Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

[Juan Carlos Rey]

I felt free to copy this from

http://develnet.org/ThisAndThat/Dadd...veToAttackIraq

I had to split it in two parts, as it were a little long:
------------------------------------------------

1st part:

Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)
(c) 2003 anarchie bunker

Permission is freely granted to copy, print, and distribute this material by any means, so long as the author is given proper credit and so long as this statement is included in any and all copies made for distribution.


------------------------------------------------

[Juan Carlos Rey]

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those 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 in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
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 unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
http://develnet.org/ThisAndThat/Dadd...veToAttackIraq

[Skitchen8]

I read this, it is amazingly funny

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

We should kill Bush. Then tell the Taliban, "that's how you do it! Don't **** with us!"

*nods*

[Shawn N]

I really don't want to get caught up in the midst of another WMD discussion, but:

1 - Iraq did, at one time, have bioweapons
2 - Resolutions were made that he could not had those weapons
3 - When Iraq was to be inspected, certain areas were off-access.
4 - Iraq still claims that they have no WMDs.

DiGiTaIErRoR, those kinds of comments are childish. Did you even think about what you just wrote before you posted it? There is no more Taliban, remember?

[Xcoder]

Very funny stuff. lets take the world issues to its own forum.

[Pc_Madness]

And not go posting something thats over a year old on a topic thats pretty much over now as far as the world is concerned.

[davebat]

I think its got just as much relevance as worlds funniest bumper sticker.

[manavo11]

Originally posted by Shawn N
1 - Iraq did, at one time, have bioweapons

Probably America gave them to Iraq...

[Arc]

Why did we have to Attack Iraq? Cause Saddam was killing thousands of Iraquies on a daily basis. Plus he was becoming a bigger threat to the American population by supporting terrorism.

Why haven't we attacked the other countries that are doing the same sorta things? Don't worry, their on the list.


You see the thing is, with America, we elect a new President every 4 years, so the next guy may not feel it neccesary to protect us or others, whereas BUSH does.

Do you understand that son? No? Well stfu then dumbass.

J/k people!

[Skitchen8]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
And not go posting something thats over a year old on a topic thats pretty much over now as far as the world is concerned.

Yeah, its over just because the president said it is. We'll ignore the fact that almost every day since the conflict "ended" troops that are in Iraq have been killed. Its over.

Arc: Gigantic problem to us given the fact the longest range weapon that country actually possessed was a Chinese made silkworm missile that couldn't even go far enough into the ocean to cause a ripple to hit our shores. More people die in many African countries every day than Saddam ever killed, or could kill. The problem is they have no natural resources and therefore mean nothing to us, isn't it funny that our first attack on our "axis of evil" list just happens to have one of the largest tapped oil fields in the world.

[venerable bede]

Shouldn't this be in the world events forum ?

[fasi]

Why haven't we attacked the other countries that are doing the same sorta things? Don't worry, their on the list

I am sure if Bush remains in power he will get through the list. Personally i dont recall a president as idiot as Bush in the history of US.

[Xcoder]

Originally posted by Arc
Plus he was becoming a bigger threat to the American population by supporting terrorism.

For you might be a plus, but one of the main reasons for W.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by fasi
I am sure if Bush remains in power he will get through the list. Personally i dont recall a president as idiot as Bush in the history of US.

If you are referring to Bush's assorted verbal mixups and claiming that they indicate his IQ is well below the norm, then perhaps we should apply the same reasoning to you?

Unless the fact that you should have said "idiotic" and also "the US" is just a mistake, and is in no way indicative of your true intellect.

[Xcoder]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
And not go posting something thats over a year old on a topic thats pretty much over now as far as the world is concerned.

It might be over, but it shouln't be forgotten.

Its election year in US, public opinion should be reminded of this events for them to decide what they want to do with their country.

[Memnoch1207]

Originally posted by Skitchen8
Gigantic problem to us given the fact the longest range weapon that country actually possessed was a Chinese made silkworm missile that couldn't even go far enough into the ocean to cause a ripple to hit our shores.

Maybe not, but it could hit Israel couldn't it!
Just in case you guys don't remember, one of the reasons the cease fire was called, was because when Iraq launched scuds at Israel, Israel was threatening to retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Israel isn't a country to **** with! Seriously, they are a "we take no **** from anyone" country.

I for one think Bush is a good president, and I will be voting for him in Nov.

And about his intellect, please he's Harvard educated with an MBA (the only president to ever have an MBA by the way). And there is valid documentation that supports the false reports that his IQ is only 91.

[rdove]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207

I for one think Bush is a good president, and I will be voting for him in Nov.
.

I will be too....I think he has done a good job.

If you think Bush has done such a bad job, think about if we elected that ***** Gore, hell he probably would have told them it was our fault for building the WTC so high.

[Shawn N]

Originally posted by manavo11
Probably America gave them to Iraq...

I really thought this was a converstaion against Bush. If it is, then this statement has no place in the conversation. Bush has no control over what has been done with past Presidencies, he can only clean it up.

I'm not even sure how valid your statement is.

[Xcoder]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Israel was threatening to retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Even so if attacked with scuds, the usage of WMD's is not justified. There are many other options to consider first.

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Israel isn't a country to **** with!

But Iraq is?

[crptcblade]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
And about his intellect, please he's Harvard educated with an MBA (the only president to ever have an MBA by the way).

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Being educated does not make you intelligent.

[Memnoch1207]

Touche crptcblade, but my point was that he would have to be of average to above average intelligence just to be accepted (at least one would assume so) I don't think Forest Gump would be accepted to Harvard, but I could be wrong.


I'm not saying there is anytime where the use of WMD's would/should/could be considered justifiyable, but the fact remains that Israel threatened to retailiate with nukes and the entire world was concerned and demanded that a cease fire be called.

Israel is a little jewish country surrounded my countries full of muslims. They're about as well liked as a black man at a KKK convention. So they are willing to fight at a moments notice and will retailiate with extreme force.

Does anyone remember when the Israelis flew a top secret mission into Iraq and destroyed Saddams nuclear facility? This attack wasn't provoked in anyway, but it was perceived as a threat, so they took action by destroying it.

[mudfish]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207

And about his intellect, please he's Harvard educated with an MBA (the only president to ever have an MBA by the way). And there is valid documentation that supports the false reports that his IQ is only 91.

Just look at his business record!
He has used his MBA so well!
He is a Jr. Billy Gates!

[Xcoder]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
he would have to be of average to above average intelligence just to be accepted (at least one would assume so)

Like he was accepted because he had the merit (and beign rich, republican and with a long family tradition in the Ivy league colleges didnt play any rol) . We are talking about a guy who almost killed himself with a bagel.

[Shawn N]

I can't believe some of the comments coming from the left. The guy is obviously not an idiot. He's smart enough to become President of the most powerful country in the world, right? It seems like Dems need to get out of kindergarten with their name calling.

[HardCode]

I am exploding to comment, but I promised to keep myself out of politics when I joined this programming forum.

[Memnoch1207]

Originally posted by HardCode
I am exploding to comment, but I promised to keep myself out of politics when I joined this programming forum.

I say spew forth you political rage and let the games begin!

[Skitchen8]

Originally posted by Xcoder
It might be over, but it shouln't be forgotten.

Its election year in US, public opinion should be reminded of this events for them to decide what they want to do with their country.

For that you recieve a brand spanking new cookie. That was the most intelligent thing I have read so far.

Maybe not, but it could hit Israel couldn't it!
Just in case you guys don't remember, one of the reasons the cease fire was called, was because when Iraq launched scuds at Israel, Israel was threatening to retaliate with nuclear weapons.

I agree with the defense of Isreal to a certain degree however before we go into a full fledged war costing our country billions if not trillions of dollars we should attempt to fix a few problems at home. From a purely economic standpoint we can in no way afford major military conflict, especially with an ongoing war taking place in afghanistan which people seem to have forgotten about. Politically the apropriateness of this war depends on how smooth of a talker you are, it can have immense political fallout or it can be rallied for and seem like a good thing. As an American I have seen it turn from the latter into the former, only now are people questioning why we haven't found any of these things that we were told were in the country. Socially depend upon a combinatino of the the political and economic standpoints, for the most part a majority will agree with what is agreed on in the media.

[Shawn N]

Originally posted by fasi
I am sure if Bush remains in power he will get through the list. Personally i dont recall a president as idiot as Bush in the history of US.

The wacky, wacky left...

Let's say he did go into another country as a humanitarian aid. What would the left say? One way or another, the left would tie everything to some political conspiracy and/or oil. If they can't find a theory, then they'll start to accusse the President of wanting to "conquer the world."

Ridicule the man's policies all you want, but if you can't come up with a good viable solution (not involving the words "stupid" or "monkey") then you're just part of the problem.

P.S. fasi - If Bush is an idiot for his occassional blurbs, yet he manages to be in the most powerful position in the world, what does your little blurb say about you?

Skitchen - your picture's obnoxious.

[Skitchen8]

The leftists will always have something bad to say, and the rest of you will always have an excuse for what happens, what makes us wrong and you right?? Take a look at the facts here.

Saddam Hussein had no possible way to attack us with Weapons of Mass Destruction, he had no delivery systems capable of reaching us (either that or they are hiding with the WMDs themselves)

No WMDs have yet been found in Iraq, one would think with such technology that we have we would have found them by now.

In almost every speech President Bush makes regarding the war in Iraq he makes references to terrorism. The truth is we have found more terrorist cells in America than we have in Iraq, so doesn't that make us the bigger threat to ourselves??

Many high ranking officials have come forward saying there was little to no evidence of WMDs in Iraq at all.

There are a great many African countries where genocide happens every day and is not being stopped by anybody, also to be noted none of these countries have oil and the countries in Africa with products that are worth enough to deserve protection are fully protected.

Now lets see some evidence for you to base your love of Bush on.

[Shawn N]

Originally posted by Skitchen8
I agree with the defense of Isreal to a certain degree however before we go into a full fledged war costing our country billions if not trillions of dollars we should attempt to fix a few problems at home. From a purely economic standpoint we can in no way afford major military conflict, especially with an ongoing war taking place in afghanistan which people seem to have forgotten about. Politically the apropriateness of this war depends on how smooth of a talker you are, it can have immense political fallout or it can be rallied for and seem like a good thing. As an American I have seen it turn from the latter into the former, only now are people questioning why we haven't found any of these things that we were told were in the country. Socially depend upon a combinatino of the the political and economic standpoints, for the most part a majority will agree with what is agreed on in the media.

Wars don't wait for anyone. Israel would not wait to defend itself until the US is done with its own problems; same goes for Iraq attacking Israel.

Economically, both the Dow and the NASDAQ went up on March 18th, 2003 - the day UN inspectors were advised to leave Iraq. Granted it's not a lot, but up is up and down is down.

[Memnoch1207]

Originally posted by Skitchen8

Saddam Hussein had no possible way to attack us with Weapons of Mass Destruction, he had no delivery systems capable of reaching us (either that or they are hiding with the WMDs themselves)

No one said he had weapons that would reach us, that is a non-issue. It was never mentioned that he had weapons that would reach us.

No WMDs have yet been found in Iraq, one would think with such technology that we have we would have found them by now.

Other than the fact the country is the size of of California, how long do you think it would take to find ammunition dumps in california? Especially if there were underground bunkers there, that you weren't aware of.

In almost every speech President Bush makes regarding the war in Iraq he makes references to terrorism. The truth is we have found more terrorist cells in America than we have in Iraq, so doesn't that make us the bigger threat to ourselves??

Most of the references he is making are aimed at the Answar Al Islam terrorist group, which was based in northern Iraq and is known to have ties with Al-Qaida. But you are correct the U.S. has uncovered many terrorist cells in the U.S.

Many high ranking officials have come forward saying there was little to no evidence of WMDs in Iraq at all.

Name them. The evidence was provided by many agencies from many different countries. Iraq had informants that were providing information about Saddams WMD's.

There are a great many African countries where genocide happens every day and is not being stopped by anybody, also to be noted none of these countries have oil and the countries in Africa with products that are worth enough to deserve protection are fully protected.

You are absolutely right!, and I assume you have also noticed that none of the other 260+ countries in the world are doing anything about it either.

Now lets see some evidence for you to base your love of Bush on.

Bush wasn't afraid to make an unpopular decision. He did it and he sticks to it. He handled the country excellently after 9/11. Would you respect a president that let his country get attacked, killing 3000+ innocent people and just sat back and talked about policy and did absolutely nothing about it?
He may have his flaws, all presidents have, but he like is father, was willing to make a decision, even an unpopular and criticized one, and stick to it. That is why I respect him. I was going to vote for Gore in 2000. Looking back on the passed 4 years, I don't think Gore could have handled the pressure or made the dicisions that Bush made, and I don't think he would have done what needed to be done.

[Skitchen8]

Originally posted by Shawn N
Wars don't wait for anyone. Israel would not wait to defend itself until the US is done with its own problems; same goes for Iraq attacking Israel.

Economically, both the Dow and the NASDAQ went up on March 18th, 2003 - the day UN inspectors were advised to leave Iraq. Granted it's not a lot, but up is up and down is down.

Sounds ignorant, but let them blow eachother up. Saved us all the money we give to Isreal and all the money we spent on Iraq.

Apparently you don't understand the point of what I said. DOW and NASDAQ unfortunately don't cover our whole economy, they are private sectors and I was speaking about the government which has a deficit of trillions of dollars greatly enhanced by the billions we spent on the war in Iraq. We can't afford prescription drug coverage for the elderly and economically disadvantaged, we can't afford a decent health care system where people don't get ripped off so much and school budgets nationwide have dropped drastically due to lack of funding from the national government, but we can afford to go destroy a country and then spend more money giving contracts to a company that the vice president conveniently used to head despite the fact that it was not the lowest bid for many of the contracts. Given what some of you have read about my conspiracy theories I actually have less of a problem with the contracts to rebuild, I don't think that it is right as far as cheney being the ex-president of the company, but the money would have to be spent somehow and projects are notorious for running far overbudget so its possibly we might have not saved anything by choosing a lower bidder.

[Shawn N]

Originally posted by Skitchen8
Now lets see some evidence for you to base your love of Bush on.

That's probably a difference between you and me. I don't love Bush, but I don't despise him either. He's done a moderate job as President. I just think that calling your leader a "moron" based on democratic issues is not only un-patrtotic, it's just bad taste.

Now, the fact that Iraq never had a way to directly attack the US is known, but that's not the issue. The issue is that he [supposedly] had WMDs which were completely against his resolutions. What is supposed to happen when someone has something they're not supposed to have?

How about this: You're banned from having Playboy in your room. You know this full well. Your parent's ask you if you have a Playboy in your room. You tell them "no," but for some reason they have the inclination that you do have a Playboy. They ask if they can search your room and you accept but only on the condition they can't look in your closet, or under your bed, or in your dresser, etc. That's the best way I can simplify the issue. In this case, your parents would have the right to remove you from your room - that's my opinion.

The US has uncovered so many terrorist cells here in the US because terrorism is still a major, major problem. Where are these terrorists getting their money? Certainly they're not flying from Saudia to the US cheap. Terrorist governments are aiding and harboring these people out of their own interests. (On that note, I really think the US should keep a close eye on the Saudi Arabia Kingdom.)

Regarding Africa, what country is undergoing this "genocide?" Remember Somalia? Sure that was Clinton's action, but that's the only one I can think of.

The reason I like Bush is that he did something instead of talked. What did Clinton do with Iraq and Afghanistan? Talked and talked and talked because he didn't want to piss off any of the American people. Sometimes, when you do something major, you're going to piss off a couple people, but if it's the right thing to do screw 'em. I've seen a couple of interviews where the Iraqis are estatic that Americans have kicked Hussein out - how can you argue with that?

[Skitchen8]

Originally posted by Shawn N
That's probably a difference between you and me. I don't love Bush, but I don't despise him either. He's done a moderate job as President. I just think that calling your leader a "moron" based on democratic issues is not only un-patrtotic, it's just bad taste.

Now, the fact that Iraq never had a way to directly attack the US is known, but that's not the issue. The issue is that he [supposedly] had WMDs which were completely against his resolutions. What is supposed to happen when someone has something they're not supposed to have?

How about this: You're banned from having Playboy in your room. You know this full well. Your parent's ask you if you have a Playboy in your room. You tell them "no," but for some reason they have the inclination that you do have a Playboy. They ask if they can search your room and you accept but only on the condition they can't look in your closet, or under your bed, or in your dresser, etc. That's the best way I can simplify the issue. In this case, your parents would have the right to remove you from your room - that's my opinion.

The US has uncovered so many terrorist cells here in the US because terrorism is still a major, major problem. Where are these terrorists getting their money? Certainly they're not flying from Saudia to the US cheap. Terrorist governments are aiding and harboring these people out of their own interests. (On that note, I really think the US should keep a close eye on the Saudi Arabia Kingdom.)

Regarding Africa, what country is undergoing this "genocide?" Remember Somalia? Sure that was Clinton's action, but that's the only one I can think of.

The reason I like Bush is that he did something instead of talked. What did Clinton do with Iraq and Afghanistan? Talked and talked and talked because he didn't want to piss off any of the American people. Sometimes, when you do something major, you're going to piss off a couple people, but if it's the right thing to do screw 'em. I've seen a couple of interviews where the Iraqis are estatic that Americans have kicked Hussein out - how can you argue with that?

Complaining about the government and calling the president a moron is actually about the most patriotic thing I can do. The founding fothers gave us the right to free speech so that we can say anything about the government that we want without risk of adverse effects.

I understand what you are saying, but we must continue your analogy on. Supposed my parents decided that they would kick me out of my room and then went through and searched every square inch of my room, which I do not so much disagree with in this analogy. They found a cut out of SI: Swimsuit edition, but they did not tell me to not have that and the cut out was so small they could not even be sure whether its purpous was what was on the front or the back of that particular magazine page. Wouldn't it be right for them to at least admit that they were wrong to have searched my room after not finding anything and allow me to continue on with my business??

Regarding Africa: most of them. In northern Africa there are still a great many countries comprised by tribes that do not operate under a government only what their particular leader tells them to do. Can't quite consider it a civil war, more of a territory war where they kill whoever is not like them.

Thats one of the reasons I dislike Bush is that he took action without actually thinking about it (that is purely opinion though). I don't think he realized when he started the war that it wasn't just a go in, give them a few dollars, and leave operation. There are National Intelligence Reports filed away at some cabinet in the CIA that I guarantee offer a predicted casualty rate of far less than what has actually happened and just because Bush said the war is over does not mean that it is. As far as I'm concerned as long as troops, my fellow Americans, are out there dying they are still fighting a war. Peacekeeping missions don't involve tanks and helicopters.

I have seen those same interviews, I have also seen commercials for almost every single brand of toothpaste saying that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend their brand most. If you ask enough people you will find people that are glad we came there, and you'll publish what will give you the least harrassment from popular media sources. I have no doubt in my mind most Iraqis are very glad that Hussein has been ousted (and those that wouldn't be glad are mostly dead) however I doubt that very many of them are glad that we are occupying their country. They may not like the guy very much, but that doesn't mean that they like us at all.

[Shawn N]

Bad choice of a word on my part. Rather than un-patriotic, how about un-American. Whatever you want to call it, I just don't see it being appropriate.

If nothing is found, nothing is found. However, why would you even partially-contest the search? Hussein brought things upon himself by knowingly arousing suspicion. Either he did this for mere kicks - to see how far he could push the rest of the world, or he did it because he was in fact hiding something (not even necessarily WMDs). Either way he got what he deserved. Unfortunately, it had to come from us. I don't even think the government owes anyone an apology based on this analogy. Bottom Line: Your parents had the right to tear your room apart while you still occupying. You chose the hard road (even though you were telling the truth) so you got what you deserved.

Saying that Bush had no idea what he was getting himself into is just ridiculous. He said plenty of times that the US has a long road ahead in rebuilding the Iraqi government. Our troops are expected to be out of Iraq by June, which I think is pretty good.

As far as Iraqis go, of course Iraq is [probably] annoyed with the large American presence. Sh*t, I was annoyed by the large Mexican presence from when I used to live in South Texas. Our presence is temporary and is not forced upon anyone.

Just as an example, there was a bombing this week in Iraq. No Americans were targeted - it was mainly a this-religion versus that-religion thing. The point is that there was a lot more pandemonium after those explosions than there could have been, but since one group specifically asked the American troops to stay away from the area, it took a lot more time for things to clear up. The Iraqis are not yet ready to handle themselves. They're not far from it, but they're not there yet.

[Skitchen8]

Originally posted by Shawn N
Bad choice of a word on my part. Rather than un-patriotic, how about un-American. Whatever you want to call it, I just don't see it being appropriate.

If nothing is found, nothing is found. However, why would you even partially-contest the search? Hussein brought things upon himself by knowingly arousing suspicion. Either he did this for mere kicks - to see how far he could push the rest of the world, or he did it because he was in fact hiding something (not even necessarily WMDs). Either way he got what he deserved. Unfortunately, it had to come from us. I don't even think the government owes anyone an apology based on this analogy. Bottom Line: Your parents had the right to tear your room apart while you still occupying. You chose the hard road (even though you were telling the truth) so you got what you deserved.

Saying that Bush had no idea what he was getting himself into is just ridiculous. He said plenty of times that the US has a long road ahead in rebuilding the Iraqi government. Our troops are expected to be out of Iraq by June, which I think is pretty good.

As far as Iraqis go, of course Iraq is [probably] annoyed with the large American presence. Sh*t, I was annoyed by the large Mexican presence from when I used to live in South Texas. Our presence is temporary and is not forced upon anyone.

Just as an example, there was a bombing this week in Iraq. No Americans were targeted - it was mainly a this-religion versus that-religion thing. The point is that there was a lot more pandemonium after those explosions than there could have been, but since one group specifically asked the American troops to stay away from the area, it took a lot more time for things to clear up. The Iraqis are not yet ready to handle themselves. They're not far from it, but they're not there yet.

I would partially consent to search on a personal level because I like to have my privacy, whether that privacy is hiding anything or not. On a diplomatic level: you have no proof that I have anything and no right therefore to search my country. If I recall correctly the chief inspector from the UN released a report saying that he had not found anything and believed that saddam was following what he was told as necessary.

As I said I based that comment about Bush not knowing what he was doing entirely on opinion. I don't think he realized the full fallout that the war would have when he started it, and I think he is still being overly optimistic. The war was expected to last what, 3 weeks at most when it was started and is in my, and many other people's, opinion still not over. This cannot be blamed on Mr. Bush, he is far too illiterate and shall I say mentally challenged to have figured this out on his own, I blame it mostly on his cabinet and other presidential advisors that screwed things up royally.

The difference in your mexican-american analogy is that the mexicans came in (somewhat) because we allowed them to. We came into Iraq without even the UN's permission to do so, stayed longer than we said we would, and comletely disrupted life in the country.

[Xcoder]

Originally posted by Skitchen8
For that you recieve a brand spanking new cookie. That was the most intelligent thing I have read so far.




I agree with the defense of Isreal to a certain degree however before we go into a full fledged war costing our country billions if not trillions of dollars we should attempt to fix a few problems at home. From a purely economic standpoint we can in no way afford major military conflict, especially with an ongoing war taking place in afghanistan which people seem to have forgotten about. Politically the apropriateness of this war depends on how smooth of a talker you are, it can have immense political fallout or it can be rallied for and seem like a good thing. As an American I have seen it turn from the latter into the former, only now are people questioning why we haven't found any of these things that we were told were in the country. Socially depend upon a combinatino of the the political and economic standpoints, for the most part a majority will agree with what is agreed on in the media.

Mmmm.......*drools* I like my cookie, look!...crumbs on the floor!

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by Skitchen8
Yeah, its over just because the president said it is. We'll ignore the fact that almost every day since the conflict "ended" troops that are in Iraq have been killed. Its over.

How old are you, if I may ask? (nothing to do with topic)

Arc: Gigantic problem to us given the fact the longest range weapon that country actually possessed was a Chinese made silkworm missile that couldn't even go far enough into the ocean to cause a ripple to hit our shores. More people die in many African countries every day than Saddam ever killed, or could kill. The problem is they have no natural resources and therefore mean nothing to us, isn't it funny that our first attack on our "axis of evil" list just happens to have one of the largest tapped oil fields in the world.

Yet America has no interest is invading an African nation (which, I'll make a big assumption), would be far easier to take control of (atleast in army v army combat) and search for natural resources there. eg diamonds.

[Michael_Kamen]

Whaaa, I'm proud of being lef! :yes:


Being conservatist or republican or whatever, that's bad!
You should be progressive, and not bad!

Only lefties really care for the world problems, instead of only for themselves..