Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Lerkfish · Jul 23, 2003, 05:10 PM

I saw this on another board, and had to share, it was so well done:

----------------------
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 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 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 !

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 23, 2003, 05:12 PM

Subtle.

BDiddy · Jul 23, 2003, 05:19 PM

LOL

OAW · Jul 23, 2003, 05:25 PM

That just about sums it up. Classic!

OAW

lil'babykitten · Jul 23, 2003, 05:45 PM

Nice One!

BlackGriffen · Jul 23, 2003, 05:50 PM

Subtle point: the burqas did not expose the eyes. Makes them extremely different, I know

. </sarcasm>

I really dislike the idea that a whole nation be held accountable for the crimes of a few of it's citizens. Granted, Saudi Arabia has other things it needs to be held accountable for, even things that lead to the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi, but that's not the logical chain presented here.

BlackGriffen

thunderous_funker · Jul 23, 2003, 06:00 PM

"As the world turns......"

It made me laugh. Although that might have been just to keep from crying.

davesimondotcom · Jul 23, 2003, 06:06 PM

Kid: Daddy, why are so many people on this board so self righteous?

Daddy: Ask your mom.

7Macfreak · Jul 23, 2003, 06:09 PM

sad, sad world we live in.

Jeff Edsell · Jul 23, 2003, 06:12 PM

This is great.

It's also exactly the kind of thing that drives me crazy, because a lot of it seems so obvious, yet no one seems to want to hear it. The people who need to read this the most will shut down by the fourth line, because they don't want to hear it.

eklipse · Jul 23, 2003, 06:13 PM

Spot on.

It would be interesting to see someone try to refute the accuracy of the description.

BRussell · Jul 23, 2003, 06:36 PM

Some of this is legit criticism I think, but a lot is not. A couple of key points in the dialogue:

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.

Is that really the reason? Maybe it's because Iraq was invade-able and China is not. This argument basically says "unless you go to war with every bad country your war with this bad country is illegitimate." That's just silly, IMO. Going to war with one bad country should be judged on its own. Iraq has a very specific history that led to the war, and that history is very different from China's.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?

That's false. The money was given to NGOs, not the Taliban, and so I seriously doubt it had any relation to fighting drugs. This is just one of those lies with staying power.

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.

bin Laden was never "our friend" and we never "helped him." Another lie with staying power.

davesimondotcom · Jul 23, 2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
Some of this is legit criticism I think, but a lot is not.

BRussell - Balancing force!

I do have to wonder, how many pre-written anti-Bush chain email-type things are going to be posted. (See the many times posted "facts" about GWB thread � can't miss it, it's been posted every month or so.)

Can't anyone be creative and criticize him on their own? Or does EVERYTHING have to be from a talking points memo?

vmpaul · Jul 23, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

I really dislike the idea that a whole nation be held accountable for the crimes of a few of it's citizens. Granted, Saudi Arabia has other things it needs to be held accountable for, even things that lead to the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi, but that's not the logical chain presented here.

BlackGriffen

Actually I'm the exact opposite. I dislike the fact that we demonize a few individuals and a whole country can be virtually excused for supporting a corrupt and criminal regime. BG, I'm sensing some deja vu - I think we've had this discussion before. I've never had a satisfactory answer (not just from you but from anybody really): At what point are a people NOT responsible for their own government?

In the case with Iraq, we've successfully demonized Saddam and his sons but he undoubtedly had support throughout the political, military, social, religious, educational, and business classes in that country. If it wasn't outright support at the very least it was an amount of acquiescence that allowed him to stay in power.

Just as we are (at some level) responsible for the actions of Bush and Co..

BRussell · Jul 23, 2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
BRussell - Balancing force!

Yeah, I don't know what's wrong with me. Must be the heat out here in Big Sky country.

davesimondotcom · Jul 23, 2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yeah, I don't know what's wrong with me. Must be the heat out here in Big Sky country.

No kidding... this is unbearable.

I left my yard unwatered for a single weekend and now it's pretty much done for the summer. Saves on mowing, but the water bill is an outrage.

thunderous_funker · Jul 23, 2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
...That's false. The money was given to NGOs, not the Taliban, and so I seriously doubt it had any relation to fighting drugs. This is just one of those lies with staying power.

<snip>

bin Laden was never "our friend" and we never "helped him." Another lie with staying power.

1. You sure about the first one? I've read reports that claim that at least $10 million of the $43 million dollar package went directly to the Taliban.

Even so, the $43 million was pledged to NGO's operating in Afghanistan to help the Taliban stamp out opium production. It may not have gone directly to the Taliban (although some reports indicate that a portion of it did), but the effect is the same. Every penny the US spent fighting opium production in Afghanistan was a penny that the Taliban didn't have to spend on wiping out opium production.

Of course, a year later the UN accused the Taliban of secretly profitting from the opium trade so take that for what you will.

2. Are you saying the CIA never funded OBL and the mujahadeen? Never armed them? Never offered training and support?

I can understand you might want to make clarifying points on both of these items, but I can't see how your blanket dismissal is accurate.

zigzag · Jul 23, 2003, 07:21 PM

Life is complicated and foreign affairs are moreso. But it's a funny piece.

I'll never forget an interview with a Russian official I once saw. The interviewer pointed out that it seemed inconsistent for the Russians to do one thing here and another thing there. I expected him to launch into a long-winded rationalization, like an American or European would. To my surprise, the Russian just shrugged his shoulders and said "So?" It was refreshingly frank. I find Rumsfeld to be the same way at times.

Not that we shouldn't strive for consistency. I would like nothing better than to see the administration put more pressure on the Saudis. Hopefully it will come with time.

Zimphire · Jul 23, 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Kid: Daddy, why are so many people on this board so self righteous?

Daddy: Ask your mom.

ThinkInsane · Jul 23, 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

2. Are you saying the CIA never funded OBL and the mujahadeen? Never armed them? Never offered training and support?

Of course the CIA funded and trained the Mujahadeen. But OBL was nothing but a bit player. He didn't even pop up on the American radar until 1992 or so. Just because he was there, back in the 80's declaring jihad on the infidel Soviets doesn't mean he was particularly significant at the time. From what I have read, and I read up on this a lot after 9/11, the "CIA funded Bin Laden" theory is just a bunch of bunk.

BRussell · Jul 23, 2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
1. You sure about the first one? I've read reports that claim that at least $10 million of the $43 million dollar package went directly to the Taliban.

Even so, the $43 million was pledged to NGO's operating in Afghanistan to help the Taliban stamp out opium production. It may not have gone directly to the Taliban (although some reports indicate that a portion of it did), but the effect is the same. Every penny the US spent fighting opium production in Afghanistan was a penny that the Taliban didn't have to spend on wiping out opium production.

Of course, a year later the UN accused the Taliban of secretly profitting from the opium trade so take that for what you will.

Here's Powell's statement announcing the aid.

We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations. We provide our aid to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's warring factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. We hope the Taliban will act on a number of fundamental issues that separate us: their support for terrorism; their violation of internationally recognized human rights standards, especially their treatment of women and girls; and their refusal to resolve Afghanistan's civil war through a negotiated settlement.

I suppose you could argue that if we help the people, that indirectly helps the Taliban. But I think the intention was clearly to say that we despise the Taliban but we're trying to go around them and help the people of Afghanistan directly, whereas the dialogue implies that we liked the Taliban and gave them money like we give aid to Egypt or Israel, e.g. That's highly misleading, because the intent was quite the opposite.

I'd like to see some info that part of the funds were to the Taliban.

2. Are you saying the CIA never funded OBL and the mujahadeen? Never armed them? Never offered training and support?

We never funded OBL. We supported the mujahedeen, and so did OBL, but the story says he was our friend and we helped him. That's wrong, he was an independent operator, and never, AFAIK, got American money or support.

thunderous_funker · Jul 23, 2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
Here's Powell's statement announcing the aid.

I suppose you could argue that if we help the people, that indirectly helps the Taliban. But I think the intention was clearly to say that we despise the Taliban but we're trying to go around them and help the people of Afghanistan directly, whereas the dialogue implies that we liked the Taliban and gave them money like we give aid to Egypt or Israel, e.g. That's highly misleading, because the intent was quite the opposite.

I'd like to see some info that part of the funds were to the Taliban.We never funded OBL. We supported the mujahedeen, and so did OBL, but the story says he was our friend and we helped him. That's wrong, he was an independent operator, and never, AFAIK, got American money or support.

I'd agree with both of your clarifications. It is misleading to suggest that the Taliban or OBL got direct support, but were rather indirectly benefited.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 23, 2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Of course the CIA funded and trained the Mujahadeen. But OBL was nothing but a bit player. He didn't even pop up on the American radar until 1992 or so. Just because he was there, back in the 80's declaring jihad on the infidel Soviets doesn't mean he was particularly significant at the time. From what I have read, and I read up on this a lot after 9/11, the "CIA funded Bin Laden" theory is just a bunch of bunk.

Yes, but all of these silly lists read so much better if one doesn't really understand any of the facts involved any better than a 5 year old 'asking Daddy'.

theolein · Jul 23, 2003, 09:00 PM

Good post. Why hasn't the USA invaded Cuba??? I'd actually love to know the answer to that one.

As for Osama and his buddies, there are some who have a more detailed approach to his training and the connections.

BlackGriffen · Jul 23, 2003, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Actually I'm the exact opposite. I dislike the fact that we demonize a few individuals and a whole country can be virtually excused for supporting a corrupt and criminal regime. BG, I'm sensing some deja vu - I think we've had this discussion before. I've never had a satisfactory answer (not just from you but from anybody really): At what point are a people NOT responsible for their own government?

In the case with Iraq, we've successfully demonized Saddam and his sons but he undoubtedly had support throughout the political, military, social, religious, educational, and business classes in that country. If it wasn't outright support at the very least it was an amount of acquiescence that allowed him to stay in power.

Just as we are (at some level) responsible for the actions of Bush and Co..

Hold on there, buddy. What I said in this thread was that I dislike the idea of holding a nation (people + gov.) responsible for the actions of a few individuals who happen to be from that nation. Holding the people responsible for the actions of the gov is another issue, and at best barely tangential to the thread. I was merely pointing out that the logic presented here was flawed.

Yeah, I have to agree with BRussell to a limited extent about China. We don't invade China because the cost (both human and materiel) to both China and the U.S. would far outweigh the possible (but not inevitable) good outcome. Not saying I agree with the invasion of Iraq, but invadability was definitely higher for Iraq than China, and invadability is a concern.

BlackGriffen

nvaughan3 · Jul 24, 2003, 01:34 AM

Daddy, why did that scary man over there come back when he said he left for good?

Edit: LMAO! Just saw this line:

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.

HAHAHAH. As if someone the age of the "Q"uestioner would be old enough to remember. That's a good one.

theolein · Jul 24, 2003, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
Daddy, why did that scary man over there come back when he said he left for good?

Edit: LMAO! Just saw this line:

HAHAHAH. As if someone the age of the "Q"uestioner would be old enough to remember. That's a good one.

You know, as someone who often in his life felt he had difficulties understanding abstractions, I must say that I have seen more Americans on this board incapable of understanding abstractions than anywhere else in my life.

icruise · Jul 24, 2003, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
Daddy, why did that scary man over there come back when he said he left for good?

Edit: LMAO! Just saw this line:

HAHAHAH. As if someone the age of the "Q"uestioner would be old enough to remember. That's a good one.

That's the only part you think is unrealistic? Don't spend much time around children, I guess...

But it's a well done piece in terms of the way it presents things.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 24, 2003, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by theolein:
Good post. Why hasn't the USA invaded Cuba??? I'd actually love to know the answer to that one.

Uh, the US did -- Bay of Pigs. It also planned to invade during the Cuban Missile Crisis. At the conclusion of the Crisis, Kennedy made his deal with Khrushchev. The missiles would come out in exchange for a promise by the US not to invade Cuba, and the withdrawal (after a decent period of time) of the US Jupiter missiles in Turkey.

Since then the real reason has simply become that Cuba isn't a threat anymore, since there aren't any superpowers around trying to install nukes there. But theoretically, the Kennedy guarantee still stands. I suppose it will until Castro falls, as which point it will (hopefully) become even more moot.

davesimondotcom · Jul 24, 2003, 10:11 AM

Daddy, this thread bores me.

Lerkfish · Jul 24, 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

Yes, but all of these silly lists read so much better if one doesn't really understand any of the facts involved any better than a 5 year old 'asking Daddy'.

Or, perhaps we need an administration who doesn't implement policy so full of holes a five year old can see through it.

spacefreak · Jul 24, 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Daddy, this thread bores me.

Me too. Heck, we even have Lerk using different identities in the same thread.

Lerkfish · Jul 24, 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Me too. Heck, we even have Lerk using different identities in the same thread.

*rereads thread* I only have one identity. What are you on about?

BOT: sometimes the clarity of the thinking of a five year old is helpful in gaining a perspective on the irrational actions of adults.
You have such instances as the story of the emperor's new clothes, for example.

Perhaps some are more comfortable not questioning the actions or motivations of leaders, because it might induce reasoning and overtax underused mental muscles. When all think alike, no one thinks very much.

davesimondotcom · Jul 24, 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Or, perhaps we need an administration who doesn't implement policy so full of holes a five year old can see through it.

Yet, it takes something written by someone else to create a post worthy of you coming out of hiding...

davesimondotcom · Jul 24, 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Perhaps some are more comfortable not questioning the actions or motivations of leaders, because it might induce reasoning and overtax underused mental muscles. When all think alike, no one thinks very much.

But that's exactly what you want. For all of us to think like you. What is not LerkThought is not real thought.

I'm sure it didn't really tax your mental muscles to pull some post off another board and post it here.

Lerkfish · Jul 24, 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
But that's exactly what you want. For all of us to think like you. What is not LerkThought is not real thought.

I'm sure it didn't really tax your mental muscles to pull some post off another board and post it here.

sadly, you have no idea what I want.

.....er....I don't think I'm the first person to link to or quote another source on these boards? eh?

now, are we done with personal attacks? If you're trying to "push my buttons" like you have in the past, its only fair to let you know I"ve moved those buttons.

You're free to keep pushing them of course, if it please you.

BOT: if we look past the technique of the originating post, we can glean some valid questions:

Is our strategy, or morality, or ethics in regards to foreign policy self-consistent, consistent from one country to the next, or it is malleable to fit the situation?

If so, why? why do we support a leader or country one day and invade them the next? certainly it could have to do with the actions of that country, or it might have to do with what we see as being in our own self-interest.

Is consistency of policy even an achievable or desirable goal? what are the consequences of appearing inconsistent to the rest of the world?

these are all very valid questions. anyone care to field some of those?

spacefreak · Jul 24, 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Is consistency of policy even an achievable or desirable goal? what are the consequences of appearing inconsistent to the rest of the world?

I don't know why the UN all-of-a-sudden 'ordered' US troops to Liberia after 600 perished, but refused to help the US in Iraq where their leader had exterminated hundreds of thousands and routinely stole his nation's riches for personal gain.

davesimondotcom · Jul 24, 2003, 11:27 AM

Q: Daddy, you say that George W. Bush thinks God wants him to attack Iraq. Has he ever said that?

A: Not in those words.

Q: But the people who flew those planes into buildings on September 11th, they really thought God wanted them to do that?

A: Yes.

Q: And the people who strap bombs to their chests and indiscriminately kill people, including kids my age in Israel, do they think God approves?

A: Yes.

Q: Daddy, is the world better off without the Taliban and Saddam Hussein?

A: Yes.

Q: Daddy, has Lerkfish ever had a positive thing to say about George W. Bush? And if George W. Bush suddenly did everything Lerkfish wanted, would he like Bush?

A: No and no.

Q: Can we play some catch?

A: You bet.

BDiddy · Jul 24, 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Q: Daddy, you say that George W. Bush thinks God wants him to attack Iraq. Has he ever said that?

A: Not in those words.

Q: But the people who flew those planes into buildings on September 11th, they really thought God wanted them to do that?

A: Yes.

Q: And the people who strap bombs to their chests and indiscriminately kill people, including kids my age in Israel, do they think God approves?

A: Yes.

Q: Daddy, is the world better off without the Taliban and Saddam Hussein?

A: Yes.

Q: Daddy, has Lerkfish ever had a positive thing to say about George W. Bush? And if George W. Bush suddenly did everything Lerkfish wanted, would he like Bush?

A: No and no.

Q: Can we play some catch?

A: You bet.

Right on...

davesimondotcom · Jul 24, 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sadly, you have no idea what I want.

Understatement.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
.....er....I don't think I'm the first person to link to or quote another source on these boards? eh?

Didn't say you were. Only suggesting it gets tiresome responding to all of the anti-Bush crowd on here posting every unsupported "fact" possible to criticize the man. Then, when someone defends them, they are derided as non-thinking "yes-men" who don't dare question anything.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
now, are we done with personal attacks? If you're trying to "push my buttons" like you have in the past, its only fair to let you know I"ve moved those buttons.

Not trying to push any buttons and not attacking you personally. I'm simply asking for someone to come up with something on their own.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

BOT: if we look past the technique of the originating post, we can glean some valid questions:

Is our strategy, or morality, or ethics in regards to foreign policy self-consistent, consistent from one country to the next, or it is malleable to fit the situation?

More than likely it's malleable. You don't treat the Chinese like you do the Iraqis. That's pretty simple logic.

Do you approach your wife the same way you do your children? Of course not. "Negotiation" didn't work with Saddam. He just took advantage of every inch he was given.

For example, if we used military force in North Korea, what do we end up with? The Chinese involved. That's not exactly bright foreign policy.

Another example, if, after seeing what we did to Saddam's regime, another regime (like in Iran) gets a little nervous, the people sense that and revolt, it's a win-win.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If so, why? why do we support a leader or country one day and invade them the next? certainly it could have to do with the actions of that country, or it might have to do with what we see as being in our own self-interest.

Of course we act in our self interest. Why do we "support" someone one day and attack them 10, 20 years in the future? Perhaps that person has changed. Perhaps we have. Perhaps the world has. Perhaps at the time we "supported" that person, he was at war with someone we considered bad. Perhaps we were also supporting the other side. Perhaps Carter had no clue.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Is consistency of policy even an achievable or desirable goal? what are the consequences of appearing inconsistent to the rest of the world?

Consistency in what way? Always doing what we see as right at the time? Or do you just want predictability?

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
these are all very valid questions. anyone care to field some of those?

Sure. Take a look. Of course you'll just dismiss it as "not understanding" the topic. But read anyway.

ThinkInsane · Jul 24, 2003, 12:13 PM

that's enough.