Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

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

(c) 2003 anarchie bunker

Permission is freely granted to copy, print, and distribute this material by any means, so long as the author is given proper credit and so long as this statement is included in any and all copies made for distribution.

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That’s because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that’s why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That’s because the weapons are so well hidden. Don’t worry, we’ll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I’m confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn’t they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn’t want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn’t make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It’s a different culture. It’s not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don’t know about you, but I don’t think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn’t matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don’t go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it’s a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn’t that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What’s the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba’ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn’t you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China’s a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn’t a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn’t that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don’t be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn’t think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don’t have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he’s not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What’s a military coup?
A: That’s when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn’t the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn’t you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren’t the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people’s heads and hands?
A: Yes, that’s exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people’s heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn’t the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people’s heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people’s heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It’s OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people’s hands for growing flowers, but it’s cruel if they cut off people’s hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don’t they also cut off people’s hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That’s different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don’t Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What’s the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don’t go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we’re mad at them now. We’re also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn’t help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
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.
Q: Good night, Daddy.

2

smart kid…

…where did all the ILP warmongers go by the way?

3

i dont think we can blame the current american administration for the poor judgement calls other administrations have made. Only the ones they are currently making =)

4

Hahaha, That’s funny! You think the current administration is different from the one that sold weapons to Hussein and looked the other way while he gassed Kurds. What was the name of the president back then again?

5

i agree, but i mean in general. i feel too often the fauls of one administration or blamed on anouther. but i HAVE seen the pictures of saddam shaking hands friendily with saddam. i wish somone would put that on the front page of a newspaper!

6

At the end of the gulf war, the majority of Iraqis viewed the U.S.'s withdrawl from Iraq as a victory because that is how the media portrayed it. All media in Iraq was owned by the government at that time. Thank godess we don’t have that problem here in the states, and even though there haven’t been any major newspapers/newsnetworks bringing that certain photo into the limelight, there certainly will be as the election inches closer.

More on your point frighter, I certainly can blame previous administration’s mistakes on current ones, if the current one does nothing/not enough to correct the mistake.

So it is Bush Jr.'s fault that Iraq and Cuba suffer(ed) from suffocating embargoes.

Bush Jr. said that the current war in Iraq related to American idealogical opposition to Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds. Well has American idealogy changed that much since then? The point they are trying to make is that it was in the Administration’s (not the country or world but the idividuals comprising said administration) best interest not to do anything back then, and that the current American attack on Iraq is the same, only serving individual’s best interests not those of the country or world.

7

Eleven companies in america control 90 percent of what ordinary people are able to read and watch on their television. The 24-hour news shows on MSNBC, Fox and CNN are closely interconnected with various governmental and corporate sources of news.

Anti-democratic news media are hostile to history. And so, the same propaganda machinery says little about the suffering that results from the class war constantly waged by the wealthy–and avoids telling much about the human consequences of militarism.

In the United States, certain vital statements by Twain - who’s often considered to be the nation’s greatest writer - are excluded from corporatized media culture. A hundred years ago, he wrote: “Who are the oppressors? The few: the king, the capitalist and a handful of other overseers and superintendents. Who are the oppressed? The many: the nations of the earth; the valuable personages; the workers; they that make the bread that the soft-handed and idle eat.”

Though American media is not under the direct control of the government as in some other countries and does provide limited coverage of oppositional beliefs on issues, it is under direct corporate control and often gives one-sided preferential treatment of arguments and debates. Considering the power American opinion has over the world due to periodicals and broadcasts that span the globe, it could be argued that American mainstream media is by far the most important and should be the most scrutinized of any.

Shalom
Bob

8

Bob, every time I read one of your posts I gain more respect for you. I only wish there were more people with so much wisdom. Which is why I’m very thankful to you for puting so much great information into my, and everyone who reads your posts, computor screens.

9

I feel obliged to say that I gather information and I build my opinion on the expertise of other people. The only ‘wisdom’ that I could make claim to would perhaps be the wish to have people know for themselves what I have found out, knowing on the other hand, that knowledge alone will not change anything - and that is what fifty years experience teaches you.

Thank you for your words of encouragement

Shalom
Bob

10

Maybe Bush wanted to send a message by invading Iraq. He could have invaded other countries but if he did it would hurt america a lot more when he could simply invade Iraq. Maybe by invading Iraq it will give him more leverage for negotiating with other countries and improving their standards or at least negotiating better trade agreements in exchange for ignorance of their human rights violations. If I were a ruthless Iranian dictator I would take a suggestion by the US to improve human rights a lot more seriously now or at least be a lot more generous with trade agreemens with the US now that my neighbour was just taken over. Kind of like if you just took twenty hostages and are now demanding money from the police outside and there just trying to talk you into comming out because they don’t think your serious about killing everyone. They’re more or less just stalling for time but then you go and shoot someone. Suddenly everything changes and they’re a lot more responsive to your demands. You already shot one person so whats stopping you from shooting another. This is my rational for Bush’s invasion. Either that or he really is a mad man and the voices told him to invade.

11

You relized that you just called america a terrorist.

12

The term “terrorism” is defined in official US documents thus: “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.”

This implies that uncalculated use of violence against civilians - the spur-of-the-moment, unorganized torching of randomly selected immigrant houses, for instance - is not terrorism. It implies that threatening intervention in East Timor or Rwanda would have been terrorist. It implies that those who flagellate themselves in a religious procession are terrorists, as are those who threaten sinners with hellfire. It implies that the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and invasion of Normandy were terrorist campaigns. It implies that virtually any attack against terrorists is also terrorism.

Osama bin Laden first became involved in militant Islamic activities when he went to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight with the Mujahideen against the Soviet-backed regime that had taken power in the country. According to the CIA 2000 Fact Book, the Mujahideen were “supplied and trained by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others.” Even in the 1980s it was widely recognized that many of those fighting against the Soviets and the Afghan government were religious fanatics who had no loyalty to their U.S. sponsors, let alone to “western values” like democracy, religious tolerance and gender equality.

Ronald Reagan [God bless him] in the mid-1980s, when the CIA was backing the Mujahideen warriors in Afghanistan, likened them to our “founding fathers.” Then in Central America, Reagan called thousands of former soldiers of Somoza’s National Guard “freedom fighters” as they were sent to fight against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. And when the Sandinistas went to the World Court to press charges against the United States for sending special operatives to bomb its major port facility in Corinto, the Reagan administration withdrew from the Court, refusing to acknowledge the rule of international law.

It does make you ask, doesn’t it. State terrorism is normally not spoken of in the land that is suppressing others and people of that land are duly disgusted with such reports.

All of the above can be read at http://www.counterpunch.org/search.html under the rubrik ‘state terrorism’.

Shalom
Bob