Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

[Jorath Calar]

wow... I posted this some days ago and forgot it... did not expect it to cause such a fuzz, as it is like some pointed out, very simplistic...

But can someone explain to me what is a "NEOCON"?

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Jorath Calar: wow... I posted this some days ago and forgot it... did not expect it to cause such a fuzz, as it is like some pointed out, very simplistic... But can someone explain to me what is a "NEOCON"?

NEOCON is short hand for Neo-Conservitive. Here is a good rundown of what they are about:
Neocon 101

[Donut]

Originally posted by John D Harris: A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. And since none of us are members of the intellegence community or are in on any briefings given by the intellegence community, we don't really know yet what they have found or not found.

Coz if they had found them they wouldn't be running around like headless chickens shouting 'we told you so didn't we!!!'

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. And since none of us are members of the intellegence community or are in on any briefings given by the intellegence community, we don't really know yet what they have found or not found.

Coz if they had found them they wouldn't be running around like headless chickens shouting 'we told you so didn't we!!!' [/QUOTE]Bad Donut! Stop trying to shake his blind faith in his leaders [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Stratos]

Originally posted by John D Harris: A differant version: Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey.

Bad Mr. Hussein didn't showed any really good proof that he had destroyed his weapons and was playing with the UN inpectors, but still we don't know for sure that he had them at the time of the attack.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Assuming he had them, of course.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq? A: That's one of the reasons stated by President Bush, (along with ties to Al Qaeda), and Sodam Hussein was a brutal dictator that trutured and killed his own people.

Note the paranthezis I put in there as this has neither been proven nor disproven and as such is not a fact as it is stated in the sentence above. The brutal dictator thing, torture and killings still apply though.

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. And since none of us are members of the intellegence community or are in on any briefings given by the intellegence community, we don't really know yet what they have found or not found.

If they exist they are yet to be found.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction? A: To use them in a war, they had been used several times before against the Iranians and the Kurds in wars, and the Shite in the souh claim to have been gased also.

Obviously to use them or to threaten to do so, yes.

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:Lord only knows

Perhaps Saddam Hussein hid them so well that he couldn't find them when he really needed them.

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 doesn't make sense to gas your own people either honey, but Sodam Hussein ordered it anyway in the late 1980's.

The Kurds are an ethnic minority who oppossed Saddam's regime and he chose to deal with them in a cruel manner. Saddam is an Arab while the Kurds are not and, although they live in the same country, Saddam probably didn't consider them as his own people.

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 honey, that doesn't matter They claimed they had them for years, and had a history of using them. And in the last round of inspections they were found to have several other types of weapons that they were not supossed to have, missles with a range greater then the allowed range, artilery shell capitable of carring chemical and biological weapons. So they showed that they were not honest and had tried to hide things they weren't supossed to have.

Yes, bad bad Saddam.

Q: But why would it matter if they only said they had the weapons. A: Well honey, let's say when your are grown up you work at a bank, you're a teller. There has been several bank robbers by a man wearing a bozo the clown mask, in two of the robbers the robber shot a teller. A man walks into your bank wearing a bozo the clown mask and hands you a note saying it's a robbery and he has a gun, but you don't see the gun. Now remember a man wearing a bozo the clown mask has robbed several banks before. acording to the law if a robber states he has a gun then it is considered armed robbery even if he doesn't have a gun.

But Saddam the clown has said that he doesn't have a gun anymore, he just haven't proved it and is joking around with the police.

Q: Why is that Daddy? A: Well, if the teller had to wait until the gun was shown to them they could be killed, but remember saying you have gun even if you don't is considered to be the same. It is the same with the weapons that Sodam Hussein claimed to have.

The same weapons he claimed to have gotten rid of. See above answer.

Q: But daddy didn't we sell him weapons? A: We sold him some wepons yes, along with other countries, infact several other counties sold him many more weapons then we did, two largest weapons sellers sold him nearly 70% of his weapons.

True, more countries than the US are responsible for this mess.

Q: What counties are those Daddy? A: Well I could tell you but the rules of this board might consider it country bashing, so I'll leave it up to you to find out for yourself, how much and what kinds of weapons they sold him. (*HINT* what kind of tanks and airplanes did the Iraqis have? Which countries sold them mobile labs)

See above answer.

Q: But daddy I'm just a child why should I have to look it up for myself? A: Because you should find out for yourself what the real facts are and not just take somebody's word for it.

True, so true. But that goes both ways.

Q:Why should I find out for myself and not take somebodies word for it, when you said that saying you have a gun durring a roberry is the same as having one, and waiting to be shown the gun could be very bad? A: Good question, there is a differance between words to find out the truth and words of threat, but you will have to decide for yourself if you are going to find out or not.

See above answer.

Good night, Daddy.

Err..Good night John D Harris.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by John D Harris: 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 honey, that doesn't matter They claimed they had them for years, and had a history of using them. And in the last round of inspections they were found to have several other types of weapons that they were not supossed to have, missles with a range greater then the allowed range, artilery shell capitable of carring chemical and biological weapons. So they showed that they were not honest and had tried to hide things they weren't supossed to have.

Fact check- The missles that exceeded range only did so very slightly and only because they lacked a guidance system that would have added enough weight to make them legal. Aslo Iraq agreed to destroy the missles and were in the process of doing so when the invasion began. (iirc)

[ 09-18-2003, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: 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 honey, that doesn't matter They claimed they had them for years, and had a history of using them. And in the last round of inspections they were found to have several other types of weapons that they were not supossed to have, missles with a range greater then the allowed range, artilery shell capitable of carring chemical and biological weapons. So they showed that they were not honest and had tried to hide things they weren't supossed to have.

Fact check- The missles that exceeded range only did so very slightly and only because they lacked a guidance system that would have added enough weight to make them legal. Aslo Iraq agreed to destroy the missles and were in the process of doing so when the invasion began. (iirc) [/QUOTE]You testify against your own arguement and I quote "The missles that exceeded range only did so very slightly. HMMMMMMM Chewie last time I checked evenvery slightly still exceded the range unless in your world 150.1=150. If that is the case please remeind me to never have you do my taxes.

or prehaps that very slightly is like being very slightly pregnant?

So what I wrote was indeed the truth as verified by you thank you Chewwbaca. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: 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 honey, that doesn't matter They claimed they had them for years, and had a history of using them. And in the last round of inspections they were found to have several other types of weapons that they were not supossed to have, missles with a range greater then the allowed range, artilery shell capitable of carring chemical and biological weapons. So they showed that they were not honest and had tried to hide things they weren't supossed to have.

Fact check- The missles that exceeded range only did so very slightly and only because they lacked a guidance system that would have added enough weight to make them legal. Aslo Iraq agreed to destroy the missles and were in the process of doing so when the invasion began. (iirc) [/QUOTE]You testify against your own arguement and I quote "The missles that exceeded range only did so very slightly. HMMMMMMM Chewie last time I checked evenvery slightly still exceded the range unless in your world 150.1=150. If that is the case please remeind me to never have you do my taxes.

or prehaps that very slightly is like being very slightly pregnant?

So what I wrote was indeed the truth as verified by you thank you Chewwbaca. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Sorry Mr. Harris, you assume I was arguing, when I was just offering a broader range of information than was initially provided. I was not contesting what you wrote as true or false, simply observing that it was incomplete.

But if you would like an argument :

Considering the missles were incomplete, that is lacking a key guidance component, it can only be (IMO) half true that they violated the required range limit. They only violated the limit in an incomplete state. Of course the could still be used without a guidance system but they wouldn't be very effective at all.

When complete with the aforemention guidance system they would have not only been "legal" (iirc) but also effective at going somewhere specific.

Also the whole point of the limits placed on missle range was to prevent Iraq from terrorizing it's neighbors.(particularly Isreal) Considering how slightly over the limit these missles were, they still posed little or no threat in the spirit the limits were drafted, especially since they didn't have guidance systems.

[John D Harris]

Since this is like shooting fish in a barrel, and taking candy from a baby. I have to do something to make it challenging I'll answer in song [img]smile.gif[/img]
Bold type to be sang to the tune of the "Devil went down to Georgia" by CDB

Rokenn went down to IW he was looking for a soul to steal
He was in a bind and way behind, and willing to make a deal
He came upon a man sawing on a fiddle and playing it hot.
Rokenn jumped on a hickory stump, and said boy let me tell you what.
Incase you didn't know it I'm a fiddle player too,
and if you care to take a dare
I'll make a bet with you.
I'll bet this fiddle of gold against your soul
if you think I'm better then you.
"Well my names John D. and I'll take your bet
and your going to regret,
cause I'm the best there's ever been."

Chorus to be sang by hot country baby dolls, in "Daisy Dukes", with big hair and small button up shirts tied up that barely cover their...er large lung compacity)
John D. you had better resin up your bow and play your fiddle hard
cause Rokenn's lose in IW and Rokenn deals the cards.
If you win you get that shinny fiddle made of gold,
if you lose Rokenn gets your soul.

Rokenn said "I'll start this show"
as fire flew from his finger tips
as he resined up his bow.
He drew his bow across the strings and it made an evil hiss
a band of demon joined in and it sounded somethinf like this

Originally posted by Rokenn: How typical of a conservative to dismiss an investigative work they disagree with just becuase they do not like the arthor. If you had bothered to do even the most cursory look at the book in question you would have found that MR Woodward was given direct access to Bush and his advisor when writing this book and also given free access to meeting notes from the White House as well. (Deleted the book report...er... book review for brievities sake [img]smile.gif[/img] jdh )

Originally posted by Donut: Coz if they had found them they wouldn't be running around like headless chickens shouting 'we told you so didn't we!!!'

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Fact check- The missles that exceeded range only did so very slightly and only because they lacked a guidance system that would have added enough weight to make them legal. Aslo Iraq agreed to destroy the missles and were in the process of doing so when the invasion began. (iirc)

Chorus:

"Well your purtty good ole son,
but sit right there on that stump,
and let me show you how it's done."
He played "Rokenn's using opinion as facts"
"Dounut's in the house of simple logic that's lax"
"Chewwie is the bread pan try to pick out dough"
(sorry Chewwie, but I needed a third line for the song even though I've already answered your post)

So Rokenn I can take it from your answer quoted above that you can't give any facts just an opinion (the book review from Amazon.com) who's to say that that book review is the only sole truth on the book? (answer that if you can.)
How typical of a liberal when they can't come up with a single fact or answer they try to divert the discusion away from their lack of fact based reasoning by trying to cut down their opponent. So Rokenn I'm still waiting on one single quote of a Bush adiminstration official to back up your claims. And I couldn't help but notice that after you attempted to put down my arguements by saying it was typical of a conservative to dissmis something because thay don't like the author. YOU, yes I mean the personal you, then turned around and did the same thing to about me, and I quote:

Originally posted by Rokenn: Bad Donut! Stop trying to shake his blind faith in his leaders [img]tongue.gif[/img]

That type of action has a great word in the English lanugage to describe it "Hypocrisy", but then again I guess that since you are following the typicial liberal reasonning the rules you apply to others are not the rules you apply to your self. I'm going to give you a piece of advice never, ever fire a shot across my bow, I'll always return the fire amidships at the waterline. So if you take a shot at me you better make it a kill shot.
So from your answer I take it that you have not and do not know know anybody that has been in on any intelligence briefings. From other answers you have given I also take it you base your opinion on the opinion of others that have also not been in on intelligence briefings. I have based my opinions on the words and statements of people that have been in the intelligence briefings. Words and statements that you have yet offered up one single statment of contradiction.

Dounut don't tell me you are trying to say that the intellignce community releases everything it knows. Come on give me a break, that has to be one of the most lax reasoning I've ever seen.

third verse for the intellectualy honest
Rokenn bowed his 'cause he knew that he'd been beat.
He layed the golden fiddle on the ground at John D.'s feet.
John D. said Rokenn just come on back if you ever want to try again.
I told you once you son of a gun I'm the best there's ever been.

new chorus sang by the same country baby dolls
He played "Rokenn's using opinion as facts"
"Dounut's in the house of simple logic that's lax"
"Chewwie is the bread pan try to pick out dough"

[ 09-18-2003, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Sorry Mr. Harris, you assume I was arguing, when I was just offering a broader range of information than was initially provided. I was not contesting what you wrote as true or false, simply observing that it was incomplete. But if you would like an argument : Considering the missles were incomplete, that is lacking a key guidance component, it can only be (IMO) half true that they violated the required range limit. They only violated the limit in an incomplete state. Of course the could still be used without a guidance system but they wouldn't be very effective at all. When complete with the aforemention guidance system they would have not only been "legal" (iirc) but also effective at going somewhere specific. Also the whole point of the limits placed on missle range was to prevent Iraq from terrorizing it's neighbors.(particularly Isreal) Considering how slightly over the limit these missles were, they still posed little or no threat in the spirit the limits were drafted, especially since they didn't have guidance systems.

Well it's about time an opponent that isn't like shooting fish in a barrel, Lordy I was having to be creative in my replies to keep it interesting. [img]smile.gif[/img] That's the first time I've heard of the guidance system, do you have any links or can you point me in the direction to find it verify that for myself? (I'm not being a smart A** here I'd like to know the facts on that.)
I agree the point of the limits was to protect Israel, but isn't going even 1 mph over the speed limit still speeding, although the spirit of the law is to drive at a safe speed? 1 mph over the speed limit couldn't hardly be considered an unsafe speed, but it could be considered still breaking the law.