Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

[SoulRiser]

http://www.stephthegeek.com/node/5800

Quote:Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)

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.
Qo 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.
2003 anarchie bunker

[The Desert Fox]

It's one of those "it's funny because it's true" things.

[HeartofShadows]

I'm laughing but I'm laughing in an insane kind of way not a humorous kind of way.

[Loxor]

Heh, we're strange.

[genuine anarchist]

That was brilliant. It's kind of sad that I had to learn all this from a satire using a childlike tone. Don't you love double standards?

[Absnt]

I'm pretty sure they didn't have nukes or anything, but they did have biological weapons. The inspectors found them during the gulf war, and didn't destroy them all. The reason they didn't use them during the gulf war was to avoid us from nuking the shit out of them. Sudam's cabinet or the people he worked closely with were interviewed and the reason they didn't use biological weapons, according to them, was because they were afraid of WMD's from America being used in retaliation.

I'm pretty sure by the time we invaded Iraq, the biological weapons were gone, but Sudam didn't deny having them. He probably didn't deny having them so he could sound like he was more powerful than he was. I'm pretty sure they were all destroyed, but Sudam wanted to have an edge.

[Rebelnerd]

That's not true at all. There was absolutely no evidence that Saddam Hussein kept the biological and chemical weapons he had had during the Gulf War. Throughout the 90s there were severe sanctions on Iraq and frequent UN weapons inspections that turned up nothing. Most of Bush's "evidence" was based on misinterpreted satellite photos and CIA reports that were reviewed by the White House before release. CIA officials described being blatantly pressured by the administration to "come up with a reason" to invade Iraq even if a real one didn't exist. And besides, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't just theorize about whether a few barrels of sarin gas had survived the UN inspections; they talked about specific discoveries in specific locations. Information gathered during the invasion proved that it had been utterly made up.
Over ten years passed between the Gulf War and the current invasion. You can't take information from the first war and apply it to the second like that. It just doesn't work. The government has basically admitted that there were no WMDs of any kind; the new goal of Bush's ex-officials is to pretend that they had no idea and try to shift the blame off of their own shoulders.

[Absnt]

absentinsomniac Wrote:I'm pretty sure by the time we invaded Iraq, the biological weapons were gone, but Sudam didn't deny having them. He probably didn't deny having them so he could sound like he was more powerful than he was. I'm pretty sure they were all destroyed, but Sudam wanted to have an edge.

I realize he didn't have them in our invasion, but why didn't he deny having them?

I'm not trying to condone the invasion, I'm just stating what I have read.

Not to mention, the statement about Iraq not using them on us when we invaded is sort of not a good argument. We know they had them during the gulf war and they didn't use them on the international coalition force then either, in fear of a retaliation using WMD's.

[Rebelnerd]

They didn't use them because they didn't have them. And even if Saddam didn't explicitly deny having them (probably to intimidate Israel), he did allow weapons inspectors to search the country on the eve of the invasion. Again, nothing was found. All of the evidence, seriously all of it, shows that Saddam did not have WMDs in 2003 and that war was a foregone conclusion ever since 9/11. Even Bush admitted that there were no weapons, he just tried to act like he didn't know before the war.

[Absnt]

Rebelnerd Wrote:They didn't use them because they didn't have them. And even if Saddam didn't explicitly deny having them (probably to intimidate Israel), he did allow weapons inspectors to search the country on the eve of the invasion. Again, nothing was found. All of the evidence, seriously all of it, shows that Saddam did not have WMDs in 2003 and that war was a foregone conclusion ever since 9/11. Even Bush admitted that there were no weapons, he just tried to act like he didn't know before the war.

If I'm to believe what you are saying, I suppose the only conclusion would be they didn't have weapons during our invasion.

That still doesn't change the fact that one of the arguments in the OP's quote is sort of invalid.

They had them in the GULF WAR. They did not use them when we kicked them out of Kuwait. They didn't use them in the GULF WAR because they were afraid of retaliation, according to the people who were working with Saddam.

I think this argument is sort of irrelevant anyway. Either way, the invasion wasn't a good idea.

[username01462781]

I never understood the Iraq War, people protest it saying America has no reason to attack, but aren't they attacking because of 9/11? I would be pretty upset if 3,000 innocents died, are we supposed to let the culprits go?

Fill a political retard in.

[Absnt]

Linki Wrote:I never understood the Iraq War, people protest it saying America has no reason to attack, but aren't they attacking because of 9/11? I would be pretty upset if 3,000 innocents died, are we supposed to let the culprits go?

Fill a political retard in.

Because Iraq didn't cause 9/11.

[username01462781]

Absentinsomniac Wrote:

Linki Wrote:I never understood the Iraq War, people protest it saying America has no reason to attack, but aren't they attacking because of 9/11? I would be pretty upset if 3,000 innocents died, are we supposed to let the culprits go?

Fill a political retard in.

Because Iraq didn't cause 9/11.

Who did?

[LOON_ATTIC]

Linki Wrote:

Absentinsomniac Wrote:

Linki Wrote:I never understood the Iraq War, people protest it saying America has no reason to attack, but aren't they attacking because of 9/11? I would be pretty upset if 3,000 innocents died, are we supposed to let the culprits go?

Fill a political retard in.

Because Iraq didn't cause 9/11.

Who did?

THE US GOVERNMENT
IT'S A CONSPIRACY
TRUST NO1

What about the Jihad and all of that shit?

[Absnt]

Linki Wrote:

Absentinsomniac Wrote:

Linki Wrote:I never understood the Iraq War, people protest it saying America has no reason to attack, but aren't they attacking because of 9/11? I would be pretty upset if 3,000 innocents died, are we supposed to let the culprits go?

Fill a political retard in.

Because Iraq didn't cause 9/11.

Who did?

Al-Qaeda I think. They aren't really based in any one country.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[username01462781]

That conspiracy bullshit is bullshit, please.

Who actually did 9/11?

[Absnt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

I don't think it's a conspiracy. I'm pretty sure the government identified the attackers as members of the Al-Qaeda group.

Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[HeartofShadows]

It was al queda.

The reason we attacked iraq is because bush believed that they had a place of operations in iraq and the nuclear weapons thing.

[Rebelnerd]

HeartofShadows Wrote:It was al queda.

The reason we attacked iraq is because bush lied that they had a place of operations in iraq and the nuclear weapons thing.

Fixed

Yeah, Osama and his al-Qaeda network caused 9/11. They were based mainly in Afghanistan at the time, which is why we invaded there immediately after the attacks. Iraq had nothing to do with it.

In fact, Saddam and Osama had actually tried to form an alliance once, against Israel and America, and it failed because Osama was a religious fanatic and Saddam just wanted power. They were incompatible. No alliance ever existed, so Bush basically pulled one out of his ass.

[HeartofShadows]

Rebelnerd Wrote:

HeartofShadows Wrote:It was al queda.

The reason we attacked iraq is because bush lied that they had a place of operations in iraq and the nuclear weapons thing.

Fixed

Yeah, Osama and his al-Qaeda network caused 9/11. They were based mainly in Afghanistan at the time, which is why we invaded there immediately after the attacks. Iraq had nothing to do with it.

In fact, Saddam and Osama had actually tried to form an alliance once, against Israel and America, and it failed because Osama was a religious fanatic and Saddam just wanted power. They were incompatible. No alliance ever existed, so Bush basically pulled one out of his ass.

Sorry tried to be positive, bush basically played this country of dumbasses who were emotionally butthurt over sept 11th. sucks this shit happened when I was 12 years old.

[Cosbydaf]

Revised Edition:

Q:Daddy, why did we have to-
A:SHUT UP AND DO YOUR HOMEWORK

~Fin~

[Thought Criminal]

Linki Wrote:Who actually did 9/11?

It was al-Qaeda. and as the Q&A mentioned most of them were Saudi's though thats not saying much because Al-Qaeda is not specific to one country. It's its own thing, That's like saying PeTA represents all of America.

The 9-11 attacks didn't have shit to do with our invasion. It was just convenient for bush because It united the nation against "the enemy" whomever they wanted to place the blame on in this case Iraq. Now that you have the whole country cowering in fear you just fabricate shit about WMD's and everyone gets afraid of another attack so of course we need to invade to destroy the WMD's and prevent another attack on the homeland.

All of this shit for oil.... my fucking jesus.

[HeartofShadows]

[Thought Criminal]

HeartofShadows Wrote:

You get a fucking cookie.

[HeartofShadows]

thought criminal Wrote:

HeartofShadows Wrote:

You get a fucking cookie.

Yay!

[Absnt]

[username01462781]

Oh, Ok then. So whoever commited 9/11 is getting away with it because Bush wanted some oil?

Damn.

[Prince Rilian]

Linki Wrote:Oh, Ok then. So whoever commited 9/11 is getting away with it because Bush wanted some oil?

Damn.

Like we could just go and take down a multi-national suicide-bomber organization.

[Thought Criminal]

Linki Wrote:Oh, Ok then. So whoever commited 9/11 is getting away with it because Bush wanted some oil?

Damn.

Pretty much. Not like it means shit. A quote I saw a few months ago explains my feelings on it rather well.
It goes "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

[Rebelnerd]

Actually, we were so incredibly close to getting bin Laden in 2002. We literally knew exactly where he was in the mountains along the Afghan/Pakistani border, but the invasion force never had enough troops and they weren't able to secure a strong enough perimeter. Osama basically walked over the mountains into Pakistan and got away.
And just when you thought this couldn't get any more nostril-rapingly frustrating...some intelligence officials speculate that he may have been walking with a cane at the time.