PDA

View Full Version : American Good Night- story



sister herb
12-06-2010, 07:56 PM
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, son.

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 Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
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 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!, f or 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 capitalist's?
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 real world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Q: Good night, Daddy.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
GuestFellow
12-06-2010, 10:13 PM
Salaam,

Hahaha, some story. I would get nightmares...
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-06-2010, 11:02 PM
Freedom fries and freedom toast??
Reply

Ramadhan
12-07-2010, 03:58 AM
LOL!

The answers above sound awfully similar to the new member ICUNVMe's justifications for invading Iraq and Afghanistan:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...muslims-5.html
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
sister herb
12-07-2010, 07:09 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
LOL!

The answers above sound awfully similar to the new member ICUNVMe's justifications for invading Iraq and Afghanistan:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...muslims-5.html
Yeah; in cause of that other topic I were thinking that some goold old story is needed here...
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-07-2010, 09:11 PM
I've been in several places all over the U.S. since the War on Iraq began (Maryland, Arizona, New Mexico, homeland Arkansas) and I have never once heard of French toast and French fries being called "freedom" anything.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-10-2010, 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I've been in several places all over the U.S. since the War on Iraq began (Maryland, Arizona, New Mexico, homeland Arkansas) and I have never once heard of French toast and French fries being called "freedom" anything.


House cafeterias change names for 'french' fries and 'french' toast

You want "freedom fries" with that?
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-10-2010, 10:59 PM
Originally Posted by sister harb
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, son.

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.
If I remember correctly, Saddam wouldn't allow the UN inspectors to do their work. Doesn't excuse the decision to invade, but it does point out how this particular scenario you've drawn up is your own fantasy and every bit as much fiction as Bush's allegations of the presence of WMDs were.
Reply

Junon
12-11-2010, 12:50 AM
Salaam

Im seem to have a very 'different' recollection.

If you listen to Hans Blix recent testimony he speaks of being under enormous pressure by the US to find the 'smoking gun'. They wouldnt even allow him to finish his work because they were so desperate for the invasion to happen (so Bush could keep to his 'timetable'.)

This invasion was going to happen, it was planned at least a year in advance, the UN inspection team were a fig leaf, when they didnt play ball, they ignored them and invaded.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-11-2010, 01:47 AM
Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam

Im seem to have a very 'different' recollection.

If you listen to Hans Blix recent testimony he speaks of being under enormous pressure by the US to find the 'smoking gun'. They wouldnt even allow him to finish his work because they were so desperate for the invasion to happen (so Bush could keep to his 'timetable'.)

This invasion was going to happen, it was planned at least a year in advance, the UN inspection team were a fig leaf, when they didnt play ball, they ignored them and invaded.
Yeah, it does seem that Bush was bent on invasion. And I don't know what Hans Blix has said recently on the subject. But as for what I said about Saddam not allowing the inspectors to do their work, I submit Hans Blix's own testimony dated January 27, 2003:


Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix delivered his inspections report to the United Nations in New York on Monday morning. This is an edited transcript of his remarks [as provided at the time by CNN].

HANS BLIX: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, the resolution adopted by the Security Council on Iraq in November of last year asks UNMOVIC (U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to "update the council 60 days after the resumption of inspections." This is today [i.e. January 27, 2003].

The updating, it seems, forms part of an assessment by the council and its members of the results so far of the inspections and of their role as a means to achieve verifiable disarmament in Iraq.



"As this is an open meeting of the council, it may be appropriate briefly to provide some background for a better understanding of where we stand today.

"With your permission, I should do so.

"I begin by recalling that inspections as a part of a disarmament process in Iraq started in 1991, immediately after the Gulf War. They went on for eight years, until 1998 when inspectors were withdrawn.

"Therefore, for nearly four years, there were no inspectors. They were resumed only at the end of November last year. While the fundamental aim of inspections in Iraq has always been to verify disarmament, the successive resolutions adopted by the council over the years had varied somewhat in emphasis and approach.

"In 1991, Resolution 687 adopted unanimously as a part of the cease-fire after the Gulf War had five major elements, the three first related to disarmament. They called for declarations by Iraq of its programs of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles; verification of the declarations through UNSCOM (U.N. Special Commission) and the IAEA; supervision by these organizations of the destruction or the elimination of proscribed programs and items.

"After the completion of the disarmament, the council would have the authority to proceed to a lifting of the sanctions and the inspecting organizations would move to long-term, ongoing monitoring and verification.

"Resolution 687 in 1991, like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq, but such was often withheld or given grudgingly.

"Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

"As we know, the twin operation declare and verify, which was prescribed in Resolution 687, too often turned into a game of hide and seek. Rather than just verify in declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programs and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations.

"As a result, the disarmament phase was not completed in the short time expected. Sanctions remained and took a severe toll until Iraq accepted the oil-for-food program, and the gradual development of that program mitigated the affects of the sanctions.

"The Implementation Resolution 687, nevertheless, brought about considerable disarmament results. It has been recognized that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under this resolution than were destroyed during the Gulf War. Large quantities of chemical weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision before 1994.

"While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.

"One of three important questions before us today is, How much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991 and possibly thereafter? The second question is, What, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998 when the inspectors left. And the third question is, How it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future?"


source: transcript of Blix's remarks
.
Reply

Ramadhan
12-11-2010, 02:45 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Yeah, it does seem that Bush was bent on invasion. And I don't know what Hans Blix has said recently on the subject. But as for what I said about Saddam not allowing the inspectors to do their work, I submit Hans Blix's own testimony dated January 27, 2003:
By the same article you quoted, the inspection was resumed in November 2002. So the UN inspection DID their work.

This is what you wrote earlier:

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If I remember correctly, Saddam wouldn't allow the UN inspectors to do their work.
Which false.
Whether the UN inspection can obtain all information they wanted easily is a different matter altogether.
I hope you can see the falseness in your statement already.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!