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, 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 hey 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 attached 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. Goodnight.
In fact I copied it shamelesy from dailyroxette [dailyroxette.com] and forgot to mention it. I like the CopyrightMoron moderation idea. I propose also that./ adds Satire +1, Ironic +1, Sarcastic +3, stupid -1 and ACbrag -1 moderations.
This post should be at Insightful +5, if it isn't use your moderation points to correct the error.
The raised issues are being dealt with in lots of other threads. If you'd like to discuss an issue with me, go ahead and bring it up. Or would you rather I respond with a strawman of my own?
Not really my point. Nor am I particualrly interested in reading your opinions when there's such a flood of them out there right now. You were scolding the parent poster for strawman arguments and I was chastizing you for backhandedly ignoring any of his concerns raised. You were smarmy, he put in some effort. I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but at least be productive.
Actually, he copy pasted it from someone else. The first time I read this post, I did respond to the points it made. This time I didn't. Nothing smarmy about that.
I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but at least be productive.
Pointing out that the argument was a strawman was productive.
I bet that guy's son would understand the whole capitalist pig argument real quick if offered
some candy or toys or threatened with them being taken away and never having them again.
Dennis Kucinich [kucinich.us]: the only presidential candidate who voted against the PATRIOT Act
I feel compelled to point out that not every presidential candidate was in a position to vote against the PATRIOT Act. That's like saying "Howard Dean: the only presidential candidate who is governor of Vermont."
i know of several countries where thousends and thousends of people are being 'deprived of their heads' by vicious leaders. when can i expect US to intervene? and btw, the countries in question don't have oil.
i know of several countries where thousends and thousends of people are being 'deprived of their heads' by vicious leaders. when can i expect US to intervene?
Whenever we can do so without facing major retaliation.
and btw, the countries in question don't have oil.
i know of several countries where thousands and thousands of barrels of oil are located. when can i expect US to intervene?
i know of several countries where thousends and thousends of people are being 'deprived of their heads' by vicious leaders. when can i expect US to intervene?
Whenever we can do so without facing major retaliation.
Excellent. So we can expect to see the Zimbabwe invasion plans drawn up next week then?
Given how the recent Commonwealth conference went, and the fact that there was only neligible regional support for Mugabe, I suspect there would be little retaliation.
Besides, I'm not suggesting you INVADE next week, merely that you start drawing up the invasion plans. Look at the nice long campaign from when invasion of Iraq was first countenanced, till it was executed. I imagine we could have a similar deal here. Certainly it wouldn't be hard to swing the support of a great many commonwealth countries
I meant publically draw up the plans. Wasn't that how news of the possible Iraq invasion started. Sketch invasion plans being aired in public. And where is the push to have the UN sanction an invasion. I haven't seen much of that going on.
You seem to be dodging the point here, which is:
(1) You could probably get a fair amount of international support to remove Mugabe. If you throw in the sort of level of effort that went into trying to convince the UN to invade Iraq you could probably get full UN sup
I meant publically draw up the plans. Wasn't that how news of the possible Iraq invasion started. Sketch invasion plans being aired in public.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. We knew of a possible Iraq invasion ever since Iraq annexed Kuwait. The first time I heard of speculation of actually going into Baghdad and removing Saddam was around the time we went into Pakistan. Ever since that point the speculation grew rather smoothly.
You could probably get a fair amount of international
I am in no way claiming that seeing Hussein deposed is a bad thing. Neither, to be honest, would I want to see troops marched in Zimbabwe to remove Mugabe - I think a little more backbone in condemning and cutting of his regime from trade and foreign aid would be a good start instead. If that fails to work, then further action could be contemplated. I am merely trying to point out that the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq don't make an awful lot of sense. don't worry, I'm not one of those "it's al
What do you think? Maybe that will help me understand your question. What specific things are you wondering why we're not hearing? What would you suggest we do?
I'm wondering why the systematic torture, death threats, random killing, and all round human rights abuses in Zimbabwe are going largely unnoticed and uncommented upon by the current US regime. I've heard comments from Blair, from Chirac, from Howard, but nothing from Bush. It was a hot topic at the recent Commonwealth conference, and could soon
As far as the "prime goal of the invasion," presumably you're talking about the prime goal of George Bush with regard to the invasion. That's an important point, though, because all the reasons you give were probably key to some in supporting the invasion. But it really was a Bush thing, and if I were going to speculate on his reasoning I think he did it because that's all he's good at.
Now, I'm definately no fan of Bush. When I heard he won the election in 2000 I was sick to my stomach. And even after
That part is just eerie. Even the UN thought there was a really good chance *something* was going on, which is why they passed all those resolutions. Am I to believe that the Iraqi regime had destroyed the weapons all along, yet was willing to be destroyed rather than allow the UN to verify it?
I think, in the end, the weapon inspector hassles were largely attempted gamesmanship on Hussein's part. At the very least he wanted his immediate neighbours to be worried that he might have something. Yeah, stupi
His argument addressed the "vicious leader" aspect many times, with comparisons to China and Afghanistan.
Furthermore, I think it's a pretty tough argument that we invaded because Saddam is a vicious leader. It makes a nice justification, because human issues sell well in the media, but I don't think folks seriously think we invaded because of Saddam's crimes against his people. There are many equally nasty governments around the world.
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2F news%2F2003%2F12%2F14%2Fwterr14.xml&secureRefresh= true&_requestid=53162
This is the first time this link is mentioned, until now even US intelligence services downplayed it. Wait a minute, this suposed Niger uranium shipment isn't the one that was previously reported as non existant by ex ambassador Wilson refuting Mr Bush? I'll wait a few days to see what solid turns to be this news.
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.
What? You think the world is so simplistic? There are 1000s of factors before an invasion:
Military resources- do we have the spare troops
Balance of power- how will the regions stability be affected?
Cost vs benefits- how much will it cost and is it a good value?
Public acceptance- does the American public agree?
Political considerations- what does the congress and the
It is if you want the war so bad that make it happen whatever the other factors. If they would had care to use your checklist we would be bashing Microsoft instead.
Given the degree of wild inaccuracy I see in attempts to predict or model how well a product will do in corporate America, I am extremely dubious that our world leaders can, in a highly political climate, make effective estimates about the long-term costs of going to war. Especially since there have been a lot more product launches than wars that the United States has fought.
...and while a lot of people are babbling about the illigetimacy of the USA making war, a lot of people are starving, dying, being tortured and generally having a very bad time at the hands of dictators and psychos around the world.
Those of you, who bash the USA for its involvement in the war, on whatever reason - you are too well off. You have forgotten that freedom is not free. You are taking it for granted, and hence, you are the greatest threat to democracy.
My country lived under 70 years of dictatorship thanks to a US sponsored coup that ended with the assasination of our democratically elected President.
I am not well off, I was threathened by state police, my school had bullet holes, one relative of mine was harrased, all because we wanted free, fair elections.
The US has no lessons to teach others about democracy because we have fought in our own places to attain it. To assume tha the US is the only possible source of all wisdom and democratic values is un
2 December 1999 -- During a debate in New Hampshire, George W Bush declares: "If I found in any way, shape or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take 'em out." Asked if that meant he would overthrow Saddam, Bush said he was only talking about the weapons.
11 February 2000 -- Stumping in South Carolina, George W Bush declares: "If we catch them developing weapons of mass destruction, there won't be any weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq -- if I'm the Commander-in-Chief."
11
HOST SYSTEM NOT RESPONDING, PROBABLY DOWN. DO YOU WANT TO WAIT? (Y/N)
Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:5, Insightful)
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, 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 hey 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 attached 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. Goodnight.
Goodnight daddy.
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:4, Insightful)
I like the CopyrightMoron moderation idea. I propose also that
This post should be at Insightful +5, if it isn't use your moderation points to correct the error.
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:4, Insightful)
Daddy, what is a strawman argument?
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:1)
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:1)
The raised issues are being dealt with in lots of other threads. If you'd like to discuss an issue with me, go ahead and bring it up. Or would you rather I respond with a strawman of my own?
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:1)
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:1)
You were smarmy, he put in some effort.
Actually, he copy pasted it from someone else. The first time I read this post, I did respond to the points it made. This time I didn't. Nothing smarmy about that.
I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but at least be productive.
Pointing out that the argument was a strawman was productive.
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:1)
I bet that guy's son would understand the whole
capitalist pig argument real quick if offered
some candy or toys or threatened with them being
taken away and never having them again.
Kinda like daddy's computer!
Yeah... time to invade China alright.
OT: Kucinich (Score:1)
I feel compelled to point out that not every presidential candidate was in a position to vote against the PATRIOT Act. That's like saying "Howard Dean: the only presidential candidate who is governor of Vermont."
Re:OT: Kucinich (Score:1)
I feel compelled to point out that not every presidential candidate was in a position to vote against the PATRIOT Act.
Well yeah, that's pretty obvious, isn't it?
That's like saying "Howard Dean: the only presidential candidate who is governor of Vermont."
No it's not. Other presidential candidates, such as GWB and Joe Lieberman, were in a position to vote against the PATRIOT Act, and yet did not.
Anyway, if you have a suggestion for a better sig promoting kucinnich.us, feel free to let me know. Or ev
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:2)
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:2)
i know of several countries where thousends and thousends of people are being 'deprived of their heads' by vicious leaders. when can i expect US to intervene?
Whenever we can do so without facing major retaliation.
and btw, the countries in question don't have oil.
i know of several countries where thousands and thousands of barrels of oil are located. when can i expect US to intervene?
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:2)
Excellent. So we can expect to see the Zimbabwe invasion plans drawn up next week then?
Jedidiah.
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:1)
Excellent. So we can expect to see the Zimbabwe invasion plans drawn up next week then?
I think we'd see quite a bit of retaliation if we suddenly went into Zimbabwe.
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:2)
Besides, I'm not suggesting you INVADE next week, merely that you start drawing up the invasion plans. Look at the nice long campaign from when invasion of Iraq was first countenanced, till it was executed. I imagine we could have a similar deal here. Certainly it wouldn't be hard to swing the support of a great many commonwealth countries
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:1)
Besides, I'm not suggesting you INVADE next week, merely that you start drawing up the invasion plans.
Well, we certainly won't have any retaliation for that, as no one is going to know about it. In fact, maybe the plans already are drawn up.
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:2)
You seem to be dodging the point here, which is:
(1) You could probably get a fair amount of international support to remove Mugabe. If you throw in the sort of level of effort that went into trying to convince the UN to invade Iraq you could probably get full UN sup
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:1)
I meant publically draw up the plans. Wasn't that how news of the possible Iraq invasion started. Sketch invasion plans being aired in public.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. We knew of a possible Iraq invasion ever since Iraq annexed Kuwait. The first time I heard of speculation of actually going into Baghdad and removing Saddam was around the time we went into Pakistan. Ever since that point the speculation grew rather smoothly.
You could probably get a fair amount of international
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:2)
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:2)
I'm wondering why the systematic torture, death threats, random killing, and all round human rights abuses in Zimbabwe are going largely unnoticed and uncommented upon by the current US regime. I've heard comments from Blair, from Chirac, from Howard, but nothing from Bush. It was a hot topic at the recent Commonwealth conference, and could soon
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:1)
As far as the "prime goal of the invasion," presumably you're talking about the prime goal of George Bush with regard to the invasion. That's an important point, though, because all the reasons you give were probably key to some in supporting the invasion. But it really was a Bush thing, and if I were going to speculate on his reasoning I think he did it because that's all he's good at.
Now, I'm definately no fan of Bush. When I heard he won the election in 2000 I was sick to my stomach. And even after
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:2)
I think, in the end, the weapon inspector hassles were largely attempted gamesmanship on Hussein's part. At the very least he wanted his immediate neighbours to be worried that he might have something. Yeah, stupi
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:2)
Furthermore, I think it's a pretty tough argument that we invaded because Saddam is a vicious leader. It makes a nice justification, because human issues sell well in the media, but I don't think folks seriously think we invaded because of Saddam's crimes against his people. There are many equally nasty governments around the world.
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:1)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:2)
Then rush and tell Bush. (Score:2)
Failing congratulate your "intelligence" services for yet another job well done.
Re:Liberal family moments: the making of a retard (Score:1)
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
What? You think the world is so simplistic? There are 1000s of factors before an invasion:
Military resources- do we have the spare troops
Balance of power- how will the regions stability be affected?
Cost vs benefits- how much will it cost and is it a good value?
Public acceptance- does the American public agree?
Political considerations- what does the congress and the
Re:Liberal family moments: the making of a retard (Score:2)
Re:Liberal family moments: the making of a retard (Score:2)
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:1)
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:1)
Actually, China artificially lowers their export prices to create unfair competition in order to boost their own economy.
Before you go expressing your completely biased opinion, at least get your facts straight.
-Lucas
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:1)
Those of you, who bash the USA for its involvement in the war, on whatever reason - you are too well off. You have forgotten that freedom is not free. You are taking it for granted, and hence, you are the greatest threat to democracy.
Not only because if your inherent arrogance.
Keep your democracy to yourself. (Score:2)
I am not well off, I was threathened by state police, my school had bullet holes, one relative of mine was harrased, all because we wanted free, fair elections.
The US has no lessons to teach others about democracy because we have fought in our own places to attain it. To assume tha the US is the only possible source of all wisdom and democratic values is un
Re:Father and son, bedtime chat (Score:2)
You mean people, not americans. About half of the victims were not US nationals.
"weapons our government said they had," after 9/11 (Score:2)