphrased " If we use the terrible events that were happening in Iraq as part of the reason why Saddam should be removed than we must also invade China since they have a bad human rights record." Read it again. It seemed to be one of the main points and it is of course entirely wrong in that assumption.

 

[Phokus]

etech not wanting to hog all the fun = etech full of horse crap

Another personal insult like that in this forum, and you will be on a one week vacation. Please read the rules.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[Dari]

Phuz, the childish questions that were asked deserve a childish and liberal answer (which were given). Now, would you mind telling us what level you are on and what website you got this from?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Phokus
etech not wanting to hog all the fun = etech full of horse crap

Phokus, I have completely disproven that one section of that piece is a lie and that what seems to me to be the main thrust of it is based on the fallacy that the US should use cookie-cutter diplomancy.

That's two. Can you prove those finding of mine wrong? If not than you should not make posts such as you did.


BTW, under our fair and impartial moderation you should shortly be getting a pm from a mod warning you against personal attacks. Now I won't bother to inform the mods because I'm not that sort of low life, scum sucking weasel that has to go crying to them over a few words from someone like you. I'm sure they will discover your personal attack on their own and give you a warning for breaking the rules of this forum.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Phuz
/Copy
/Paste


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.

WTF did you get this crap from?

 

[Phokus]

Etech is sure overly emotional!

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Phuz
/Copy
/Paste


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.

WTF did you get this crap from?

It's a well known fact that George Bush is a "Born again" christian. While I dont think it was intended to be taken literally, but it's good satire .

 

[BOBDN]

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.

Afghanistan, the Taliban and the United States

Your other statemtent about welfare and crime is just too lucicrous to answer.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Phuz
/Copy
/Paste


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.

WTF did you get this crap from?

It's a well known fact that George Bush is a "Born again" christian. While I dont think it was intended to be taken literally, but it's good satire .

the whole Q&A Affair is satirical.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Phuz
/Copy
/Paste


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.

WTF did you get this crap from?

It's a well known fact that George Bush is a "Born again" christian. While I dont think it was intended to be taken literally, but it's good satire .

the whole Q&A Affair is satirical.

Perhaps, but it does do a good job making fun of the circular logic of your average warmonger

 

[Phuz]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Phuz
/Copy
/Paste


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.

WTF did you get this crap from?

It's a well known fact that George Bush is a "Born again" christian. While I dont think it was intended to be taken literally, but it's good satire .

the whole Q&A Affair is satirical.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Zrom999]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Phuz
/Copy
/Paste


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.

WTF did you get this crap from?

It's a well known fact that George Bush is a "Born again" christian. While I dont think it was intended to be taken literally, but it's good satire .

That is right it is a satire. It is someone trying to explain to a kid, in the most simple way, american foreign politics. Some person, who will go unmentioned and who is quick to nitpick, never got to the end of the first post otherwise that person would have seen the big picture. I read through it, there were some things I thought weren't completely true, but when I got to the end I saw the whole point. You think a parent can properly explain to a kid who is asking too many questions the complete social and political motivations behind the US's every diplomatic action or are they going to give quick simple answers so the kid would just shut up? I'm surprised that someone didn't demand that phuz prove that God speaks directly to Bush.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Phokus
etech not wanting to hog all the fun = etech full of horse crap

Phokus, I have completely disproven that one section of that piece is a lie and that what seems to me to be the main thrust of it is based on the fallacy that the US should use cookie-cutter diplomancy.

That's two. Can you prove those finding of mine wrong? If not than you should not make posts such as you did.


BTW, under our fair and impartial moderation you should shortly be getting a pm from a mod warning you against personal attacks. Now I won't bother to inform the mods because I'm not that sort of low life, scum sucking weasel that has to go crying to them over a few words from someone like you. I'm sure they will discover your personal attack on their own and give you a warning for breaking the rules of this forum.

You disproved nothing. You stated your opinion without back up, which by the way, you always require of others.

 

[LunarRay]

Since the Cuban missle crisis in '62 I don't think the US has had a clear and convincing danger to its population until the '01 incidents. I see little difference between having nukes in Cuba poised to launch and similar types of destruction deliverable by human devices. The objective of killing of civilian population either way seems a threat worth preempting.

This is the story that Daddy ought to have told his son and the one Bush should have told as well. All the WMD issue does is raise the bar for justification. If we don't find WMD it is inferred the threat did not exist. The Nuts who are the Human Devices surely do. The delivery methods, therefore, exist and our defences againt them are problematic at best. The only reasonable means of reducing the threat is to eliminate the package or make it undeliverable.

Wouldn't it have sounded better for Bush to have said before the invasion and since?
"What we embark on today will forever be debated and it should. This is a bold step but one, as president, I alone will carry the burden of." "To this end I have ordered the Joint Chief's to effect Iraqi Freedom." "In so doing I put in harm's way the lives of America's Military as well as innocent foreign civilians whose only complicity is their residency." "We will not rest at any border adhere to any restraint or comply with any request until I am certain the potential against the citizens of this country has been extinguished." "We will search every inch and turn every rock untill we find the WMD and the human carriers of distruction." "I don't know what we'll find, when or even where we'll find them but, not to start is unthinkable." "In addition, I will regard any terrorist attack on any US citizen, land or property as an attack by the nation supporting them on the United States. Let that be warning enough."

I couldn't argue to much with that...

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Phokus

etech not wanting to hog all the fun = etech full of horse crap

Still indulging in the latest recreational drug of choice, I see. Such imaginative, intellectual discourse you bless us with, Phokus.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Since the Cuban missle crisis in '62 I don't think the US has had a clear and convincing danger to its population until the '01 incidents. I see little difference between having nukes in Cuba poised to launch and similar types of destruction deliverable by human devices. The objective of killing of civilian population either way seems a threat worth preempting.

This is the story that Daddy ought to have told his son and the one Bush should have told as well. All the WMD issue does is raise the bar for justification. If we don't find WMD it is inferred the threat did not exist. The Nuts who are the Human Devices surely do. The delivery methods, therefore, exist and our defences againt them are problematic at best. The only reasonable means of reducing the threat is to eliminate the package or make it undeliverable.

Wouldn't it have sounded better for Bush to have said before the invasion and since?
"What we embark on today will forever be debated and it should. This is a bold step but one, as president, I alone will carry the burden of." "To this end I have ordered the Joint Chief's to effect Iraqi Freedom." "In so doing I put in harm's way the lives of America's Military as well as innocent foreign civilians whose only complicity is their residency." "We will not rest at any border adhere to any restraint or comply with any request until I am certain the potential against the citizens of this country has been extinguished." "We will search every inch and turn every rock untill we find the WMD and the human carriers of distruction." "I don't know what we'll find, when or even where we'll find them but, not to start is unthinkable." "In addition, I will regard any terrorist attack on any US citizen, land or property as an attack by the nation supporting them on the United States. Let that be warning enough."

I couldn't argue to much with that...

But that ain't what the man said.

 

[LunarRay]

Bob,
But that ain't what the man said.


And that's the problem.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
Phokus, I have completely disproven that one section of that piece is a lie

No, you made an unsupported assertion that one section is inaccurate. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt since it is immaterial to the overall insight of the piece. For the record, however, you didn't "disprove" anything.

and that what seems to me to be the main thrust of it is based on the fallacy that the US should use cookie-cutter diplomancy.

No, not really. There is a whole spectrum of possible foreign policies between our strategies to date and your "cookie-cutter" diplomacy. You jumped on the extreme position because it is easy to discredit. This is a form of straw man attack.

The real thrust of this parable is that the United States is wildly inconsistent in it's foreign policy, ignoring or even endorsing atrocities in our "friends" and business partners while condemning and sometimes attacking others for lesser infractions. A reasoned, moderate conclusion is that we should show more integrity, consistency, and concern for human rights; less hypocrisy and unrestrained opportunistic greed. You twisted this to "exact same foreign policy strategy", an extreme position not supported by the story.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Phokus
etech not wanting to hog all the fun = etech full of horse crap

Phokus, I have completely disproven that one section of that piece is a lie and that what seems to me to be the main thrust of it is based on the fallacy that the US should use cookie-cutter diplomancy.

That's two. Can you prove those finding of mine wrong? If not than you should not make posts such as you did.


BTW, under our fair and impartial moderation you should shortly be getting a pm from a mod warning you against personal attacks. Now I won't bother to inform the mods because I'm not that sort of low life, scum sucking weasel that has to go crying to them over a few words from someone like you. I'm sure they will discover your personal attack on their own and give you a warning for breaking the rules of this forum.

You disproved nothing. You stated your opinion without back up, which by the way, you always require of others.

I worry about the state of our school systems. It seems that reading comprehension is not taught anymore.

Ok kids, try to follow.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The US gave money to NGOs to aid the people dying because of famine and drought. They did NOT give it to the Taliban. What was posted is wrong and I supported it by a link to a governmental web site which is a hell of a lot more than any of you have done. Now show some proof that it is correct or concede the point.

Next, explain why the US should use a cookie-cutter approach to foreign relations.


HJD1
You are forgetting the first attempt to bring down the WTC's.

Zrom999
1) You shouldn't start out by lying to kids,
2) You don't really believe that any parent ever had that as a real conversation with their kid do you? Please tell me that you don't. I'm loosing faith quickly in our school system and that would just be another nail in the coffin of rational thought.

 

[LunarRay]

Etech,
HJD1
You are forgetting the first attempt to bring down the WTC's

Well... true. I'm not on a Bush v Clinton crusade in my suggested speech that Bush should have given. I think something along the lines I proffered would have recognized the potential we are now experiencing. This then causes me to wonder .... why would Bush be so firm in his feeling about WMD and risk what his staff surely would have considered in developing the 'official' positions. Something is not fitting in this puzzle... I think.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Phokus
etech not wanting to hog all the fun = etech full of horse crap

Phokus, I have completely disproven that one section of that piece is a lie and that what seems to me to be the main thrust of it is based on the fallacy that the US should use cookie-cutter diplomancy.

That's two. Can you prove those finding of mine wrong? If not than you should not make posts such as you did.


BTW, under our fair and impartial moderation you should shortly be getting a pm from a mod warning you against personal attacks. Now I won't bother to inform the mods because I'm not that sort of low life, scum sucking weasel that has to go crying to them over a few words from someone like you. I'm sure they will discover your personal attack on their own and give you a warning for breaking the rules of this forum.

You disproved nothing. You stated your opinion without back up, which by the way, you always require of others.

I worry about the state of our school systems. It seems that reading comprehension is not taught anymore.

Ok kids, try to follow.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The US gave money to NGOs to aid the people dying because of famine and drought. They did NOT give it to the Taliban. What was posted is wrong and I supported it by a link to a governmental web site which is a hell of a lot more than any of you have done. Now show some proof that it is correct or concede the point.

Next, explain why the US should use a cookie-cutter approach to foreign relations.


HJD1
You are forgetting the first attempt to bring down the WTC's.

Zrom999
1) You shouldn't start out by lying to kids,
2) You don't really believe that any parent ever had that as a real conversation with their kid do you? Please tell me that you don't. I'm loosing faith quickly in our school system and that would just be another nail in the coffin of rational thought.

etech

You're condescending attitude is becoming annoying. Just because someone doesn't agree with your version of events doesn't mean their reading skills are lacking. Perhaps they're having a hard time swallowing the pill you're giving them.

The USA gave money to NGOs to aid Afghanistan? Did the money go to Afghanistan? Was the Taliban ruling Afghanistan at the time? Does the Bush administration support a policy of non-governmental entities providing aid in lieu of government aid? You bet your A$$ it does. So allowing aid to flow into Afghanistan while the Taliban ruled the nation was tantamount to aiding the Taliban, wouldn't you agree?

For instance, what would you be saying if say..........the French had provided aid to Afghanistan through NGOs during the Taliban's rule? :Q

Excuses, excuses. I'm tired of the excuses people make for the Bush administration. They change their story to fit the circumstances. Makes them look disingenuous. No credibility.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Why did we attack Iraq ?
Because Dubya saw a Ronnie Reagan Western Movie where the Cowboy's with White Hats beat the bad guys.

 

[etech]

BOBDN

etech

You're condescending attitude is becoming annoying. Just because someone doesn't agree with your version of events doesn't mean their reading skills are lacking. Perhaps they're having a hard time swallowing the pill you're giving them.

The USA gave money to NGOs to aid Afghanistan? Did the money go to Afghanistan? Was the Taliban ruling Afghanistan at the time? Does the Bush administration support a policy of non-governmental entities providing aid in lieu of government aid? You bet your A$$ it does. So allowing aid to flow into Afghanistan while the Taliban ruled the nation was tantamount to aiding the Taliban, wouldn't you agree?

For instance, what would you be saying if say..........the French had provided aid to Afghanistan through NGOs during the Taliban's rule?

Excuses, excuses. I'm tired of the excuses people make for the Bush administration. They change their story to fit the circumstances. Makes them look disingenuous. No credibility.

If you had bothered to read the links and knew what was happening in Afghanistan at that time than perhaps you would not have a reason to be annoyed.

You are trying to equate the humanitarian aid to Afghanistan with aid to the Taliban.

Text: 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."

Now why was the US trying to help the Afghan people?
Taliban tanks and artillery fire on Buddhas
"...
The Taliban's obsession with implementing their Islamic edicts comes at a time when more than a million of the country's 22 million people face starvation. For the past few weeks the Taliban, who have banned television pictures and photography, have allowed foreign cameramen to film the plight of more than 100,000 starving and freezing refugees in Herat in western Afghanistan. The pictures have been accompanied by appeals for aid.

Some 300 people, mostly children, have died in Herat. About 300,000 refugees are scattered around the country, with 150,000 more recently arriving in neighbouring Pakistan. Many Afghan farmers are selling their daughters to stay alive. Western countries are unlikely to respond to appeals for aid until the Taliban curb their excesses.
..."

Perhaps in your spin you would rather that the US not aided those people since in your mind it could be construed as "helping the Taliban" even though Powell said it would bypass them. Perhaps you would rather the US just let them starve?

I'm sure France aided the people of Afghanistan some, I can't find any specific references but it is clear that even before 9/11 the US was doing the most for them.

 

[Syringer]

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.

Checkmate.