• 05-31-2004, 09:23 PM
    RGA
    How to explain Iraq to your child
    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 thoseweapons, 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.
  • 06-01-2004, 03:35 PM
    Chris
    That's a very opinionated child there - how old is he/she?
  • 06-01-2004, 05:24 PM
    RGA
    These kids are just smarter these days - let's hope.
  • 06-01-2004, 06:54 PM
    karl k
    Oh, ooooohhhhh, oh, ahhhhhhh!!!
    I need a cigarette!


    It's alot like the English language... full of rules... and exceptions. Maybe this is all about a lack of communication. Others just don't understand rules and exceptions and when they apply!


    Yippy kiya! :)
  • 06-02-2004, 10:27 AM
    piece-it pete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
    A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey.

    Pete answer (pa): Many reasons, though largely because he was a threat to regional stability in a part of the world that is vital to the well being of most people worldwide. The tool he gave us to invade was his refusal to abide by the terms of his earlier defeat, among them accounting for & destroying weapons of mass destruction.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
    A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

    pa: Well one could say that the shell used a couple of weeks ago ended that issue. But overall the fact is it looks like we, along with the rest of the world, including France, Germany, Russia, Canada, and the UN, were mislead by our Iraqi contacts to get us to invade sooner. We KNOW from his own records he had them.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
    A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

    N/A

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    ahem. the warhead?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
    A: To use them in a war, silly.

    pa: It was no secret he emulated Hitler and had plans to "unify" the Middle East.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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 thoseweapons, so
    they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

    pa: His Generals decided they'd rather have a US lead Iraq vs. a radioactive wasteland.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    N/A

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: You may be right. But that doesn't change the main reasons we invaded.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: already addressed.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: already addressed.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: Absolutely yes. However, China is not an immediate threat.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: See above. However, it is a free market. The Chinese are flocking to the cities to work in sweatshops because it is much better than the rice paddies, were they could stay if they wished. This is the first step to industrialisation.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: To control the majority of people, to terrorise them into submission. I suggest you research the Nazi SS (remember, Saddam loved Hitler) and the Russian KGB (Hilter admired Stalin).

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
    A: I told you, China is different.

    pa: Yes, but to a lesser degree.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: China is trying to join the world community. We believe that by letting them in in steps, IE they do one little thing, we give a little, we can coax them into respectablity. It appears to be working.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
    A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

    pa: Yes, they are. They will tell you they want equality for all, just to replace the current rich with themselves. We hope that eventually the so-called Communists in China will fall. I say so-called because they are currently a dictatorship, communism in name only.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: Well they're better than some, worse than others. Castro (their dictator) because friends with our mortal enemy, the USSR, and allowed them to place Nukes there.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: Like in Iraq?
    A: Exactly.

    pa: Well, yes & no. The Russians could have started WW3 & killed millions & millions. In Iraq, if Saddam would have been able to carry out his plans for a "Pax Saddam" [pete note: now THAT would have been a hell of a "peace"!] the world economy would be thrown into turmoil leading directly to the deaths of AT LEAST hundreds of thousands of poor worldwide, and much of the current middle class would become poor again. Interestingly, the US and most 1st world countries like Germany & Canada would survive largely OK. The 2nd & 3rd world countries would bear the brunt. So the poor would bear the actual deaths, with us taking an economic hit.

    Another senario is that as Saddam became more & more insane his WMD would end up in even worse hands, like those who blew down our buildings.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: And like in China, too?
    A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand,
    is not.

    pa: Somewhat. However, China appears to be trying to be good.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    This question would not have come up. However: pa: Communism has proven to be a miserable failure.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: Any money a dictatorship or communism makes goes into the pockets of it's rulers. It does not help the masses.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: I didn't think I was being one.
    A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

    N/A

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    I don't see how this follows. However: pa: Every society has its lunatics & misguided people. Some more than others.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: Ditto.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: Pakistan is currently our ally.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
    A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

    I never would say that a ruler is "illlegitimate". However: pa: “Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests.” - Benjamin Disraeli

    Honey [I'm talking to a kid here] : It's a cold, hard world where bad people are the rule, and sometimes we have to take what we can get. It's not perfect, but we will not find perfection here. Musharraf is currently working with us. Without him, many more of our soldiers will die. Plus, we have an oppretunity to help the Pakistanis. An election will be held there soon. It might work, it might not, but it wouldn't happen at all if we weren't involved.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    I don't say this (illegitimate).

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
    A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

    pa: The orginisation that is responsible for 9-11 was working openly in Afganistan with their direct consent. This was the first step in destroying, or at least controlling, Al Qida.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: Ditto. And they have hit our ships & embassies as well.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
    A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of
    the Taliban.

    See above.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: ditto

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: ditto

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: Fighting drugs?
    A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium
    poppies.

    ditto

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    ditto

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: Not exactly. Heroin hurts ALOT of people. This still does not make it right.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: Yes.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
    A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

    pa: Yes.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: None.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: It is.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: ditto

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: Who trained them?
    A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

    ditto

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
    A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad
    man.

    pa: Yes. However, the Sauds kicked him out.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: ditto

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: ditto, except it is not like us.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: Yes. We are having a minor difference with them, but they let us use their bases for invasion.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: No. The powerful there had deep financial ties to Saddam, and since WW2 have not had to make hard decisions. They are also very controlled, and have been told since before your age that war is always wrong, even if in self protection.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: ditto.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
    A: Well, yeah. For a while.

    ditto

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    ditto

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: Why did that make him our friend?
    A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

    pa: It was a balance of power issue, the same reasons we had to depose Saddam now.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: Yes.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our
    friend?
    A: Most of the time, yes.

    pa: Sometimes, depending on what our interests are.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    pa: Sometimes. See above. [Both China & Russia are HEAVILY involved in weapons sales, as is Germany]

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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?

    pa: There are many reasons. Sometime mutual protection is necessary because our enemies are powerful. Sometimes we believe the enemy will continue. Sometimes, to contradict Disreali, and sometimes logic, you fight because they ARE your friend.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
    A: Yes.

    pa: Would not come up in this context. How patently absurd.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

    See above.

    Pete
  • 06-04-2004, 09:25 PM
    trollgirl
    Thanks, RGA, that was priceless...
    Pete, how LONG did you work on that post? My eyes glazed over...

    Laz
  • 06-06-2004, 07:59 PM
    woodman
    Pete:
    I can hardly believe that you spent all of that time trying to rebut what I found to be a very concise, to the point (albeit tongue-in-cheek) "explanation" of world affairs, put into language that most any child of reasonable intelligence would understand. Why would you do so? Doesn't it bother you even a little that there's so much hypocrisy going on in world affairs? Over the course of decades, we've supported all sorts of "evil-doers" until we decided that we didn't want to support them any longer ... then, more often than not, they became our "enemy". What a sham! In fact, to quote Woody Allen from the film "Bananas" .... "what a mockery of a hoax of two shams of a mockery" or something like that.

    Did you go to all that trouble because you felt that the "explanation" made Dubya's decisions look as imbecilic (to a child or anyone else) as they actually were?
  • 06-06-2004, 10:08 PM
    trollgirl
    Well said, Woodman!
    Pete must have come here for an Argument, the full half-hour...

    Laz
  • 06-07-2004, 11:53 AM
    piece-it pete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by woodman
    Pete:
    I can hardly believe that you spent all of that time trying to rebut what I found to be a very concise, to the point (albeit tongue-in-cheek) "explanation" of world affairs, put into language that most any child of reasonable intelligence would understand. Why would you do so? Doesn't it bother you even a little that there's so much hypocrisy going on in world affairs? Over the course of decades, we've supported all sorts of "evil-doers" until we decided that we didn't want to support them any longer ... then, more often than not, they became our "enemy". What a sham! In fact, to quote Woody Allen from the film "Bananas" .... "what a mockery of a hoax of two shams of a mockery" or something like that.

    Did you go to all that trouble because you felt that the "explanation" made Dubya's decisions look as imbecilic (to a child or anyone else) as they actually were?

    Woodman,

    I know you'd agree with this post!

    My "rebuttal" sprang from the basic fact that I disagree with it. This makes me- what? Has the US done awful things? Of course. And no Democrat will change this, OR do things much differently than currently being done.

    Changing allies in a hard world is a fact of life, or death, depending on your point of view. Both are accurate.

    One things' for sure: the world the US has built is far superior to ANY other model. You could have Communism. You could have European socialism, the view I see in this thread, that has Autocratic gov't spoon feeding the population, the same people who led us to 2 world wars (and many, many others before it), and now possess the leadership ability (and authority) of a spoon. You could have Islam. How about Nazi-ism? Or pick a number of utopian pie-in-the-sky alternates the elite would sell us, which in reality WILL sell us, as in out, no longer to be free.

    Pete

    BTW, I'm not out to be a hater. It's all in the family.
  • 06-07-2004, 12:31 PM
    Chris
    Pete, that was a long ass response!

    I don't normally agree with Pete, as he's a bit deep into the conservative side for my taste, but he's got some points here that many people (specifically the people with more liberal views) don't like to acknowledge...

    Just like our own popular political parties, the US government has it's own set of "interests". We gain allies and lose allies every now and then, but our interests usually stay pretty much the same, even when the political parties in power change. We've helped allies in the past who shared our same interests at one point (like Saddam and like Al Queda), but eventually, times change, situations change, and their interests changed (or maybe they just became more apparent over time). Though at first glance, it's easy to see our turning against them as being "hypocritical", but you simply cannot expect allies to continuously share the same interests forever. As Pete said, it's give and take - and you take what you can get for as long as you can - once the situation changes and interests no longer align, we have to reevaluate the situation and determine if the alliance is in the best interest for our nation, as do our allies. We took out a leader who didn't share our interests anymore and are trying to put a government in place that shares our interests.

    With that said, I still don't feel confident that our government made a solid case for this war. War is horrible and should always be a last resort. The worst of humanity comes out in war time. I don't think that you can always avoid war, but I do think that if it's unavoidable, it should be clear to most everyone as to why without having to exxagerate on issues in order to sell it. Of course, you will never convince everyone, but you should be able to provide more "convincing" proof to more people than Bush had done. In my opinion, the accusations didn't seem very strong, and we seemed to be intent on invading before proof had even been established. I'll refer to Pete's posts on this:

    "The tool he (Saddam) gave us to invade was his refusal to abide by the terms of his earlier defeat, among them accounting for & destroying weapons of mass destruction."

    And yet, Pete's response to people who don't believe there were WMD:

    "You may be right. But that doesn't change the main reasons we invaded."

    Yet, the WMD issue was always the most emphasized immediate threat to us. I want to find the weapons that Saddam failed to account for and destroy since that was explained to me as being the biggest threat. When we do, I'll feel more comfortable that we've eliminated that immediate threat.

    Until that happens, it seems to me Saddam was more of an easy target than an immediate threat. The American people like victories, and having knocked off a leader and supporter (one of the many supporters) of the extremist groups who attacked us made some feel like we achieved a big victory on the anti-terrorist front. I think it helped, but not as much as others think. Saddam was painted to be the main supporter of the terrorist movement, and we all know that isn't necessarily the case. Pete and others can justify Saddam's ousting as much as they want, and I will agree to various points made and with the fact that we're better off without him in power, but I don't feel that this alone completely justifies a war effort. I think it could have been handled better. And I think it is our complete responsiblity now to make sure the region becomes stable and that civil war is prevented. We can't just go take out a leader of a nation who doesn't share our interests and leave it up to them to clean up the instability.

    Anyway, good debate. I think Pete poked holes in some of the points made. However, I think he came close to contradicting himself a little bit as well. The conservative view seems to be "we're better off for doing what we did regardless of the WMD issue - Saddam was just plain evil anyway". The liberal view seems to be "if we don't find all those WMD, the preemptive attack cannot be fully justified as it was sold". I agree more with the liberal view on this issue. I know that we as a nation wouldn't be where we are today if the US government didn't make similar questionable decisions in the past. I just want to make sure our best interests are "good" and not just greedy.
  • 06-07-2004, 12:40 PM
    depressed
    1 Attachment(s)
    I just hope that there aren't too many people that buy every bit of propaganda coming from the White House.
    Here is an advice: Learn one foreign language (italian, german, spanish etc.) and compare the news from countries where those languages are spoken with the U.S. ones.

    Oops, I have to interrupt my post because the president has an urgent message for all of us:
  • 06-07-2004, 12:41 PM
    piece-it pete
    That IS to Osama, right?
  • 06-07-2004, 01:35 PM
    Chris
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by depressed
    I just hope that there aren't too many people that buy every bit of propaganda coming from the White House.
    Here is an advice: Learn one foreign language (italian, german, spanish etc.) and compare the news from countries where those languages are spoken with the U.S. ones.

    Yes, but keep in mind that all countries have their own propoganda machines - based on THEIR interests. However, I do feel people who listen only to our media only get one point of view.
  • 06-07-2004, 05:42 PM
    woodman
    That picture is priceless depressed ... where did you find it? What a class act!

    And all that Pete can come up with is: "Oh, he IS flipping it to Osama, right?" What's it gonna take, Pete for you to finally come to the realization of just what a total a**hole we have for a make-believe prez? Or, are you gonna just support him 'til the very end (which hopefully will be coming up in November), no matter what he says or does? Really?
  • 06-07-2004, 06:30 PM
    oakley#36
    That was a piece of art my little Canadian friend!
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    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 thoseweapons, 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.

    That was beautiful RGA! Although, in the past I've disagreed with you on some Iraq/ terrorism issues, I take it all back. That little post was nothing short of a masterpiece! Your the man. Oakley#36
  • 06-07-2004, 06:55 PM
    karl k
    Uh-huh-huh... uhhh woodman,
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by woodman
    That picture is priceless depressed ... where did you find it? What a class act!

    And all that Pete can come up with is: "Oh, he IS flipping it to Osama, right?" What's it gonna take, Pete for you to finally come to the realization of just what a total a**hole we have for a make-believe prez? Or, are you gonna just support him 'til the very end (which hopefully will be coming up in November), no matter what he says or does? Really?

    I don't think that's "his" finger dude. If it were, uh-uhh-huh-huh, that would be coool!

    Uh huh huh... I am the president of the United States and you will bow down and kiss my butt!

    Heh-heh-heh, ya, YA!! The rivers will flow with the blood of the non believers!!
  • 06-07-2004, 07:49 PM
    depressed
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chris
    Yes, but keep in mind that all countries have their own propoganda machines - based on THEIR interests. However, I do feel people who listen only to our media only get one point of view.

    I agree, however, the government's grip on media in Italy or Germany for example, isn't as firm as it's here in the U.S.

    The Iraq issue is complex and it has been part of the American international politics for a while. IMO, the Bush administration failed to justify going there.
    WMD = none

    Al Queda in Iraq = ???

    Liberating Iraqi people = the effort to present that as a reason to invade Iraq was a real "friday job" . I don't doubt that the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam, but they have been suffering for a quarter of a century. Just a lame "excuse" to invade the country anyway.

    @ Karl K: I can't tell if the picture has been doctored, but I hope it was doctored.

    Besides, the way Mr. Bush appears in public, I wouldn't be surprised about the picture anyway. Spitting on the White House lawn in front of hundreds of reporters is something every politician should avoid. I know that to him his image in the world may be irrelevant, but he should at least act like he cares what the rest of the world thinks about him.
  • 06-08-2004, 07:57 AM
    piece-it pete
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by woodman
    That picture is priceless depressed ... where did you find it? What a class act!

    And all that Pete can come up with is: "Oh, he IS flipping it to Osama, right?" What's it gonna take, Pete for you to finally come to the realization of just what a total a**hole we have for a make-believe prez? Or, are you gonna just support him 'til the very end (which hopefully will be coming up in November), no matter what he says or does? Really?

    No, that's just what first came to mind. It's basically what he's done.

    If he is flipping off the public he's got a funny way of showing it. Taxes - down, unemployment - down, dow - up, productivity - up, terrorism - controlled, jeez the guy hates us!

    Not bad for a make believe Pres.

    Yes of course I'll support him: I agree with much of his policies, and when Kerry gets the tromping that like Gore will boot him out of politics (at least marginalize him) I will dance a jig!!

    Unfortunately for me (fortunately for innocent bystanders), I don't know what a "jig" is. :D

    Pete

    PS The next big campaign issue (about all there is):
  • 06-08-2004, 08:50 AM
    piece-it pete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chris
    Pete, that was a long ass response!

    I don't normally agree with Pete, as he's a bit deep into the conservative side for my taste, but he's got some points here that many people (specifically the people with more liberal views) don't like to acknowledge...

    Just like our own popular political parties, the US government has it's own set of "interests". We gain allies and lose allies every now and then, but our interests usually stay pretty much the same, even when the political parties in power change. We've helped allies in the past who shared our same interests at one point (like Saddam and like Al Queda), but eventually, times change, situations change, and their interests changed (or maybe they just became more apparent over time). Though at first glance, it's easy to see our turning against them as being "hypocritical", but you simply cannot expect allies to continuously share the same interests forever. As Pete said, it's give and take - and you take what you can get for as long as you can - once the situation changes and interests no longer align, we have to reevaluate the situation and determine if the alliance is in the best interest for our nation, as do our allies. We took out a leader who didn't share our interests anymore and are trying to put a government in place that shares our interests.

    With that said, I still don't feel confident that our government made a solid case for this war. War is horrible and should always be a last resort. The worst of humanity comes out in war time. I don't think that you can always avoid war, but I do think that if it's unavoidable, it should be clear to most everyone as to why without having to exxagerate on issues in order to sell it. Of course, you will never convince everyone, but you should be able to provide more "convincing" proof to more people than Bush had done. In my opinion, the accusations didn't seem very strong, and we seemed to be intent on invading before proof had even been established. I'll refer to Pete's posts on this:

    "The tool he (Saddam) gave us to invade was his refusal to abide by the terms of his earlier defeat, among them accounting for & destroying weapons of mass destruction."

    And yet, Pete's response to people who don't believe there were WMD:

    "You may be right. But that doesn't change the main reasons we invaded."

    Yet, the WMD issue was always the most emphasized immediate threat to us. I want to find the weapons that Saddam failed to account for and destroy since that was explained to me as being the biggest threat. When we do, I'll feel more comfortable that we've eliminated that immediate threat.

    Until that happens, it seems to me Saddam was more of an easy target than an immediate threat. The American people like victories, and having knocked off a leader and supporter (one of the many supporters) of the extremist groups who attacked us made some feel like we achieved a big victory on the anti-terrorist front. I think it helped, but not as much as others think. Saddam was painted to be the main supporter of the terrorist movement, and we all know that isn't necessarily the case. Pete and others can justify Saddam's ousting as much as they want, and I will agree to various points made and with the fact that we're better off without him in power, but I don't feel that this alone completely justifies a war effort. I think it could have been handled better. And I think it is our complete responsiblity now to make sure the region becomes stable and that civil war is prevented. We can't just go take out a leader of a nation who doesn't share our interests and leave it up to them to clean up the instability.

    Anyway, good debate. I think Pete poked holes in some of the points made. However, I think he came close to contradicting himself a little bit as well. The conservative view seems to be "we're better off for doing what we did regardless of the WMD issue - Saddam was just plain evil anyway". The liberal view seems to be "if we don't find all those WMD, the preemptive attack cannot be fully justified as it was sold". I agree more with the liberal view on this issue. I know that we as a nation wouldn't be where we are today if the US government didn't make similar questionable decisions in the past. I just want to make sure our best interests are "good" and not just greedy.

    One to me VERY funny thing: I thought the title was "Pete, that was a long assessment" cut off by the max title length!

    Very thoughtful. I'd like to mention one thing: The conservative view here isn't that Saddam was just plain evil. Truth be told that should not matter to us AT ALL. We shouldn't go looking for dragons to slay. The conservative view is split: McLaughlin/Buchanan types (I don't really think they have much other common ground) never would have gone, and have been vocal about it. The majority of us (and world leaders worldwide) was that he HAD to go, for many reasons stated here and elsewhere. And, just like that, in what was a stunning military action, he went. So far the followup is going better than could reasonably be expected.

    I don't know why GWB didn't make all the reasons clear, and at first I was angry about it. But I realise there must be a reason, as this is the hard way, and contrary to some opinions the man, and his staff, are the opposite of stupid. Therefore, there must be a reason. I think it has something to do with Arab opinion, what he can and can't say publicly. I don't know. The haters don't, either, although they make plenty of (IMO bad-tempered) claims.

    And on US news: What a joke. Good luck getting real news out of this county, outside of the back pages of major newspapers (and it's starting to dry up there, too). Let's see, there is a deadly serious war on terror going on, better open the show with American Idol ratings. Oh, wait, a soldier got shot in Afganistan. Bumb that story up! Talk about his poor family - then learn the truth in the back pages of the next days' paper, how his family is sad but proud, not pissed. Happens more often than you'd think.

    I watch the BBC World news fairly regularly, they have the best international news available here, but it needs a little salt when it comes to analysis - like a truckload. After GWBs' last State of the Union speech their "analysist" was a spokesperson from a US liberal think tank! Not state-controlled, but interest controlled.

    Pete
  • 06-08-2004, 09:51 AM
    depressed
    1 Attachment(s)
    I'd like some of whatever it is that you are smoking in Cleveland, OH.
    Thanks for claiming that there is no way "having real news outside of this country" Yeah. I guess Germans and Italians are the enemy,too.
    Now I know how your mind works.
    You just keep fighting wars from the comfort of your own home, don't attempt to go there and see what war is really like. Wow. As I said in my first post on this topic, I hope there aren't too many people buying all that propaganda. I guess it's easier to have your government do the thinking for you.
    I guess the last thing that the European leaders would want is to shake hands with Bush & co:
    Can't you see how concerned everybody in the picture is about the Iraqi people?
  • 06-08-2004, 10:33 AM
    piece-it pete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by depressed
    I'd like some of whatever it is that you are smoking in Cleveland, OH.
    Thanks for claiming that there is no way "having real news outside of this country" Yeah. I guess Germans and Italians are the enemy,too.
    Now I know how your mind works.
    You just keep fighting wars from the comfort of your own home, don't attempt to go there and see what war is really like. Wow. As I said in my first post on this topic, I hope there aren't too many people buying all that propaganda. I guess it's easier to have your government do the thinking for you.
    I guess the last thing that the European leaders would want is to shake hands with Bush & co:
    Can't you see how concerned everybody in the picture is about the Iraqi people?

    Gosh everybody's smoking everything nowadays :) .

    Looking at my original statement, "Good luck getting real news out of this country", I can see how it could be misunderstood. I meant it like, "Good luck, us putting real news on our news shows".

    I said that the BBC has the best world news available.

    Propaganda is monopolized by no party. As a matter of fact I would say the NEA is doing a very good job with our kids. I have come to my own conclusions. I actually got pissed off at my school a number of times while reading history, and even now am still surprised occasionally. The watered down or blatantly misleading nicey-nice crap we are taught is a far cry from the brutal truth. I believe we are no longer being prepared to run a successful Democracy in an increasingly hostile world.

    If called, I assure you I would walk away from my home and fight to the best of my ability. Part of "how my mind works" is God, Family, and Country. I realise this makes me some kind of moron today, that Duty and Honor are simply inconvenient (and stupid) in this enlightned age. Far better to close the eyes and say "It's our fault." Far easier, really.

    Pete
  • 06-08-2004, 10:47 AM
    Resident Loser
    And I know he spits...
    ...and he probably breaks wind too!

    And I suppose Bubba gettin' his pipes cleaned in the WH was evidence of him bein' a class act...or JFK and MM...give it a rest woody!

    Bush's lack of polish doesn't mean a d@mn thing...take issue with REAL issues, why just vent your spleen with your opinion of his public persona.

    And besides, I've seen people motion to others in that same manner and they weren't flippin' people off...and what if he was? Big, friggin' deal...I have more respect for someone who trips on his own tongue and tells it like it is, than some articulate "politician"(said with all the animosity I can muster) whoremonger who smiles and provides platitudes all the while tryin' to pick your pocket or stab you in the back!

    Come November, if things change, we'll see how Kerry will make it all better...as I've previously stated, if he has the country's best interest in mind, why won't he contribute his grand plans now instead of waitin' 'til whenever...sounds like that whole "break-in/burn-in" crapola to me...Wanna' bet he ain't got jack?

    Then a few months down the road he (Kerry) can back-off on his campaign promises just like Billary did...just like they all do...'ceptin' folks like you will will be happier 'en a pig in $h!t because Dubya will be gone...

    jimHJJ(...and the cycle goes on and on and on...)
  • 06-08-2004, 03:43 PM
    depressed
    LOL... No room for diplomacy, huh?
    Regardless which party is guiding the country, nobody should be buying entire story served by the party currently running the country. Not now and not 20 or 30 years ago. What I'm amazed with is how easy you buy into propaganda and the explanations why we went there in the first place. You just believe/follow your leader. Wait a minute, who else follows/does what their leader says without questioning the leader's statements/decisions?


    "Good luck, us putting real news on our news shows". Yeah, I guess other countries are putting fake news on their shows. They just hate America, right? :rolleyes:

    Well, with Bush, you have to ask yourself, who is next? Iran? Syria? France? Canada?
    If he gets another term, 4 years is enough to start a couple of wars. Finish them? No.
    You see, people don't like it when you invade their country. Sometimes they choose to fight back regardless why you got there in the first place.

    So Pete, you would be willing to fight for the country. I respect that. The only problem is, I would totally approve of that and I would fight again if the U.S. were to be attacked by someone. Sorry, by default I fight only when I'm under attack. Fake excuses/reasons aren't enough for me to be just a digit in the news. Now Pete, flying 5000 miles to fight for a strange cause is totally different thing. Trust me, I know that. All the boys over there will tell you that, provided nobody else can hear them. The HQ estimates that they will lose a couple of soldiers daily. You want to be on that list? That's how they see the dead Americans in Iraq, just a couple of folded flags for the mothers/wives and a couple of college tuitions less to pay for. All the while Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. juniors are enjoying the summer here. And the media here is constantly talking about high moral of American soldires in Iraq.
    Please, all these kids just want is to see their families and friends again and enjoy that college tuition they were promised.
    Let me tell you something. In 1993, just days before I left for Germany, about 15 "elite unit" Serbs came around and flanked us. They killed 7 guys from my platoon, among them 3 dear friends I knew since I was 6. They tried to break through, and we killed 10 of them. The poor bastards surrendered when they saw there is no way out. It's weird, one minute they emptied their clips into my friends and the next one they were begging for mercey. They have all been about my age, just picked up by their MP in Serbia and declared "elite forces"
    What I'm trying to say is that in a foreign country, soldiers will often run into ambushes.
    Surely, Americans cannot be compared wit the Serbian army, American soldires aren't full of hatred for the domestic population by default. Still, sending these kids to die for a cause that's not known yet is the greatest sin one could commit. Why? You can't compare WWII with Iraq. Explain that to the mother and the wife of a soldier you probably will not hear about on the news that you love so much. When it comes to being patriotic, you can count on Americans. Whenever a nation, any nation is under uttack, that nation will be united. The fact that about half of America is against this war, should be enough to conclude that this war wasn't worth fighting for. Again tell this to the mothers, wives and children of the brave ones that made the ultimate sacrifice.
  • 06-09-2004, 09:29 AM
    piece-it pete
    Diplomacy was tried and failed, not due to us but Saddam. It is certainly hitting big for us elsewhere.

    I certainly do have my disagreements with the current administration. Interesting how agreeing with our actions in Iraq = buying into propaganda. I could say the same for the opposite view!

    Although I've noticed a tendency for online discussions to be more polarized than in person. It's much more difficult to get the nuance reading a screen, and you're dealing with people you don't really know.

    *"Good luck, us putting real news on our news shows". Yeah, I guess other countries are putting fake news on their shows. They just hate America, right? :rolleyes: *

    We are not communicating here. What I have been saying is OUR NEWS IS CRAP! Including (particularly?) CNN. Nothing to do with other countries! For the third time, I get the best straight-up TV news from the BBC. They just hate the hell out of us :) .

    I believe we're going to invade Canada next :rolleyes: .

    Poll after poll in Iraq shows 60% + are glad we're there. Hardly foriegn devils. But yes, it could change, fast.

    If you join the armed services you might have to fight, you don't get a say in the matter, and I can't see how it can be any different. No one forced them to sign up. Luck of the draw - some get the college easily, some hard.

    Thanks for your story re Serbia. I'm sorry for your loss there. It never ceases to amaze me how people can just turn on their neighbors, shoot them, hack them with machetes, use kids to blow them up, etc. Just curious: did anyone there ever thank you? I hope so.

    I wouldn't tell those mothers & fathers their kids sacrifices were in vain, because I don't believe it. Stability in the Middle East is vital for the whole world, rich & poor alike. I believe this, and believe we're doing the right thing. You don't, and that's OK with me, it is still so far a free country (the jack-booted thugs on both sides haven't showed up at our door yet :) ).

    Pete
  • 06-09-2004, 09:20 PM
    RGA
    This post was a joke I read on another forum - who'd thought it would generate into serious political debate - I don't even agree with it necessarily but I can still find it funny.

    I have two friends - history students - one is a Mormon fellow who I enjoy discussing with because he his WAY over to the right. He brings up some good points that I often agree with. Very little do we agree with on social issues because well he's religious and I'm with Bill Maher with religious people. Then i have a friend who is obviously left - pretty far left - and he brings up excellent points. For instance I didn't know Reagan tried to sell a part of Canada - and he was arguing thet Qadafe(SP?) was no terrorist at all but invented as one because he would not play ball on oil - and that Libya had huge money invested into infrastructure and excellent education etc. Obviously these two are fun to listen to asthey debate the rhetoric. It's all about oil on one side and he points out that Cheney and the Bush family are heavy into the oil buusiness and had Bin Laden in the US years ago discussing it. Then the other guy is arguing basically what the government has argued.

    Which is right is probably somewhere in the middle. For instance, ask Chinese people about lack of freedom in China, a communist dictatorship, you might find you get surprising answers. Quite often it's "Freedom is relative." Freedom is an overused and abused term and so is communism - there is China Communism, USSR communism and Vietnam Communism - and people like Castro who was/is only communist because he needed the Russian to save him from being invaded years ago. You ask people who live in those countries and they are not lacking a good life. Saddam is a different story - all of them have problems.

    Manifest Destiny is not an ideal way to run things though. The fact of the matter is not everyone needs saving from themselves - it's not America's place to impose demcracy - it's up to the people to finally say enough is enough and revolt.

    My fear is that this Shiite leader who the Americans have let sit at the table IS another Hitler he's a thug who managed to weasal in. If America leaves this guy in then i fear in 5 years we'll all be wishing Saddam was still in charge. Religion is the lack of logical thought - why countries continue to have such leaders running countries frankly scares me. Religion is all about control - my book of analogy tells me in crypt that it's my way or the highway - and since I have a big gun - you have to live by my rules.

    I know plenty of Left leaning people though that liked Nixon and Reagan. If your pretty much center and a bit on the right you're probably pretty safe. I mean Clinton was pretty center - the best thing a president can do as an outsider looking in - is to serve your eight years and not do anything necessarily good but nothing really bad either.

    Of course we're the minions - we will never truly know what is really going on what percentage was about oil what reason was getting rid of a bad dictator - how much they thought Saddam was an imminint threat etc. I know I'm happy to see Saddam gone - whether the reason was valid and of course whether they had proof (guilty until proven innocent?) Saddam didn't comply with the rules - and Revenge needed to be taken even if the atackee was made up to appease the lynch mob.

    The bottom line is if you're too far out on one wing your plane will probably fly around in circles. But power does corrupt absolutely - and America and the American president has the power - and people MUST question every move they make - and these civil servants should not be afraid of it.

    It would have helped though if Bush was not the Republican canditate. People go by gut reactions and C'mon the guy is an inarticulate seemingly incompetant doofus. I'm sure he's no dummy but half the battle is public perception. I mean it was Bush the bumbler or Gore the Robot. People can obviously better associate to Bumbling slack jawed bumbling hicks than no personality Vulcans.

    Reagan may have bumbled but at least he seemed intelligent and good souled. Ya just gotta sell-it better.
  • 06-11-2004, 12:05 PM
    piece-it pete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    This post was a joke I read on another forum - who'd thought it would generate into serious political debate - I don't even agree with it necessarily but I can still find it funny.

    I have two friends - history students - one is a Mormon fellow who I enjoy discussing with because he his WAY over to the right. He brings up some good points that I often agree with. Very little do we agree with on social issues because well he's religious and I'm with Bill Maher with religious people. Then i have a friend who is obviously left - pretty far left - and he brings up excellent points. For instance I didn't know Reagan tried to sell a part of Canada - and he was arguing thet Qadafe(SP?) was no terrorist at all but invented as one because he would not play ball on oil - and that Libya had huge money invested into infrastructure and excellent education etc. Obviously these two are fun to listen to asthey debate the rhetoric. It's all about oil on one side and he points out that Cheney and the Bush family are heavy into the oil buusiness and had Bin Laden in the US years ago discussing it. Then the other guy is arguing basically what the government has argued.

    Which is right is probably somewhere in the middle. For instance, ask Chinese people about lack of freedom in China, a communist dictatorship, you might find you get surprising answers. Quite often it's "Freedom is relative." Freedom is an overused and abused term and so is communism - there is China Communism, USSR communism and Vietnam Communism - and people like Castro who was/is only communist because he needed the Russian to save him from being invaded years ago. You ask people who live in those countries and they are not lacking a good life. Saddam is a different story - all of them have problems.

    Manifest Destiny is not an ideal way to run things though. The fact of the matter is not everyone needs saving from themselves - it's not America's place to impose demcracy - it's up to the people to finally say enough is enough and revolt.

    My fear is that this Shiite leader who the Americans have let sit at the table IS another Hitler he's a thug who managed to weasal in. If America leaves this guy in then i fear in 5 years we'll all be wishing Saddam was still in charge. Religion is the lack of logical thought - why countries continue to have such leaders running countries frankly scares me. Religion is all about control - my book of analogy tells me in crypt that it's my way or the highway - and since I have a big gun - you have to live by my rules.

    I know plenty of Left leaning people though that liked Nixon and Reagan. If your pretty much center and a bit on the right you're probably pretty safe. I mean Clinton was pretty center - the best thing a president can do as an outsider looking in - is to serve your eight years and not do anything necessarily good but nothing really bad either.

    Of course we're the minions - we will never truly know what is really going on what percentage was about oil what reason was getting rid of a bad dictator - how much they thought Saddam was an imminint threat etc. I know I'm happy to see Saddam gone - whether the reason was valid and of course whether they had proof (guilty until proven innocent?) Saddam didn't comply with the rules - and Revenge needed to be taken even if the atackee was made up to appease the lynch mob.

    The bottom line is if you're too far out on one wing your plane will probably fly around in circles. But power does corrupt absolutely - and America and the American president has the power - and people MUST question every move they make - and these civil servants should not be afraid of it.

    It would have helped though if Bush was not the Republican canditate. People go by gut reactions and C'mon the guy is an inarticulate seemingly incompetant doofus. I'm sure he's no dummy but half the battle is public perception. I mean it was Bush the bumbler or Gore the Robot. People can obviously better associate to Bumbling slack jawed bumbling hicks than no personality Vulcans.

    Reagan may have bumbled but at least he seemed intelligent and good souled. Ya just gotta sell-it better.

    RGA,

    I missed the funny part but I've got to admit I've been a bit touchy latey, for some reason I think I've offended a few people here recently!

    But it ended up to be IMO a good discussion, many viewpoints. Great thread.

    Of course we still disagree on a lot of stuff but hey, I'm right! :D :D :D

    Pete
  • 06-11-2004, 03:48 PM
    karl k
    That's OK RGA...
    I found it to be ironically funny and accurate.(even if in the most simple terms)


    Keep'um commin'!