Like the sticker above? Get your own at
http://members.aol.com/pantspoopie/bushstickers.htm
Posted on 06/19/2003 3:34:54 AM PDT by VegasLeftBasher
I wrote this in the Protest Warrior forum and I thought you guys might like it to.
Q: Dad, why did we invade Iraq?
A: There were plenty of reasons but Bush said WMD's were the main one.
Q: But none have been found yet.
A: That's because he lied to you, there were no WMD's.
Q: But didn't President Clinton also say he had them?
A: Yes
Q: And the UN which included the intelligence of France, Great Britain, Russia, and Germany?
A: Yes
Q: Then how did Bush lie about the WMD's?
A: Well, none have been found have they?
Q: No, but didn't UN inspectors have 8 years to find them and they never did?
A: Yeah, but they were stopped from looking at certain areas because of Saddam Hussien.
Q: But why did Saddam block them from going places? If he had no WMD's wouldn't he have let the inspectors go anywhere to prove it?
A: Yes....I guess but why didn't he use them in the war when we invaded? See, Bush is a liar.
Q: If he used them in the first stages of the invasion wouldn't it prove to the world he was a liar and he had them?
A: Yes
Q: Isn't it now known that his strategy was to bog down American forces as long as he could and cause so much devastation to them and the Iraqi people that they would tire and eventually back out?
A: Yes
Q: But weren't Iraqi defense forces shocked at how fast American troops moved and the plans to bog them down couldn't be put into place?
A: Yes
Q: So therefore wasn't Hussiens strategy to try and hold off the American attack as long as he could and not use the WMD's because if he did he would prove he had them and then lose the support and sympathy from the rest of the world?
A: I guess, but we still have no proof he was going to use the WMD's in his last stance.
Q: But didn't the coalition as it moved closer and closer to Bagdahd find thousands of chemical and biological suits for Iraqi troops designed in case of a chemical attack?
A: Yes
Q: But why did they have them? The US forces didn't have any chemical weapons.
A: Um, I don't know.
Q: So, isn't it possible Saddam had WMD's but wasn't able to use them in the war?
A: I guess so but don't think that. Just keep thinking Bush lied.
Q: Also, if Saddam was able to hide the weapons from UN inspectors for 8 years don't you think he hid them well?
A: Yes
Q: And don't you think it could take months, maybe even years to find them all?
A: Yes
Q: So how did Bush lie about WMD's?
A: I don't know, he just did!
Q: But even if there were no WMD's wasn't getting Saddam Hussien out of power a good thing?
A: Yes, but the US is hypocritical because it got rid of one dictator who was murdering his own people but not others like in North Korea.
Q: That may be true but isn't stopping one dictator from murdering millions of his own people better then stopping none?
A: No, if the US says this war was justified because it stopped Hussien, they then have to go out and stop all dictators!
Q: But didn't you say going to war and invading other countries is wrong? Isn't this a case of dammed if you do, dammed if you don't?
A: I guess, but that still doesn't excuse America's actions! Look at China, they have human rights abuse cases and we are great allies with them because they provide us with money!
Q: Isn't American and Chinese government relations sketchy at best? It's more American corporations then government that are allied with China right?
A: See? There you go. American corporations are only in China because they are exploiting the workers and forcing them to work for low wages to make their products.
Q: Yes, low wages compared to the US but in China aren't those jobs to those workers the difference between shelter and food to homelessness and starvation?
A: Yes, but its not enough. They aren't being paid a bunch like American workers are.
Q: But isn't also the fault of the American worker that corporations go to countries like China to find cheaper labor?
A: What do you mean?
Q: I mean that American workers and unions force corporations to pay them about 10 times what they're worth. Because of this corporations start to lose money and to save it and their company they go overseas to find cheaper labor. Corporate greed may be to blame but isn't the greed of the over paid, under achieving worker also to blame as well?
A: No, workers aren't greedy, ever!
Q: But also when workers and unions force corporations to pay them 10 times what their worth doesn't also the consumer suffer because another way to offset the cost corporations have to raise the cost of their products. Doesn't that hurt the poor incredibly?
A: Yes, but I'm still going to blame the corporation.
Q: Doesn't it also hurt the unemployed? If a corporation is forced to over pay under achieving workers how does it get extra money to pay for the wages of the other people who just want any type of work? I mean don't you find it bad when a union worker forces his employer to pay him way too much for his job while he is doing it badly while there is another person on the outside who needs a job badly and could do it better then union worker and cheaper?
A: Yeah, well uh, the corporations are greedy!
Q: But isn't the problem of greed and sweat shop conditions overseas from both sides? The workers are just as guilty as the corporation aren't they?
A: Shut up, where are you leaning this stuff? Let's go back to the topic of dictators. The US is evil because it pats itself on the back for getting rid of one but then turns around and supports others.
Q: But aren't those dictators helping the US in its war on terror?
A: So? Those dictators still treat their people badly and the use the war on terror and helping the Americans as an excuse!
Q: Yes, that's sad but if the US is in a war against an enemy that is world wide and can hide anywhere doesn't it need all the help it can get?
A: Yes, but getting help from horrible dictators isn't worth it.
Q: That may be so but didn't the US once team up with a horrible dictator to take down a world threat?
A: What are you talking about?
Q: The US teamed up with Stalin to take down Nazi Germany. It was sad that we had to help Stalin but I don't hear too many people complain about it since Hitler was taken down. How is the situation different now?
A: Well......because!
Q: The Soviet Union did benefit greatly from WW2 but in the end they got theirs and fell apart. Don't you think the US will do what it always does and once the threat is over turn on the dictator that was helping them and eventually help lead to it's downfall?
A: I guess but you just proved something! The US is sneaky! They use one country for its help then turn on it. That's pretty evil if you ask me.
Q: I guess it is but hasn't every country that had a little power done the same thing? Not only have other countries done similar things but also when they turned on the country they invaded it. The US has never turned and invaded another country and then occupied it. Why are you singling the US out in this case?
A: Because the US always likes to proclaim itself as different, that it's the shining beacon of all that is good in the world. They do sneaky and sleazy things just like all the other countries do.
Q: True, the US does some sleazy things just like every country but it is different from all the other super powers that came before it because it doesn't try and use it's power to conquer the world like all the others did. In fact twice it used its massive military power to SAVE the world from destroying itself. Doesn't that make them different?
A: No, because the US just uses another form of imperialism. Instead of using it's military to conquer the world it forcefully spreads its culture around the world. It shoves it down other people's throat, which is disgusting.
Q: Wait a second. When the US spreads its culture around the world it never forces anyone to accept it. People in the countries that US influence is spreading choose to accept the aspects of American culture they like. No one ever forces it down their throats, they choose to like it. What is wrong with choosing something?
A: Yeah, well spreading one culture onto another is wrong and the US shouldn't be doing it.
Q: How is spreading culture wrong? Sharing and spreading culture brings people closer together, helps people get rid of stereotypes, and eases ethnic tensions. Everyone else in the world spreads their culture across the globe, why single out the US?
A: Because US culture is rude, degenerate, and disgusting. No other countries need Jerry Springer.
Q: Yes, some forms of American culture is crude, sometimes to the extreme, but that doesn't mean all of it is. Every culture and country has their filth side. Once again people of other cultures and countries choose to accept what forms of American culture they want and don't want. Plus when American culture is spread the ideals of America are as well. The ideas of freedom of speech, freedom of press, equal rights of women, right to vote, and others are spread around the world. What is wrong with that?
A: I don't care, we don't have the right to spread out culture to people who don't want it.
Q: But why? Other countries spread their culture to America all the time and no one complains about it. In fact, people love it! People from China, India, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Europe, Africa and all over immigrate here and bring a little of their country with them. Whether it be opening an Indian food restaurant, or a Korean clothing store they help spread their culture to everyone. It's not just immigrants either. Millions of American kids love the phenomena of Yu-Gi-Oh, a Japanese cartoon. Millions of Americans watch hockey, which is a Canadian sport. Millions of Americans drive European and Asian designed cars. Millions of Americans watch soccer, which is a world sport. Millions of Americans play video games, which are mostly designed and made in Japan. Not many people complain about these things because it would be stupid to do so. Having all those things here are great. So once again how is spreading American culture, ideals, and companies over sees, making the world smaller and closer together a bad thing?
A: I don't know, shut up. Let's get back to how America is evil though. Look at Cuba for instance. We hate them because they're communist so therefore we stopped all trade with them and stopped US citizens from visiting it. That shows we're stupid! If we wanted capitalism to thrive there we would open up all trade and let American tourists go because it would help spread American culture as you said. Closing us off from Castro only helps him. Ha! We're stupid!
Q: But didn't Castro just find a way to take all the profits from trade coming into Cuba and use it for himself and his communist party? If we kept up trade with him wouldn't it just make Castro stronger and the rest of the Cuban people weaker?
A: But we've proven that cutting him off doesn't work either. He still has complete control of the country and now his people are starving because of sanctions. W need to start trade with him now.
Q: Yes, he hasn't lost power without trade but if we started trade with him now wouldn't it just make him stronger? The people of Cuba most likely wouldn't benefit and Castro would just get more power to hold down his people. How is that good?
A: Yeah, but you said trade helps spread the ideals of American freedom and what not. Trading with Cuba now could maybe help them have a new revolution!
Q: The ideals of American freedom and such has been in Cuba for decades. They get US radio and TV signals after all. Why do you think thousands of them try to flee here every year? Castro's grip is way to strong and anyone that opposes him gets a lifetime of jail and torture as thanks. What can America do to stop Castro however?
A: Hmmmm, well I guess to save the Cuban people from his tyranny, we should invade it!
Q: But didn't you say invading other countries is wrong?
A:Well, uh yeah but in Iraq it was different. We were just going in for the oil!
Q: How were we just going in for the oil?
A: Didn't you ever see the old documents written by government officials like Paul Wolfiwitz? They said things like using military action in Iraq to secure vital resources like oil. That's proof right there!
Q: The old documents were written to talk about possible actions against the threat of Saddam Hussien. The oil part was talked about in opening up the markets for the sale of oil on the world market, not the US being in control of them. How is ousting a murdering mad man like Hussien who was sucking up all the money from oil sales then turning around and selling the Iraqi oil in the short term to help rebuild the country a bad thing?
A: Ha! You said it! You said that the US would be in control of selling the oil for the short term. This war was for oil!
Q: The US has said all along that it would use the first oil sales to help rebuild the country and set up a new government. They never lied about this. The US knows all too well that controlling the Iraqi oil in the long term wouldn't be cost effective and would cost the American budget and American oil companies too much to do. They want to sell it short term then turn it over to either the new Iraqi government or Iraqi private oil companies. Maybe some American oil companies will stay and help pump some fields but they would still provide thousands of jobs to Iraqi's and greatly help their economy. How is this a bad thing?
A: American oil companies have no right to stay and continue pumping Iraqi oil.
Q: If they control all the Iraqi oil say 5 years from now then yeah, there's a problem. However it would be to counter productive to do so and it would be easier and cheaper to just buy it from the new Iraqi government or new companies. Like I said, some American companies may stay in some form but not in complete control. Oil companies are in it to make money you know. Once again, how was this war for oil?
A: Shut up, you suck. I will always continue to blame all of the world's problems on America and American corporations because I don't want to look at the problems myself and realize there is a whole set of reasons for them. It's called scape goating and I like it better then thinking for myself!
Q: America is to blame for some problems of the world but at the same time no other country does more to help and try to curb them. Most of the problems the world has are problems every civilization has had from the beginning. They are human condition problems and can never be solved, only curbed to lower points. No other country besides America has done more to curb the problem. Why are you scape goating them for that then?
A: Cause....well......uh.
Q: Maybe you can't answer that question but maybe you can answer this one then. Why is it when people who hate America and it's actions come to the Protest Warrior forum they just cut and paste other people's articles instead of writing their own arguments?
A: Because we're lazy and can't think for ourselves.
Q: Thanks, that's all I wanted to know dad.
A: You're welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.