Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? (page 5)

Xena

Ah got it Realist...only interesting in your own facts...what WAS I thinking??

Ta

talesin

FreeWilly

Not to answer for Simon, but my take on it is,

Well, it's not the 1700s, it's 2004. America has invaded Iraq, and the world is holding its breath in anticipation of a possible WWIII.

Some agree wih Bush actions, some don't. That's why there is a debate raging not only here, but all over the world. It's not about anti-Americanism.

It's about current world affairs, US just happens to be the political and economic giant right now, and it is going to take the heat no matter WHAT it does.

Tell me, do you consider Americans who are against this military action to be anti-American? Or just anyone who is not a US citizen?

TaiChi

Thanks for your considered response. :) And yes, we will wait on the body count... will be interesting to see the final results, if they are ever reported.

Yes, well that is why (and I'm not wanting you to agree, just hoping you understand where I'm coming from) we look at Bush's reasoning and say "Why Iraq?" There are no WoMD, and yes he was a dictator, but what about Haiti, Nigeria, etc, yada yada. Then we assume it must be about oil, money and power, else why would he focus on Iraq? Thus, the objections to this 'war'. I know that's very simplistic, but without arguing, I just wanted to let you know my basic reasoning. Since we'll probly never agree. *smile* I respect your position, just don't agree with it.

talesin

Realist

i just LOVE it when especially women who sit comfortably at home demand from others to go to war! but they themselfs would never consider doing it! thats what i call full of ****

Huh? I may not agree with Panda's stance, but that is no reason to slam either her patriotism or gender!

talesin

Xena

yeah, like America really cares about them

tal it's comments like that one that I believe make people wonder about the "anti-american" stuff...I mean really was that comment necessary or correct?

Realist

talesin,

panda said:

Daddy, why aren't you fighting for freedom and liberal democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"Well , honey you must realize by now that Daddy is a coward."

this implies that everyone who does not support bush and does not fight over there is a coward.

talesin

Xena

Yes, I see your point. How about if we inserted 'corporate' in front of America? Cause that's who runs the world imho. Not Americans, but the rich, the multinationals. I think that language sometimes is driven by frustration, passion, and just general irritation on both sides. Cause we're all right and we're all wrong if you know what I mean? Here we are fighting , we have NOTHING to do with the decision-making process. We're just pawns who pay the taxes to fund all this stuff. Then who reaps the benefits? The corporations, the money-makers of the world,,,,,, NOT JUST THE USA. imho :)

That's why I enjoy the debate, but not the nasty talk. (and yes, I'm not perfect, no question of that)

tal

blacksheep

Daddy, why did 9/11 happen?

Because bad people called terrorists wanted to kill Americans.

Where were these bad people from?

From many countries in the middle east (see the globe?). But the big leader was in Afghanistan.

Daddy, why didn't we go over there and stop them before they could do something so bad here?

Because Clinton was in power when these guys started doing bad things and telling everyone they hate the US. President Clinton did not want to make the rest of the world mad at him. If they attacked the bad guys in the middle east, it would be called a PRE-EMPTIVE attack, which he and others considered to be a bad thing. Unless all the countries agreed that he could do it.

So, daddy, we gotta wait until something really bad happens, like 9/11, before we try to go to war and stop these bad people?

Well...no. If we have positive proof that the bad guys are going to do something bad to us, then we have a right to prevent it and go to war with them. But of course, we'd have to get the approval of all the other countries to do that.

Daddy, how do you get positive proof that something bad is going to happen? And how do you get all the other countries to agree with you so that you can stop the bad thing from happening?

Good questions son. Evidence is starting to show that our President, Mr. Bush, had clear-cut proof that 9/11 was about to happen. Because he did, he should have declared PRE-EMPTIVE war against the bad people, centered in Afghanistan. He should have, of course, gotten agreement from all the other countries that this was the right thing to do.

Daddy, what positive proof did that have that 9/11 was going to happen?

Some of the intelligence people, called the CIA and FBI, heard some things that led us to believe that something very bad was going to happen.

Daddy, did they know who was going to crash into the towers? Did they know it would be planes? Did they know it would be on 9/11?

No, not necessarily, son.

So daddy, then taking action before 9/11 happened without knowing who, when how, and where a bad thing might happen...wouldn't that be called a Pre-Emptive attack?

Right, son.

But I thought that was a bad thing.

Yes, son, it is.

And that's why you said attacking Iraq was bad? You said it was an "unjustified preemtive" attack?

Yes, son.

But didn't everyone believe before that that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction?

Yes son. Everyone but France and Russia. As it so happens, they had big money deals with Saddaam. That money was supposed to feed people in Iraw. But Saddam used to to build castles and have lots of fun.

Wait daddy, so you said we were wrong to do a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, even though everyone believed he was a threat. Even though everyone had seen what bad people could do if they were not stopped, like in 9/11?

Yes, son.

But you say we should have done a preemptive attack on Afghantistan and the bad people before 9/11? That we actually had positive proof that he was going to do what he did when he did it?

Well...

Daddy, would have have had to get approval from all the other countries before we did a "pre-emptive" attack on Afghanistan to prevent 9/11?

Well, probably not before. But certainly after. But the main thing son, is that we should have had expert intel in place and should have had the means to prevent the bad guys from even entering the country, getting on planes, and causing all the problems.

Daddy, you mean like what is being done through the Patriot Act.

Well...

I thought liberals had opposed the Patriot Act for many decades? Wasn't it only President Bush who made sure it got in place?

Son, it's time for bed. What's say we read a couple of chapters from Listening to the Great Teacher?

talesin

Realist

Yes, I did not like that comment either. So not wanting to go to war means I am a coward? Them's fightin' words! (really)

But why not answer with some reason, instead of slamming back? It's a lot more fun to participate in and/or read a heated debate that has a bit of meat to it than it is to read people trading insults. That would be my preference. Just a thought.

tal

Realist

blacksheep,

so what exactly are you saying? that clinton should have attacked the middle east? is he more responsible for 911 than bush?

why did bush not declare war in the moment he was elected? is it possible that he needed a pearl habor in order to sway the us public?

Patriot Act

who comes up with these nice terms for bad things?

Realist

talesin,

yes you are right....but that comment pissed me off especially because i have heard it so many times.

i loved your above comments by the way....

Here we are fighting , we have NOTHING to do with the decision-making process. We're just pawns who pay the taxes to fund all this stuff. Then who reaps the benefits? The corporations, the money-makers of the world,,,,,, NOT JUST THE USA. imho :)

excellent!

Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

Share this