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 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 and help 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, dad!
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My God...It all makes sense now...how foolish of me to believe the EVIL Reuplican government..Thank you Kasie...PRAISE THE ALL-POWERFUL-BUT-DOSEN'T-MESS-IN-MY-AFFAIRS-GOD you came to show us the light!
Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, just trying to point out that there are people who do agree with Bush and that there are people who don't think is evil and there are people who don't think this will be the end of civil liberties.
Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't you point out which ones you thought were excellent? There was a point made every line, after all.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Set up that strawman and knock 'im right down again | Then set him up and knock him over. | it is impressive to win logical arguments with illogical opponents. Really
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I the only one who find it ironic that Duragon is always calling people trolls, especially since he complained so much about being called a troll?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of those arguments seem over-simplified to say the least, but the pro-Bushies aren't much better in that department.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some of those arguments seem over-simplified to say the least, but the pro-Bushies aren't much better in that department.
Of course they are. Both major political parties assume that their constituents as well as their opponents are mindless fools who believe anything they read that sounds pseudo-logical.
Maybe they are generally right.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Actually yes. Inspections work much better when the nation with those weapons COOPERATES. Iraq did not and acted as though it did have weapons it was hiding. Looking at any number of now disarmed countries one can see that.
quote: 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.
Propaganda. We went to war with Iraq to get weapons of mass destruction so that we can use them ourselves...please wait while I roll my eyes...
quote: 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 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.
hohoho...that silly Bush II...hohoho. I'm not actually sure where this is going right now because it has jump around a lot. Not really any points to refute here.
quote: 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 and help make U.S. corporations richer.
So just because there are sores across the world we shouldn't deal with one of them. "we're not attacking China" WELL DUH! They're not threatening the stability of an entire region right now. In fact, they're helping to stabilize it. But that crack about Chinese slave labor being a reason we don't attack? Lets see...Iraq has lots of oil and all the Arab nations will turn down production of oil if we attack so there is asimilar economic comparison either way.
quote: 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.
Like I said.
quote: 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.
Yep. China is different. But different for a lot of reasons not stated as well.
quote: 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.
Jigga what?? That makes no sense. Just Cuban Communists are bad...this from the guy who was pres during the fall of the Soviet Union? Whatever.
And I think I see a pattern growing of people being tortured...hmmm...
quote: 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.
Once again economics is causing us not to invade China...(oh yeah and there are some other reasons but we all KNOW the MINDS of the Bush's and their evil schemes so forget those)
quote: 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.
Hey, that 1960s thing! Guess what? The same applied to China!! Who'd have guessed?
But seriously, Cuba is something completely different from Iraq and deserves an entirely new topic to discuss.
quote: 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?
Seems to me that this author, instead of showing why the US was wrong to invade Iraq, is whining about how the US hasn't solved all the world's problems yet. OK, but I'd imagine he'd (or maybe she'd) be pretty mad if we did get rid of all those dictators. Then there would be no more wars to protest against.
quote: 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.
Yeah, and he's helping a once completely corrupt government reform. Oh and he's also bringing tensions down on the Indian sub-continent as opposed to Saddam in the Middle East.
And Afghanistan...ARGHHH!
quote: 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?
Hmmm...that is interesting, but something I've never seen before.
quote: 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.
Again, the US has messed up in the past so we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. A weak argument. Oh and that idea that "Opium's just a flower" is bull. Opium is really addictive and has caused plenty of problems. If it's true that Bush did spend that money, that's bad, but Opium is more than stealing bread.
quote: 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.
Yes Saudi Arabia sucks, and I wanted to invade them but that doesn't change the fact that this is a weak argument.
This is painful and I see no end in sight. Post if you want me to discuss the last part but otherwise, I'm done.
Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was indeed painful, potemkyn. There ARE several arguments to be made against the hypothetical conversation above, but you didn't make any of the good ones -- and, in fact, appeared to miss or misunderstand most of her points.
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.
All this does is point out that the Iraq war was an unjust one, especially in light of our inability to locate WMDs. But, to be quite honest, I would not be at all surprised if they do show up right before the election – Bush has yet to convince me of his honesty, and I wouldn’t put that particular move past him.
quote: 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.
Unfortunately, this reflects an attitude that too many Americans hold today – not all, but too many. It’s dangerous.
quote: 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.
I think this just shows the ridiculous laundry list of excuses that has been coming out of the Bush Administration lately. They can’t find WMDs, so they immediately turn around and find another excuse, like they’re “stabilizing the region.” I personally think it’s become vastly more unstable since we’ve arrived.
quote: 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.
This is the one valid argument, in my opinion, for invading Iraq, but I’m not sure of how to convince myself that it was reason enough.
quote: 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 and help 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.
I think America has an unfortunate history of doing exactly that – supporting evil regimes because they somehow benefit us. Bush’s corporate background just magnifies this history.
------------------------------ I deleted the part about Cuba because you’re right, it is a separate issue.
quote: 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.
I do have reservations about the drug war in this country. That, however, is another entirely separate issue.
quote: 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.
Saudi Arabia is a very interesting issue. I think us attacking Iraq had profound effects on public opinion there, and it’s one of the reasons I think the Iraq war caused more problems than it solved.
quote: 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.
UGH. Don’t even get me started on freedom fries.
quote: Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
This is more of a philosophical question than anything, but I think that many times we’ve assumed an enemy of an enemy to be our friend, it’s come back to bite us in the @ss.
quote: 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.
Britain & Germany, WWII. I forget the exact treaty, but there was something the US didn’t want to sign because they wanted to play both sides.
quote: 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.
This hit a nerve with me because it drives me insane when Bush talks about God. He’s the President of the United States. He is not supposed to be speaking from that position in favor of any religion over another! He’s not! He can say whatever the hell he wants in church or to his kids, but as the leader of this country he has a responsibility to leave God out of it!
quote: Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
quote:Am I the only one who find it ironic that Duragon is always calling people trolls, especially since he complained so much about being called a troll?
No, JonBoy, you're not the only one...
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pot, in your second point/refutation, you totally misread it. To wit:
quote: 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.
Propaganda. We went to war with Iraq to get weapons of mass destruction so that we can use them ourselves...please wait while I roll my eyes...
The point made is not that WE went to war to use WMD, but that since we went to war because they had WMD, if they in fact had WMD, and had a history of using WMD (Kurds/Shi'ites), why didn't they use them in the war?
Now, I can think of at least one rationale that would make sense, but it would be giving Saddam a lot of credit, and I've found once you do that, you tend to be labelled things. So I won't.
posted
I think we may be missing a point on the WMD's.
Before we went to war with Iraq, nearly everyone believed that Sadam had them. The debate was not over possession, it was over how best to deal with that fact.
Our president, our congress, and most of our people at the time, felt that we needed to go in, get rid of Sadam, and clean out the WMD's. There was disagreement, but for the most part, we felt this was the best, safest course of action to deal with Iraq.
It was hillarious on the Sunday morning talk shows. Feinstein or Delay would say, "there is no proof that Sadam has WMD's." Then two minutes later, they would say "Sadam is going to use his WMD's against our troops, if we send them in there."
Now, we find out that maybe we were wrong. Really, I am very surprised that we haven't found any WMD's yet.
Still, at the time, no one seriously believed that Sadam was not a threat to the region. No one believed that he had destroyed his WMD's. Sadam had all kinds of opportunity to prove that he had gotten rid of his WMD's.
Which begs the question: "If Sadam didn't really have the WMD's, why the heck didn't he just prove it, and not lose everything like he did?"
All I can think is that he felt that he would be vulnerable if he proved to the world that he had much less power than we thought he had.
Perhaps he thought that the threats against him were from his neighbors, and not from the U.S. We had proven our lack of resolve time and again. He thought we didn't have the will to invade his country. He was almost correct.
He thought that Iran, Syria, Turkey, even Israel would see him as a sitting duck if they knew that he didn't really possess all of his reputed WMD's. He felt he needed this aura of "crazed madman with nukes and chemicals" to keep the local dogs at bay.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW, you are right, so far as it goes. Count me in as one who thought they'd find _something_, though I doubted we'd find as much as claimed.
So yes, it got politicized, but then Bush & Co. politicized the dissent... So I say it's a push, and both sides eserve some of our indignation.
However, now that the WMD haven't been so readily found, it leads us to ask why was our well-funded govt. wrong, at least in scale? Was the WMD argument a cynical (dare I say political) method of getting the people on board? After all, who knows how many Americans would have supported action if WMD wasn't made out to the argument it was?
Was our government truly mistaken, which brings forth issues of accountability, so as to avoid this in the future?
In any event my stance was always that Iraq was never such a nation, concerning human rights, WMD, al qaeda ties, as to warrant special action, particularly without UN/allied backing. There are lots of countries with horrible human rights records, attempting to make WMD, and with ties with terrorist groups (though possibly not al qaeda). That may be callous of me, but no more than going into Iraq, but seemingly not bothering to go into any other country that could meet the general criterion... Criterion that was based on no new evidence (new as in since 9/11). Rather, Cheney (or Rumsfeld?) has admitted that they basically took old evidence and saw it in the proverbial "new light":
-- In other words, because 9/11 was caused by militant wahabbist Middle Eastern group, a secular (or alternateively, Sunni) Middle Eastern nation would suddenly decide to use their weapons on us. There seems to be plenty of assumptions made in that link.
posted
The point I got from that dialogue was that it's hypocritical to invade one country you believe to be dangerous and cruel, unless you simultaneously invade ALL countries you believe to be dangerous and cruel. Particularly powerful countries you could not win against anyway.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not quite Geoff... Once you have laid out the rationale as requiring certain things, then one would assume that if any others were as valid targets by that rationale, you should act with the same urgency as in the first case. Yes, I know that no country is exactly alike another, but if we can't use the rationale to make comparisons, then what use is it beyond crass propoganda? And in that case, should we accept that, or decry it?
(That last sentence, while you no doubt know my answer, is actually meant honestly, in that if you think the former is okay, then, fair enough).
-Bok
EDIT: Looks up defn of dialogue... Ooops, thought you were replying to me, but this post still stands.
I was going to channel someone, but I'll stick with myself, I guess.
BTW, I did say NEARLY everyone, didn't I? At least I didn't say something like "anyone who was paying attention," or "anyone with at least half a brain."
That would have been rude or something. Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In real life I actually don't know one single person who said "I think Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" while America was going around claiming that.
posted
Is it just me, or could anyone else have seen that dialogue drawn up in a cartoon booklet, a la Jack Chick?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see Jon Boy has enlisted his Cabal of Pseudonyms and their disciples.
Would you mind explaining that comment, Duragon? I've used only one username here, and I really don't think that anyone on this board could be called my disciple.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with that conversation is that it's written by an anti war person who gives anti-war answers to the questions.
These 'conversations' are simply made up to make the pro war side think 'boy were we stupid', when in fact, those are not pro war answers.
Here's another 'conversation'
PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions.
PN: But I thought 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 New York.
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 terrorist 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 murderer?
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 Kuwait.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, 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 Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
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 Qaida 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 copied 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 Blix?
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 Council?
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 important?
WM: Yes.
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...
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 patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
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: You know this? How?
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 degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
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 diplomacy?
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 billions.
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, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
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.
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 all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
PN: Here... have a pretzel, instead.
pardon me, but I must cash my head into a brick wall now because that's the Nth time I've seen that.
quote: This hit a nerve with me because it drives me insane when Bush talks about God. He’s the President of the United States. He is not supposed to be speaking from that position in favor of any religion over another! He’s not! He can say whatever the hell he wants in church or to his kids, but as the leader of this country he has a responsibility to leave God out of it!
*puzzled* I don't for a moment believe that God really told Dubya anything and that if he really believes it he's a nutcase.
But I don't see how anyone, even the President, can be forbidden to have religious motives for his actions or to so much as mention God in a speech. It's possible to separate the organized machinery of religion from the organized machinery of government, but hardly possible to separate people's personal beliefs and convictions from their actions--and in blatant violation of freedom of religion to separate religious people from government posts.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but as the leader of our country he has the responsiblity to uphold freedom of religion and not cause other religions to feel oppressed. Honestly, if I were buddhist or pagan or something, hearing my President espousing all this nonsense about God would make me feel very alienated.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The missing weapons reflect a much more fundamental institutional intelligence failure.
The source of this failure does not lie in the political agenda of this administration. The Bush people are right in saying that their estimates of WMD stockpiles were no different from the conclusions of the Clinton administration. And the latter would say, if asked, that their assessment was drawn from Unscom, the U.N. weapons inspectors who operated in Iraq from 1991-98. The intelligence failure is thus ultimately traceable to Unscom, and deeply embedded in an intelligence process that in the 1990s was biased toward overestimation of threats.
I begin with a presumption that the coming weeks and months will not reveal a cache of chemical, biological, or nuclear materials buried somewhere deep in the desert. The reason is simple: After three months in which the U.S. has had every conceivable opportunity to threaten, bribe, and cajole Iraqi scientists involved in the WMD program to reveal their whereabouts, not a single one has done so.
quote:We also know that during [Gulf I], Saddam was being fed false information about the success of his forces by commanders fearful of telling the truth. Iraqi scientists had every incentive to exaggerate the extent of their activities in internal communications with the regime. This appears to have been the case with the hapless Iraqi charged with developing the toxin ricin. He told his U.S. interrogators that he was never able to produce quantities of sufficient purity and toxicity for weapons use, but nonetheless reported to Baghdad that he was managing a large, successful program.
quote:Both Unscom and U.S. intelligence were unpleasantly surprised by the extent of the Iraqi WMD programs uncovered in 1991. Thereafter, both had strong incentives not to be made fools of again. Unscom developed estimates of the extent of covert Iraqi research and stockpiles not accounted for, but whose existence could not be verified. The Clinton administration used the Unscom tallies as a baseline, and supplemented them with worst-case estimates based on intelligence it gathered. The Bush administration simply continued this process. Overestimation was passed down the line until it was taken as gospel by everyone (myself included) and used to justify the U.S. decision to go to war.
The media's focus on whether President Bush or his advisors were lying is thus totally misplaced. Most in the administration honestly believed there were significant stocks of weapons and active programs that would be found, even if they let slip a false assertion about yellowcake in Niger. Why else would Centcom have been so concerned to protect U.S. forces against possible chemical/biological attack?
quote:What we need now is not more politicized debate over specific items in presidential speeches, but a careful review of what Unscom and the intelligence community thought they knew about Iraqi programs going all the way back to the end of the 1991 war. This is being undertaken currently by David Kay, the former U.N. weapons inspector, in a closely held process. What he finds needs to come out in the open soon. What is at stake is not the credibility of one administration, but of a system designed to protect the world against weapons of mass destruction.
It certainly sounds plausible. Unfortunately, we still have to wait to see if this pans out as actually being the case.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Once you have laid out the rationale as requiring certain things, then one would assume that if any others were as valid targets by that rationale, you should act with the same urgency as in the first case.
A campaign does not take place in a single day. The purpose of our commander-in-chief, our foreign-affairs agencies, and our military, is to promote the security of America and advance its purposes on the world stage. That requires laying out priorities, making long-term plans, and thinking of long-term consequences. Intelligent leaders do NOT simply make a list of criteria for countries-we-should-invade, and then as a kneejerk reaction, invade all the countries that match the criteria. There must be purpose and planning behind every move. I'm actually rather pleased that our leaders use war sparingly, when they think it necessary and effective, rather than lashing out thoughtlessly whenever threatened. Aren't you?
As for the whole Bush-beleiving-in-God thing, GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK. We have elected a lot of Christians to lead our country over the years, from both parties. We knew they were Christians when we elected them, and we willingly accepted that fact. A president professing faith in God in NO WAY oppresses those who do not beleive in the same concept of God. If you're complaining about religious oppression over something this lame, it is clear that you have no idea what religious oppression IS. Our president believes in the Christian God, but he also praises Islam as a religion of peace, and makes no attempt to infringe on the rights of other faiths.
If your faith can be oppressed by simply HEARING an expression of a different belief by someone in authority, then you don't exactly have much of a faith, do you?
The only oppression I see here is that perpretrated by the fanatically areligious, who want to force religious people to keep their faith under wraps, or face severe consequences. In America, we believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Our leaders do us a great service by exercising those freedoms fearlessly on the public stage, and I hope to God that they keep it up.
posted
Kasie, I think Geoff is right...I can't say that I wouldn't be disturbed if the President were to praise Brahman from his bully pulpit, but I can't see how that's oppression. Would you rather Dubya made his decisions based on his religious beliefs and then didn't tell us?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, except we aren't hearing any rumblings about invading other nations... I realize they plan these things out, but I think that regarding the paucity of material evidence for this current war, the administration was somewhat reckless. And if they are going to put forth a rationale to invade country A, playing a little loose with the info, why isn't he doing it again.
Honestly, I think Iraq, for whatever reason, was a pet project of many in the administration (see PNAC), and if 9/11 hadn't happened, we would have found another way to make the war happen.
That said, I hope with stabilize Iraq sooner than later, for everyone involved.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. But it will take some time because it is rather long.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
Like I said.![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
