Baculus Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 This may have been posted a while ago, but hey, it's Friday. Source: American Patriot Friends Network http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-17-05/discussion.cgi.7.html DADDY, WHY DID WE HAVE TO ATTACK IRAQ? Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction honey. 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 Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with? 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 weapons 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 country lets its people be exploited for American 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 tortured. 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 have 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 they 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 they 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, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American 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. Q: Good night, Daddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 That's some serious propaganda Bac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 16, 2005 Author Share Posted September 16, 2005 I wouldn't call that propaganda if it bites through the State's propaganda with a measure of truth and a reminder of who we call "friends." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 No, it's not what I would call propaganda. It is rather simplistic (which makes it a good match with the presentation that's been used.) (For example, I thinkit would have been a much more accurate "debate" if it had contained Daddy, what's the difference between Iraq and China? Well, China has Weapons of Mass Destruction. But, didn't we attack Iraq because we said they had Weapons of Mass Destruction? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 No, it's not what I would call propaganda. It is rather simplistic (which makes it a good match with the presentation that's been used.) (For example, I thinkit would have been a much more accurate "debate" if it had contained Daddy, what's the difference between Iraq and China? Well, China has Weapons of Mass Destruction. But, didn't we attack Iraq because we said they had Weapons of Mass Destruction? ) :laugh: :laugh: IF Iraq really had the means to deploy WMD's, I doubt we would have invaded them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Mostly, I just think it needs to be pointed out that soon (if not already), the only member of The Axis of Evil that we invaded because of WMDs, will be the only one that didn't have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NASMTrainer Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 I wouldn't call that propaganda if it bites through the State's propaganda with a measure of truth and a reminder of who we call "friends" I understand what you are saying, the piece is brilliant, but propaganda none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 No, it's not what I would call propaganda. It is rather simplistic (which makes it a good match with the presentation that's been used.) (For example, I thinkit would have been a much more accurate "debate" if it had contained Daddy, what's the difference between Iraq and China? Well, China has Weapons of Mass Destruction. But, didn't we attack Iraq because we said they had Weapons of Mass Destruction? ) As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and in keeping with the NPT , China is indeed different from Iraq. But not according to George Bush, or 'daddy'... but according to the United Nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Mostly, I just think it needs to be pointed out that soon (if not already), the only member of The Axis of Evil that we invaded because of WMDs, will be the only one that didn't have them. Yea no one has mentioned this in the past 2 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theartofmonk Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 let it go. let what go - free speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 let it go. How is it possible for anyone following current events to "let it go"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autographcollector Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Is Monrovia a communist region?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Daddy, why did we invade Iraq? Because, my wonderful son, our country learns from its mistakes. Please go back and learn about a man named Neville Chaimberlain and a dictator named Adolph Hitler. When you are done with your history lesson come back to me and then we can talk about Iraq.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Daddy, why did we invade Iraq?Because, my wonderful son, our country learns from its mistakes. Please go back and learn about a man named Neville Chaimberlain and a dictator named Adolph Hitler. When you are done with your history lesson come back to me and then we can talk about Iraq.... :laugh: Yep, Hussen was like Hitler :laugh: You may have had an argument in the 80's when he was commiting genocide with our weapons, and we were funding his war against Iran, but to say that now? No freakin way. He was a 2-bit piss ant dictator with no military, and barely hold of his country. To compare this to a country who had over half the military in the world is a complete farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 17, 2005 Author Share Posted September 17, 2005 Is Monrovia a communist region?? Oh lord - that is a good one. Attack those who question the regime in power by making accusations. "You must be one of them...a Commie!" Ironically, it is the Commies that usually try to smear the detractors of the State. Especially ironic coming from a probable supporter of President "Bushavik," lover of Big Government "commie" programs. Daddy, why did we invade Iraq?Because, my wonderful son, our country learns from its mistakes. Please go back and learn about a man named Neville Chaimberlain and a dictator named Adolph Hitler. When you are done with your history lesson come back to me and then we can talk about Iraq.... Did someone just compare Saddam to Hitler? Ho, ho, that is a good one! Maybe I need to drag out the video footage once more of Powell and C. Rice discussing Saddam as being contained. Also, I guess this person is also saying that we backed a Hitler-like person, right? Well, that is if he is even informed enough to know of our decades-long relationship with Saddam, starting with the 50's when he first became a CIA asset, and to the war against Iran when he had our support. Also, considering WMDs was a main reason for us entering Iraq, now it is changing to that "Saddam was a Hitler-like threat to his neighbors." A Hilter-like figure that we supported. It was mentioned that this article is "simplistic" - well, there is a reason. Because so many folks seem to be unaware or misinformed on some events, it has to be simplistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 :laugh: Yep, Hussen was like Hitler :laugh:You may have had an argument in the 80's when he was commiting genocide with our weapons, and we were funding his war against Iran, but to say that now? No freakin way. He was a 2-bit piss ant dictator with no military, and barely hold of his country. To compare this to a country who had over half the military in the world is a complete farce. You champion the work of the U.N. inspectors, yet fail to recognize their own conclusions. Huseein had hidden, destroyed, sold off, or given away his WMD in order to get the sanctions removed. He had also stock-piled enormous amounts of cash, much of it stolen from the Oil-for-Food program in order to re-arm once the sanctions were removed. The Fench, Germans and Russians were already violating the sanctions with backdoor partnerships with Iraq and were already beginning to call for the sanctions to be lifted. Had we not invaded, the most-likely scenario was that the inspectors would have certified Iraq clean, the sanctions would have been lifted, and Hussein would have swiftly re-armed and become another North Korea. And the U.N. would have just stood by while this happened, while members of the Security Council encouraged and aided the effort behind closed doors. The important part thing about Hitler to study in your hsitory lesson is the illicit and illegal re-arming of Germany that took place between the two world wars. History has a way of repeating itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 17, 2005 Author Share Posted September 17, 2005 You champion the work of the U.N. inspectors, yet fail to recognize their own conclusions. Huseein had hidden, destroyed, sold off, or given away his WMD in order to get the sanctions removed. He had also stock-piled enormous amounts of cash, much of it stolen from the Oil-for-Food program in order to re-arm once the sanctions were removed. The Fench, Germans and Russians were already violating the sanctions with backdoor partnerships with Iraq and were already beginning to call for the sanctions to be lifted. A few issues: 1. On one hand, we discuss the inspectors of the U.N., who themselves had said that, after years of been unable to located the WMDs. I'd like to see your sources that discusses Saddam selling off or hiding the WMDs. On the other, when it came time for the invasion of Iraq, the U.N. was generally ignored, and basically lied to, with Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. 2. Any Oil-For-Food scandal wouldn't have been possible without U.N. involvement. Also, a certain period, it has to be questioned if the actual sanctions against Saddam were actually effective, or desirable, considering the number of nations that have WMDs as well as aggressive tendencies. We have seen fewer sanctions against some leaders or nations that were even bloodier then Saddam's regime; that is the hypocrisy mentioned in "Daddy." We have no problem with dictators as long as they are on our side. 3. American companies were also violating the Iraqi sanctions. This article discusses this issue: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101004A.shtml There are even connections between this issue and Cheney: http://www.sfbg.com/reality/04.html During Cheney's helm at Halliburton, the company dealt with some very shady and brutal leaders. Basically, it has been proven that businesses, and governments, will conduct business with whoever they see fit, as long as it increases their profit margin or gains them an advantage. Why do you think Americans have been criticising firms such as Halliburton and their subsidiaries who are willing to do business with Iraq and Iran? Folks are so quick to, often rightly, critique foreign companies, but seem to have this knee-jerk reaction to defend American companies, especially if they are connected with the administration. It's...odd. Of course, this wouldn't be an issue if we hadn't dealt with Saddam and helped him procure WMDs in the first place. Another one of our Frankensteins gone bad. Had we not invaded, the most-likely scenario was that the inspectors would have certified Iraq clean, the sanctions would have been lifted, and Hussein would have swiftly re-armed and become another North Korea. And the U.N. would have just stood by while this happened, while members of the Security Council encouraged and aided the effort behind closed doors. You seemed to have missed the irony of mentioning North Korea in this paragraph. While we are fooling around with Iraq, North Korea is definitely developing WMDs. Now, we have no idea if Saddam would have truly become another North Korea, since their nuclear program wasn't that well developed. (Even though the Bush administration claimed they were just a few years away from developing nuclear weapons.) And the issue is, even your own statements is demonstrative that Iraq was not an immediate threat, but would actually have to develop the WMD programs. You are speculating what he MAY have done, instead of being focused on the reality of what some nations are actually doing. It is amazing the amount of fantastical ideas that are coming into play when we discuss Iraq, as opposed to the "be here now" reality of the situation. We invaded Iraq on a "what-if," is the conclusion. The important part thing about Hitler to study in your hsitory lesson is the illicit and illegal re-arming of Germany that took place between the two world wars. History has a way of repeating itself. Since you brought that up, it is worth mentioning that Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was involved in a firm and company that helped with this rearment. There is a lot of material on this issue, and it is also a matter of congressional record. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html We have more to worry about China invading Taiwan or, in desperation, starting a nuclear war with the U.S., then we did about Saddam in the future. Even the Powell and Rice had mentioned that Saddam wasn't viewed as an immediate threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 You champion the work of the U.N. inspectors, yet fail to recognize their own conclusions. Huseein had hidden, destroyed, sold off, or given away his WMD in order to get the sanctions removed. He had also stock-piled enormous amounts of cash, much of it stolen from the Oil-for-Food program in order to re-arm once the sanctions were removed. The Fench, Germans and Russians were already violating the sanctions with backdoor partnerships with Iraq and were already beginning to call for the sanctions to be lifted. Had we not invaded, the most-likely scenario was that the inspectors would have certified Iraq clean, the sanctions would have been lifted, and Hussein would have swiftly re-armed and become another North Korea. And the U.N. would have just stood by while this happened, while members of the Security Council encouraged and aided the effort behind closed doors. Read Bac's post, he pretty much ripped to shreds your entire false premise. The important part thing about Hitler to study in your hsitory lesson is the illicit and illegal re-arming of Germany that took place between the two world wars. History has a way of repeating itself. Yes history does have a way of repeating itself, and maybe you should also understand the definition of correlation if you are equating Saddam to Hitler because there is none. If you want a world leader to compare Saddam to, you should look at Pinochet, he's the closest. But then again, when evil 2-bit piss ant dictators do what we tell them, they're supporting "freedom fighters" :doh: We, as a nation, have NOT learned our lesson, that much is apparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 17, 2005 Author Share Posted September 17, 2005 Spot on, Chrom - we haven't learned, and continue to make the same mistakes. Case in point, our dealing with brutal dicatorships in central Asia since we have military bases in that region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Who gives a sh!t "why" we invaded Iraq. The bottom line is Hussein is out of power and we have a long term miltary base of operations right in the "middle" of the Middle East. If we had the bend the truth a little bit in order to fight the war on terrorism, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Who gives a sh!t "why" we invaded Iraq. The bottom line is Hussein is out of power and we have a long term miltary base of operations right in the "middle" of the Middle East. If we had the bend the truth a little bit in order to fight the war on terrorism, so be it. I love your Sig BTW... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 17, 2005 Author Share Posted September 17, 2005 Who gives a sh!t "why" we invaded Iraq. The bottom line is Hussein is out of power and we have a long term miltary base of operations right in the "middle" of the Middle East. If we had the bend the truth a little bit in order to fight the war on terrorism, so be it. Obviously a lot of folks give a darn why we invaded Iraq. So much for honesty and integrity in our nation's actions, eh? Gee, so what if we "bent" the truth, as long as we did what we want, then who cares, right? I hope you don't conduct your daily life in this manner: the means to an ends does not matter. If this is how you feel about things, no wonder you support Bush, if this is the case. This is what George Washington had to say about honesty: "I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy." If we are willing to "bend" the truth about this matter, then where else are we bending the truth? If we bend the truth here, and bend the truth there, how honest of a presidential administration do we have? Are we so willing to lock-step follow anything our leaders in Washington do? Especially in the name of the War on Terror? It really sets some ugly precedents, especially if the leaders in Washington see that their citizens do not care if they aren't truthful to us. Oh, we can also see the objective behind invading Iraq - a long-term military base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 17, 2005 Author Share Posted September 17, 2005 I love your Sig BTW... It is more irony that he has his sig, talking about "liberty and justice for all," as he talks about not giving a darn about bending the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Actually, it needs to be pointed out, we had a long-term base in the middle east, before we invaded. Unfortunately, that base was in Saudi Arabia (remember them? the folks who actually were behind 9/11?). And the folks who were behind 9/11 didn't like us having a base in their country. And we always do what they want, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.