Daddy, Why Did We Have To Attack Iraq?
igor@af
07-27-2003, 12:41 AM
DADDY, WHY DID WE HAVE TO ATTACK IRAQ?
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of
mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry,
we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned
to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons
when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those
weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than
defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if
they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those
weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those
weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam
Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to
invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade
his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic
competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in
sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American
corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures
people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government.
People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison
and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while
China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba
are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the
other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed
some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any
business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started
being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and
started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the
Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-***.
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 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.
Good night, Daddy.
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of
mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry,
we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned
to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons
when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those
weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than
defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if
they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those
weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those
weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam
Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to
invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade
his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic
competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in
sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American
corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures
people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government.
People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison
and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while
China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba
are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the
other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed
some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any
business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started
being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and
started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the
Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-***.
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 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.
Good night, Daddy.
YogsVR4
07-27-2003, 12:44 AM
Heck - I remember that one from Panama :bloated:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
zebrathree
07-27-2003, 01:11 PM
Gee, I dont see any impartialness or propaganda in that piece. :rolleyes:
Veyron
07-27-2003, 01:20 PM
Just more hate dribbling IGnORance.
igor@af
07-27-2003, 01:36 PM
I fail to see the corelation between summing up US's recent political track record and ignorance. Please enlighten me.
Accord_Zero
07-27-2003, 01:37 PM
Hate dribbling? And going to war isn't full of hate?
Veyron
07-27-2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by igor@af
I fail to see the corelation between summing up US's recent political track record and ignorance. Please enlighten me.
Forget recent track records, hell if you want to drag up every wrong doing the government has ever done, it would fill every forum on the web. It's pointless unless YOU have personal evidence, if not you're probably just repeating information that was or is as bogus as the intell that is in question. The constant bashing you do by posting mindless drival such as "Daddy why did we have to attack Iraq?" doesn't prove anything, except that your arguement on most of this is weak.
I fail to see the corelation between summing up US's recent political track record and ignorance. Please enlighten me.
Forget recent track records, hell if you want to drag up every wrong doing the government has ever done, it would fill every forum on the web. It's pointless unless YOU have personal evidence, if not you're probably just repeating information that was or is as bogus as the intell that is in question. The constant bashing you do by posting mindless drival such as "Daddy why did we have to attack Iraq?" doesn't prove anything, except that your arguement on most of this is weak.
Veyron
07-27-2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Accord_Zero
Hate dribbling? And going to war isn't full of hate?
In this case it wasn't about hate, it was about protection. Since the beginning of time some faction, country or empire has been the power leader. Who would you prefer it be? War is necessary for peace, for resolve. You've never lied, faught anyone or made mistakes doing what you thought was in your best interest I suppose, a perfect human being are you? :smile:
Hate dribbling? And going to war isn't full of hate?
In this case it wasn't about hate, it was about protection. Since the beginning of time some faction, country or empire has been the power leader. Who would you prefer it be? War is necessary for peace, for resolve. You've never lied, faught anyone or made mistakes doing what you thought was in your best interest I suppose, a perfect human being are you? :smile:
igor@af
07-27-2003, 01:51 PM
Unfortunately for you, I do not post often in this forum, and when I do post something, it is because I find the content, whether I write it myself, or found it on the web, significant. So no, I don't do 'constant bashing.'
However, I'd definately be very interested in seeing what exactly is 'bogus' in the information I posted. Yes, it is obviously biased, but that does not make it false. In case you didn't know, persuasive essays are supposed to have a 'point' that they are trying to expose/prove.
The fact that you have posted nothing that can be labeled as 'content' but rather decided to attack and degrade me personally shows something about your knowledge on these matters....
However, I'd definately be very interested in seeing what exactly is 'bogus' in the information I posted. Yes, it is obviously biased, but that does not make it false. In case you didn't know, persuasive essays are supposed to have a 'point' that they are trying to expose/prove.
The fact that you have posted nothing that can be labeled as 'content' but rather decided to attack and degrade me personally shows something about your knowledge on these matters....
Accord_Zero
07-27-2003, 01:51 PM
Weak argument? How strong is yours? It's all just opinion. If you are on the opposite side, you'll most likely say the other side is wrong either way. He did post facts within the somewhat long conversation...how is that weak?
Veyron
07-27-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Accord_Zero
Weak argument? How strong is yours? It's all just opinion. If you are on the opposite side, you'll most likely say the other side is wrong either way. He did post facts within the somewhat long conversation...how is that weak?
Facts according to who, and are you going to guarantee the information?
Weak argument? How strong is yours? It's all just opinion. If you are on the opposite side, you'll most likely say the other side is wrong either way. He did post facts within the somewhat long conversation...how is that weak?
Facts according to who, and are you going to guarantee the information?
Veyron
07-27-2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by igor@af
Unfortunately for you, I do not post often in this forum, and when I do post something, it is because I find the content, whether I write it myself, or found it on the web, significant. So no, I don't do 'constant bashing.'
However, I'd definately be very interested in seeing what exactly is 'bogus' in the information I posted. Yes, it is obviously biased, but that does not make it false. In case you didn't know, persuasive essays are supposed to have a 'point' that they are trying to expose/prove.
The fact that you have posted nothing that can be labeled as 'content' but rather decided to attack and degrade me personally shows something about your knowledge on these matters....
I'm just trying to throw in a voice of reason, nobody here has proof of anything yet they act as if they own the truth, that's all. I don't own it, you don't own it, we all need to give this more time to see all the outcomes. Much good can come from it even if there is disagreement on how it started. The hate Bush bandwagon is full, I didn't vote for him but I wouldn't want to be in his shoes either, would you?
Unfortunately for you, I do not post often in this forum, and when I do post something, it is because I find the content, whether I write it myself, or found it on the web, significant. So no, I don't do 'constant bashing.'
However, I'd definately be very interested in seeing what exactly is 'bogus' in the information I posted. Yes, it is obviously biased, but that does not make it false. In case you didn't know, persuasive essays are supposed to have a 'point' that they are trying to expose/prove.
The fact that you have posted nothing that can be labeled as 'content' but rather decided to attack and degrade me personally shows something about your knowledge on these matters....
I'm just trying to throw in a voice of reason, nobody here has proof of anything yet they act as if they own the truth, that's all. I don't own it, you don't own it, we all need to give this more time to see all the outcomes. Much good can come from it even if there is disagreement on how it started. The hate Bush bandwagon is full, I didn't vote for him but I wouldn't want to be in his shoes either, would you?
YogsVR4
07-27-2003, 03:39 PM
For those who don't know. One of the best sources of information and analysis can be had through stratfor.com They have been amazingly on target with their suppositions and insight over the last four years Iˇ¦ve been reading them. Potentially the least biased to any position that I have ever seen. They lay things out and explain how and why they see things. Really good stuff. It is a bit costly depending on what you go after, but its been worth it for me.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
TexasF355F1
07-27-2003, 07:26 PM
Thanks for the website Yogs, I'll have to surf through it when I get some more free time.:bigthumb:
NSX-R-SSJ20K
07-28-2003, 05:35 AM
I don't think you can prove they had no weapons of mass destruction because the US will always be looking for them and reassuring everyone that there are weapons of mass destruction. Although recently it seems that the UK and US governments have been backing down on such points. Seems to me like they don't think they'll find any. Of course if they don't find any which would be proof that there weren't any someone would volunteer up that the Weapons are actually in a different country.
So in the end its a wild goose chaise and whoever gets off first wins.
So in the end its a wild goose chaise and whoever gets off first wins.
Accord_Zero
07-28-2003, 09:09 AM
They know nobody will believe them if they find any weapons, which is most likely why they are backing off that 'reason' for attacking.
I just want to know what planet everyone else is on. Since when is it ok to attack a country based on assumptions? Why is aggressive force necessary when we were never attacked by them? If they said that this was all because of oil, would any of you support the war?
I just want to know what planet everyone else is on. Since when is it ok to attack a country based on assumptions? Why is aggressive force necessary when we were never attacked by them? If they said that this was all because of oil, would any of you support the war?
NSX-R-SSJ20K
07-28-2003, 10:40 AM
i think you missed the point. Most people at the time believed that what you call "ASSUMPTIONS" where in fact "FACTS" which have yet to be proved.
Secondly lets say you could avoid world war 2 if you made a pre-emptive strike on Germany would you do it? I'm not saying that a WW3 would've happened if no one did but it seems the problems in the Middle East just seem to escalate but this was more or less the obvious
out-come. When someone who had never been out the country took office and immediately pulled out from the middle-east as a country which was promoting peace something like this was bound to happen because of the politics of the party.
If this War was to have been avoided not voting for G W Bush would've worked wonders.
Secondly lets say you could avoid world war 2 if you made a pre-emptive strike on Germany would you do it? I'm not saying that a WW3 would've happened if no one did but it seems the problems in the Middle East just seem to escalate but this was more or less the obvious
out-come. When someone who had never been out the country took office and immediately pulled out from the middle-east as a country which was promoting peace something like this was bound to happen because of the politics of the party.
If this War was to have been avoided not voting for G W Bush would've worked wonders.
Accord_Zero
07-28-2003, 10:56 AM
Sure, maybe people believed them to be facts. But what was it that made them facts at that time? What evidence did they really have...for anything? Old info is old info...wouldn't you want an investigation for something as serious as war? My point is...believing and knowing are obviously two different things. To believe something is a fact is to be blind, is it not? So why go to war on a belief? Shouldn't you have knowledge of it first?
About Germany and WW2...if I absolutely KNEW that a war could be avoided...maybe I'd attack. Pre-emptive strikes are mostly a joke it seems. They ARE assumptions. Things go on behind the scenes that we don't, or aren't, supposed to know about.
About Germany and WW2...if I absolutely KNEW that a war could be avoided...maybe I'd attack. Pre-emptive strikes are mostly a joke it seems. They ARE assumptions. Things go on behind the scenes that we don't, or aren't, supposed to know about.
TexasF355F1
07-28-2003, 02:42 PM
Just as soon as I think we're moving right along we end up right smack dab at the beginning again.:bloated: :rolleyes:
YogsVR4
07-28-2003, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by TexasF355F1
Just as soon as I think we're moving right along we end up right smack dab at the beginning again.:bloated: :rolleyes:
Welcome to history
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Just as soon as I think we're moving right along we end up right smack dab at the beginning again.:bloated: :rolleyes:
Welcome to history
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
taranaki
07-29-2003, 01:01 AM
History is littered with wars ostensibly fought on moral issues but with commercial and political interests at the core.Mr Bush just went and started another one.The main battle may be over,but he has generated a whole lot of hatred for Americans in the Middle East that will poison relations for decades.He's a fool,and is controlling Iraq by force,not by the will of the Iraqi people.Another two car loads of Iraqi civilians were murdered by U.S. troops yesterday,for no other reason that they were driving luxury cars near a house rumoured to be a hiding place for Saddam.Troops opened fire without first trying to identify their targets.
WHAT'S THE BETTING THEY DON'T GET PUT ON TRIAL FOR THIS WAR CRIME?
WHAT'S THE BETTING THEY DON'T GET PUT ON TRIAL FOR THIS WAR CRIME?
YogsVR4
07-29-2003, 10:56 AM
Two carloads of Iraqi civilians huh. Is this what you are referring to? http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1007162,00.html So from a line or two in a news article you conclude that this was a war crime? Uh-huh…. right :rolleyes:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
zebrathree
07-29-2003, 12:51 PM
Sometimes it doesnt matter if they had an Ak47 in their hands, Yogs, they still would have been "murdered".
Naki, with all due respect, you dont know the full story over that incident, so "murdered" is a bit harsh.
Naki, with all due respect, you dont know the full story over that incident, so "murdered" is a bit harsh.
freakray
07-29-2003, 12:53 PM
Maybe Taranaki was referring to this....
Eyewitnesses said U.S. soldiers fired on two cars carrying Iraqi civilians as they tried to drive past a military roadblock in Baghdad.
http://www.news-leader.com/today/0728-Nearmissas-118954.html
Eyewitnesses said U.S. soldiers fired on two cars carrying Iraqi civilians as they tried to drive past a military roadblock in Baghdad.
http://www.news-leader.com/today/0728-Nearmissas-118954.html
zebrathree
07-29-2003, 01:24 PM
Its called a RoadBLOCK for a reason.....
YogsVR4
07-29-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by freakray
Maybe Taranaki was referring to this....
http://www.news-leader.com/today/0728-Nearmissas-118954.html
That has about the same information as the Guardian had except it included the word roadblock. Perhaps someone knows what crime of war this violated?
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Maybe Taranaki was referring to this....
http://www.news-leader.com/today/0728-Nearmissas-118954.html
That has about the same information as the Guardian had except it included the word roadblock. Perhaps someone knows what crime of war this violated?
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
taranaki
07-29-2003, 04:47 PM
I can only base my comments on what I have seen and read,just the same as any other person.Working from news sources that I respect and trust,I can only take the information that is given.If facts are omitted,there will be a distorted picture.However,working from divers souces such as TVNZ[Our national news service] and Reports in the major newspapers in this country,I can see no excuse for this incident.If the information presented was the whole truth,the vehicles in question should never have been fired on under conventional protocols.
But then under conventional protocols,George Bush had absolutely no justification for invading Iraq in the first place............
But then under conventional protocols,George Bush had absolutely no justification for invading Iraq in the first place............
zebrathree
07-29-2003, 05:16 PM
Well they were inside a cordon and trying to get through a roadblock without stopping.
Bit sus dontchathink?
Bit sus dontchathink?
ugly kid jon
07-29-2003, 06:00 PM
this picture reminds me of the Bush supporters:
YogsVR4
07-29-2003, 06:32 PM
and trolls like you jon, should keep this in mind
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/270197butthead.jpg
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/270197butthead.jpg
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
ugly kid jon
07-29-2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
and trolls like you jon, should keep this in mind
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/270197butthead.jpg
stop exposing yourself, you pervert
and trolls like you jon, should keep this in mind
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/270197butthead.jpg
stop exposing yourself, you pervert
TexasF355F1
07-29-2003, 07:29 PM
This thread is getting pretty heated now. Jon I suggest if you want to stay in here don't spam.
freakray
07-29-2003, 08:21 PM
Trolls are like flies, you get rid of one and another appears.....:redface:
taranaki
07-30-2003, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by zebrathree
Well they were inside a cordon and trying to get through a roadblock without stopping.
Bit sus dontchathink?
Not mentioned in the article in Tuesday's Dominion, or by the reports on TVNZ.
Well they were inside a cordon and trying to get through a roadblock without stopping.
Bit sus dontchathink?
Not mentioned in the article in Tuesday's Dominion, or by the reports on TVNZ.
taranaki
07-30-2003, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by ugly kid jon
this picture reminds me of the Bush supporters:
Those are 3 wise monkeys.
There seem to be far too many Americans who will accept any old rubbish that their government's pr specialists put out,as long as they can continue to believe that Uncle Sam Can Do No Wrong.:shakehead :shakehead :shakehead
this picture reminds me of the Bush supporters:
Those are 3 wise monkeys.
There seem to be far too many Americans who will accept any old rubbish that their government's pr specialists put out,as long as they can continue to believe that Uncle Sam Can Do No Wrong.:shakehead :shakehead :shakehead
Accord_Zero
07-30-2003, 10:43 AM
Yes, because having your own opinion is anti-American. And we wouldn't want that.
Marc04
07-30-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Accord_Zero
Yes, because having your own opinion is anti-American. And we wouldn't want that.
yea, what a moronic thing to do, think for yourself....:bloated:
Yes, because having your own opinion is anti-American. And we wouldn't want that.
yea, what a moronic thing to do, think for yourself....:bloated:
trevolutionist
08-07-2003, 02:25 PM
i think we're all missing the point of it being a joke... haha hehe...
Sanchi
08-07-2003, 06:22 PM
ya but all jokes are half true..
taranaki
08-07-2003, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by trevolutionist
i think we're all missing the point of it being a joke... haha hehe...
Perhaps you are missing the point.The original excuses given for invading Iraq are pretty much proven to be a joke.
i think we're all missing the point of it being a joke... haha hehe...
Perhaps you are missing the point.The original excuses given for invading Iraq are pretty much proven to be a joke.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025