Foreign Policy Q & A

[Master Zen]

posted in another forum:

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 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 hey 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
forstealing 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.
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.

so true!

[Arrian]

Shall I cut and paste my response? Nah, not worth it.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, including not only his political enemies, but innocent people solely because of their religion or ethnicity.

Please cite for me examples of the current government of China doing this

[lord of the mark]

"Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan back in the 1980s."

we never gave aid to Osama. We gave aid to various afghan fundies, including Hekmatyar, but never to Osama - who was a minor figure at that time.

This is so much rehashed propaganda.

[DinoDoc]

Do you really want to get into a pissing contest over China's poor human rights record especially over a poor cut and paste, LotM?

[Master Zen]

ah so killing because of religion and ethinicty is bad, but killling because of politics and ideology suddenly isn't so...

[PLATO]

Haven't we seen this one before?

[lord of the mark]

"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"


They were trained in afganistan by a terrorist group that was based in afghanistan. In fact as it turned out there was no real distinction between Al qaeeda and the taliban. Bin Laden worked with Mullah Omar in running afghanistan.

So are you suggesting that we shouldnt have invaded afghanistan?

[BigDork]

I got this the other day from Howard Dean's blog for America. I posted it at another forum and MZ brought it over here.

BtW: Howard Dean did not post this, someone not affiliated with the campaign except for as a supporter posted it.

[chequita guevara]

And the current governments of Ruanda, Burundi, and Uganda have facilitated the murder of 3 million Congolese since 1994. In a hierarchy of evil governments, Ba'athist Iraq wasn't in the top ten. Which isn't to say he isn't a very, very bad man. But there are far worse.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you really want to get into a pissing contest over China's poor human rights record especially over a poor cut and paste, LotM?

Saddams human rights record is a very important context to the Iraqi situation. I get very pissed off at people who say - "well, human rights cant be the reason we went into Iraq, cause then we'd have to intervene everywhere on the planet" Thats a load of bull. There are plenty of dictatorships on the planet, and plenty of states with poor human rights records. There are none, barring possibly North Korea, with a record of mass murder comparable to Iraq under Saddam.

[BigDork]

edit:I was going to quote someone but misread it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Master Zen
ah so killing because of religion and ethinicty is bad, but killling because of politics and ideology suddenly isn't so...

A. Yes, under international law, the former is genocide, the latter is not
B. The former typically involves children, etc. A society where you dont even the choice to stay out of the govts way, where you are killed because of who you are, is far worse.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So are you suggesting that we shouldnt have invaded afghanistan?

Did I write it? no.

Another inaccuracy: there IS a certain degree freedom of religion in Cuba. The goverment might interfere in things like church construction or small religous sects' permits but as a whole, Cubans are free to profess their religion unlike other communist countries. Plus, no one has been detained because of their religious beliefs.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
There are plenty of dictatorships on the planet, and plenty of states with poor human rights records. There are none, barring possibly North Korea, with a record of mass murder comparable to Iraq under Saddam.

That is just wrong.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

A. Yes, under international law, the former is genocide, the latter is not

You are still evading the fact that it's murder, whether you want to call it "genocide" or not.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Plus, no one has been detained because of their religious beliefs.

ah so detaining people because of their religious beliefs is bad, but throwing them in prison because of politics and ideology suddenly isn't so...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And the current governments of Ruanda, Burundi, and Uganda have facilitated the murder of 3 million Congolese since 1994. In a hierarchy of evil governments, Ba'athist Iraq wasn't in the top ten. Which isn't to say he isn't a very, very bad man. But there are far worse.

"of 3 million Congolese since 1994"

IIUC, the 3 million represents the total Congolese death toll in their civil war. Were all of these civilians who were murdered? Werent many men under arms killed in war? And were all those who were civilians, and were killed deliberately, killed by the rebel side? And in the case of any who were killed by the rebel side - did Rwanda and Uganda approve of or support those actions? Im not accusing countries that supported Saddam for Iraqi deaths - Im only accusing Saddam - just as I would not accuse the US for civilians murdered by Stalin during WW2.

Rwanda in particular, had a government led by people who ended a vicious genocide - which WAS worse than what Saddam did - they saw their genocidaire enemies receiving succour in the Congo - they determined to try and control the Congolese govt. While that may have been a mistake, a violation of international law, and/or an immoral act, it DOES not put them on the level of genocidaires. Intentions matter, not just body counts.

[BigDork]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
ah so detaining people because of their religious beliefs is bad, but throwing them in prison because of politics and ideology suddenly isn't so...

I don't think that's what MZ was saying at all. He's just saying that there's a difference between Cuba and other communist countries.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
ah so detaining people because of their religious beliefs is bad, but throwing them in prison because of politics and ideology suddenly isn't so...

I am not arguing Cuba's atrocious political human rights record. I am simply making note of an inaccuracy in the first post.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Did I write it? no.

Another inaccuracy: there IS a certain degree freedom of religion in Cuba. The goverment might interfere in things like church construction or small religous sects' permits but as a whole, Cubans are free to profess their religion unlike other communist countries. Plus, no one has been detained because of their religious beliefs.

you posted it without comment. that implies you agree with it.

and it made various statements about afghanistan, which tend to say that there was something wrong about US policy. If you are not stating that we shouldnt have gone into afghanistan, then you should state how US policy should have been different.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That is just wrong.

Evidence?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
I am not arguing Cuba's atrocious political human rights record. I am simply making note of an inaccuracy in the first post.

And that was the only one you could find?

[BigDork]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


you posted it without comment. that implies you agree with it.

How does that imply he agrees with it? Perhaps he just wanted to start a conversation about it. I originally posted it and I agreed with it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BigDork
How does that imply he agrees with it?

His "So true" comment might be cause for people to assume he agreed with it.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Intentions matter, not just body counts.

"Let's kill these people".

or

"Let's not do anything to prevent these people from getting killed"

wow, what a humane goverment the latter is!!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BigDork
I got this the other day from Howard Dean's blog for America. I posted it at another forum and MZ brought it over here.

BtW: Howard Dean did not post this, someone not affiliated with the campaign except for as a supporter posted it.

yeah, i suppose we can't blame the good doctor for all the nuts attracted to his campaign, but it should still give us pause.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
His "So true" comment might be cause for people to assume he agreed with it.

I agree with the intent of the post, not necessarily every single fact.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Master Zen


"Let's kill these people".

or

"Let's not do anything to prevent these people from getting killed"

wow, what a humane goverment the latter is!!

Yeah, like the difference in law between "im gonna kill someone" and "Im not gonna stop someone being killed"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Master Zen


I agree with the intent of the post, not necessarily every single fact.

then you should have edited it.