Leftist email from worker- Refute

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
40,134
Location
NJ
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: 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.


Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the Mujahadeen repel the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald
Reagan
talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or
thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We
call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years
after
they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support

our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the
French
and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French
Fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what
We
want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

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


Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him
our
friend, temporarily.

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

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah*, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked
the
other way, to show him we were his friend.

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


Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an
enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can
profit
by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the
better.

Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for
America.
Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a
Godless
un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

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


Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him
what
to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because
George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your
eyes,
make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Good night, Daddy
 
What is to refute? It all looks accurate. America launched an unprovoked invasion of another country against the will of the rest of the world and now needs the rest of the world to help get them out of the mess. Osama Bin Laden is still at large and the troops and money that were designated to find him have been diverted to the invasion of Iraq.

I'm sure I'll get called a liberal DemocRAT (conservatives love name calling becasue it makes them feel superior) by the conservative right wing repubilcans on this board. But, I don't think actual factual arguements will surface.

[ May 12, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Scott P ]
 
cool.gif
Obviously I don't agree with all of that, but I love it. I hate hypocrisy on either side.
 
Yup, Bush really blew it! We had the sympathy of the entire world after 9-11, and support for our search of Osama. But when we invaded Iraq, a sympathy evaporated and the world now only shakes their head at us.
 
That email has convinced me. I am going to write in Jimmy Carter for president. I remember his great success in dealing with the Iranians in 79. Plus everyone was so happy and peaceful in the US back then. And everyone loved us. Especially the jihadis. And the Soviets. And he's still around and proud of his achievements. Too bad Clinton can't run. I bet if he was around everyone would love us too. That Cole thing? Oh, that's nothing, it could have been solved by blowing up another aspirin factory. As long as everyone likes us and we can write snide stuff about Republicans we'll be safe. Can somebody throw another baby out of the sled at the wolves? I'm kind of busy with an intern right now.
rolleyes.gif
 
It started out innocently enough.

I began to think at parties now and then to loosen up. Inevitably though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker. I began to think alone - "to relax," I told myself-but I knew it wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time.

I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself. I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thomas Paine, John Locke, and Adam Smith.

I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?"

Things weren't going so great at home either. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my husband about the meaning of life. He spent that night at his mother's.

I soon had a reputation as a heavy thinker. One day the boss called me in. He said, " I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job."

This gave me a lot to think about.

I came home early after my conversation with the boss.
"Honey," I confessed, "I've been thinking..."

"I know you've been thinking," He said, "and I want a divorce!"

"But Honey, surely it's not that serious."

"It is serious," He said, "You think as much as college professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking we won't have any money!"

"That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently, and he began to cry. I'd had enough. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door. I headed for the library, in the mood for some Aristotle, with NPR and Pacifica on the radio. I roared into the parking lot and ran up to the big glass doors... they didn't open. The library was closed. To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night. As I sank to the ground clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering, a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked.

You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinker's Anonymous poster. Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker.

I never miss a TA meeting.
At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting. I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home.

Life just seemed .... easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking.
 
Just a couple days ago I was watching a show on PBS about Time and Life magazine, and one of the clips showed a US peace protester c. 1940. She was holding a sign saying something like "Why attack Germany? They haven't done anything to us?" Well, I don't see any possible parallel there. I think I saw that same sign being paraded around recently with "Germany" replaced by "Iraq." Anyone care to have embarked on journeys down the road not traveled in company of Democrats? Not me.
 
We just enjoyed eight years of peace and prosperity with Democrats down the road not traveled. Before that we had Bush 1, with economic problems, and after that we have Bush 2, with the world suddenly in a total mess, corresponding exactly with his watch. The pattern seems pretty clear...

I'll gladly take that road not traveled.

[ May 12, 2004, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: TooManyWheels ]
 
I am sure the economy magically did well under Clinton because of his charisma and his VP's invention of the internet. And I am sure you think unemployment is terrible now, but it was fine under Clinton, when in fact it is pretty much the same.

What exactly was enjoyable about the Clinton years foreign policy wise? Pulling out of Somalia and giving a military escort to the thug in command of the people responsible for the US deaths? So you would not have invaded Afghanistan either? Because ClintonGore sure wouldn't have. Oh, and I really loved the Clinton crocodile tears after doing nothing in Rwanda. I bet he really felt their pain. Or at least the overwhelming stench from their rotting corpses. And what exactly was the last Al Quaeda attack here? What do you think, that Bin Laden is waiting for just the right time for another Sept. 11? While they are being hunted down? I don't think so. Where is their training base now? They might be able to pull off some puny stunt like Madrid before the election here, but they ain't what they used to be. With Democrats in power you just might be preparing for a hard landing from a tall building right now.
 
quote:

I am sure you think unemployment is terrible now, but it was fine under Clinton, when in fact it is pretty much the same.

rgl - You must think you are dealing with some real ignoramuses here. Prior to Clinton, economists thought that there was a residual level of unemployment which could never be broken. As a result of the Clinton years they had to give up that assumption.

And as we have discussed many times here, that rate is much higher under Bush, and even then is severely understated, because so many have fallen out of the figures because of the length of time unemployed.
 
Let us assume you are correct about economic theory, in which case we can never really compare numbers meaningfully. Please state why the economy was in decline prior to Bush taking office. You are not disputing that, are you? And, are we in a recovery now or is everyone at the WSJ on coke? If so, do you give Bush credit? Also please refute any of my statements regarding Clinton or Carter foreign policy. Thanks.
 
I'm strictly focusing on the issue, which is did we make a mistake by invading Iraq?
smile.gif
 
The first attack on the WTC came a whopping 30 something days after Clinton took offce. Do you actually think that any preesident, Democrat or Republican could have prevented that? The 9-11 attacks came many months into the Bush presidency. He ignored terror warnings and put anything to do with terrorism on the back burner so he could concentrate on a missle defense system and many vacations to Camp David. Right after 9-11, Bush wanted to know how to connect the attack to Iraq.

And don't even think about comparing Iraq to Germany in WWII. Comparisons like that hold no merit whatsover. German was a legit threat. Saddam was barely holding onto the power he had.

We've destabilized an already violent part of the world. And for what? I have yet to see one solid reason for war other than Saddam was a mean guy. If we are going on a mean guy hunt, why did we choose him first?
 
Buster - you posted that whole screed to ask the one question.

Should we have invaded Iraq? Yes.
Should we be done invading Iraq and be out? Yes. Kill Sadaam, kill Sadr, and leave.
Should we have invaded Afganistan?
Should we leave? Not until we have bin Laden.

In the long run worth it. In the short run, ugly and look at the howlers.

As far as the silly Q and A thing. Some of the things are just stupid as the answers are just as stupid.

Clinton, scot free? Huh? 9/11 would have happened if Gore would have won, which means the planning started awhile back, But that to is just silly speculation.

Did the idiots in Iraq blow it by hacking that guy's head off? YES...stupids had USA on a plate because of the action of less than 20 or so...recording a head hacking is a tad lower than videoing butt humping....
 
Ok, here is why I don't blame Bush for this and also why there is a flaw to this thinking. Ready?.............Hindsight.

Kerry in 98 on record saying Sadam had to be dealt with.

Bill Clinton on CNN before the war agreeing with Bush.

Hillary Clinton and other Dems voting for this war. Look, it does look bad and it MIGHT have been wrong. What this Q&A tells us IMO, is that we aren't consistant and we can't control the world. Again, if we did find WMDs everyone would be raving about how great Bush is. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say and that is a fact. If anyone is to blame, it's our poor intelligence and Tenet who said it was a "slam dunk". However, if **** Cheney did manipulate the data, I do blame him. Same goes for Bushy.
 
Actually, Al Gore did help create the internet. As a congressman he fought for funding for ARPA net which evolved into the intenet. There you go. Now did he develop IP technology, no. But he did have the foresight to fund a great idea.
 
Prior to Clinton, economists thought that there was a residual level of unemployment which could never be broken. As a result of the Clinton years they had to give up that assumption.

*** *** ***

An economist is back in his old college town many years after graduation and decides to drop in on one of his old professors. He happens to see a copy of an exam sitting on the desk, so he picks
it up to look at it. Upon deciding that it looks familiar, he comments to the professor that it is the same exam that he had taken 10 years ago. The professor assures him that this is correct, but adds that this time the answers are different.
 
offtopic.gif

slider, I guess that's part of the problem with having old people as our elected representatives.

They answer today's questions with yesterday's answers !
 
quote:

Originally posted by buster:
I'm strictly focusing on the issue, which is did we make a mistake by invading Iraq?
smile.gif


buster,
going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan was, IMHO the corret thing to do. (letting his family leave while a no flight ban was on......insufficient information, but I don't like it on face value).

Going into Iraq to get the WMD that the appropriate authority was asking for more time investigate...bad.

Hanging around for so long.....after the first mistake, walking out is akin to leaving the patient open on the table, after realising that the operation was for the wrong reason.

We have to stay and fix it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom