greathornytoad

The son, somewhat of a child prodigy in History asking his
father the reasons on the War in 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 Daddy, 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: Eeer...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 Daddy.
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 and other nationals.

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
patriarch 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 mujahideen 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.

(the father very tired liao !)

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.


__________________

kinda funny, but there's some truth in it. your thought?

gloveshot3

great!!!!!!!!

rogue49

Kind of skewed, but still funny.

I agree with the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan
there were some benefits.

I don't agree with our previous policies, and some of the reactions to objecting nations.

I don't want to get into it, I'll keep my thoughts simple.
It's too early in the morning.

crupdawg

great, put chain email crap like this in tilted humor, please

reconmike

Father and son walking through Liberty State Park.

son: Daddy whats is going on over there?
father: They are rebuilding the world trade centers.

son: Daddy what are the world trade centers?
father: well son they were to towers that housed the US and the world financal centers.

son: What happened to them?
father: some really bad Arabs from the middle east flew planes into them to attack us. So we needed to attack them back untill there are no more bad arabs.

son: daddy whats an arab, did they used to live in new america?

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

The_Dude

cracks me up.

the kid sounds like a democrat, and the dad a republican.


anyway, the dad contradicts his previous statement in the next statement he makes

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

ctembreull

Reminds me of something I saw posted a while back. Sorry for the length...

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
By Anonymous

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up!

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

The_Dude

i see something in common. they both like to change their reasons for doing stuff (wait, so does gwb)

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

2wolves

An oilman who couldn't find oil in Texas leads us into Iraq.

Makes sense to me.

Heinlein said these were going to be the "Crazy Years."

2Wolves

32v4c

nice

Conclamo Ludus

It would be nice if we could just come up with some basic rules that everyone in the world would follow and they would never be broken and we would never have to deal with them in different situations. Then Daddy wouldn't have to backtrack and change his reasoning and the child prodigy wouldn't have to be so confused as to why one situation is different from another.

That would just be so cool... Everything would be perfect. Why does the world have to be so confusing? Better yet, we should just ban all bad people from being allowed to be bad. Then we would never have to face difficult situations. Bad people suck.

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

h2g2Fan

I did it. Very partisan but it's the kind of partisan that I approve of

hobo

lol nice stuff!

BTW the whole veto system is undemocratic. It means that 1 nation can overturn the decision of every other nation in the UN.