I'm preparing a satirical video about pro-war sentiment in the U.S.A. It will be a "Person on the Street" sort of video--short interview clips of average folks, one after the other, in various public settings.
Each person interviewed will tell the camera how he or she is lying to himself or herself to support the war. I've come up with a handful of sound bites, but I could use some more help. Below is the script I have so far (this is what I will hand to participants on the spot). Please add a comment if you have any creative contribution you want to donate to the project.
Thanks a lot for any help.
HOW ARE YOU LYING TO YOURSELF TO SUPPORT THE WAR?
In this satirical "Person on the Street" video, you will play an unthinking, pro-war American under the sway of the U.S. government propaganda machine (aka, the mainstream news media).
You are playing a caricature in order to make a point, but do try as hard as you can to believe what you are saying when you are interviewed. The more real you can sound, the more biting the satire will be. Don't worry--the video will be clearly presented as satire, so nobody will see you and think you really mean what you're saying.
You can see the video in a few days at www.slumdance.com.
Choose from the following sound bites or make up your own. Please take off any obvious anti-war hats or pins from the shoulders up, and grab a right-wing prop from the pile by the camera if you would like. If you're with friends, it's okay for groups of two, three or four to appear together. Thanks for participating!
THE SOUND BITES:
"I'm pretending that 9-11 and Iraq are somehow directly connected, even though deep down I know there's no evidence. But thinking about the war in these terms helps me feel better about it. I love America. I don't want America to go into war based on a lie, so I just tell myself we aren't. USA! USA!"
![This Is Spinal Tap (Special Edition) [VHS]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/312JWXP20NL._SL120_.jpg)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Al Barger
OK, I've got one for you:
Well of course all of us who support taking out this brutal mass murdering, WMD possessing bastard MUST be lying to ourselves. There are no possible legitimate reasons for squashing the Iraqi regime. Obviously we are all stupid dupes.
Your clever little video will no doubt be instrumental in thwarting the next batch of Muslim terrorists intent on KILLING US.
Watch out, Jonathan Swift.
2 - InMarin
I'm pretending that Saddam was not a U.S. ally and that we didn't sell him chemical weapons. Further, I'm pretending that the he 'gassed his own people' even though it was really Iran.
3 - Eric Olsen
I am pretending to not be a bloodthirsty imperialist aggressor who seeks dominion over the entire earth because it is my due as a stupid white male.
4 - Al Barger
Yes, Saddam was something of an ally of the US for a minute, and certainly not our proudest minute. This makes it only that much more OUR responsibility to deal with him now. I would be the last person to tell you that our government always does the right thing. That does not, however, mean that we are always wrong. Mostly we are on the side of the angels, and definitely so here.
Moreover, I question whether the US in fact sold Hussein chemical weapons. What and when, exactly? I won't claim to be an expert on this particular issue, but what I've read suggests that Russia and maybe Germany would be the main responsible parties for this one.
5 - Brian Flemming
Al,
Have you heard of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs?
This is one of the sources of hard, undisputed evidence that the U.S. government approved sales of chemical weapons components (and other scary stuff) to Iraq during the "minute" that he was an ally of our country.
Some of the liberal media has reported on this:
L.A. Weekly
I need to thank you, though. You couldn't have proved my point--that the U.S. media is partly responsible for ignorance and self-delusion on the part of the American public, and that these are both significant factors in support for the war--any better.
Gee, I wonder if you jumped to the conclusion that Russia and France are the sole bad guys in this because the conservative U.S. media led you to believe it when those two countries opposed this war in the Security Council?
Nah. Must be a coincidence. And I'm sure you think for yourself. You wouldn't just rely on the U.S. media to let you know that the U.S. Senate itself has confirmed U.S. complicity in arming Iraq with "weapons of mass destruction."
Oh, by the way--other countries? They know these facts, and others. That's why there is such a gulf between world opinion and U.S. opinion. It ain't 9-11. It's a question of who knows the facts. By and large, people around the world don't think that Iraqis attacked the Trade Center towers, and they are aware of the U.S./Iraq complicated history.
Oh, and they see the hypocrisy of convenient U.S. memory lapses even if you don't. hey don't hate us. They just see us.
6 - Michelle
As I'm from Germany, where most people and most media is anti-war, I'm really interested how the support situation looks in the US at the moment. We hear very different stuff here, from "the majority support the war" to "the feeling switches or will be switching soon". But I really can't imagine the situation in the US now as I'm under the impression that every news stations tells differently. Could you share your impressions? I'd really be thankful!
Also, if there's any question on the "friendship" between Iraq and the US, I recently re-discoverd the picture where Rumsfeld and Hussein are shaking hands... I had only read about it so far, but yesterday or so actually saw the pic on the web. Very telling I think.
7 - the Rev Nick
Oh, yeah, the U.S. media has ALWAYS been a tool of the government. I mean, just look how they covered Vietnam..oh, bad example. Well, uh OH! Watergate...well, crap, Iran Contra!...nuts...Face it, pal- if there were no journalists allowed on the front lines, you would be the first to cry about censorship and coverup. Man, I haven't agreed with anything you've ever said, but I've at least respected your opinion, but now you are just being an ass, trying to tell the people that support the President in this war that they REALLY don't feel like they do, and are lying to themselves? Geez, man, get over yourself. You call the rest of us gullible, but you believe every ridiculous anti American left wing radical piece of excrement that comes down the pike- or whatever Iraq or other American hating militant Muslim countries say about us- I bet when the Iraqi UN diplomat said that America and Britain were planning on the complete annhilation of every living thing in the country, you JUMPED to your feet and shouted, "I KNEW IT!"
8 - the Rev Nick
And, uh, if you could be so kind as to provide a little more precise link as to the 'proof' that we sold Iraq chemicals, that'd be peachy. And here's a quick history lesson people: during the Cold War, our government felt it had to make deals with less than savory individuals and governments, becouse it felt that the threat of Communism posed a grater threat than a few two bit dictators. Not long ago, I myself had thought that the 'supposed' threat of communism was blow way out of proprtion, until I read a history of WWII, specifically the aftermath. in case you all didn't know, the Sovit Union was hell bent to make the world commie, one way or another. In fact, some of our less than stalwart allies (won't mention any names) had some close calls thanks to communist party insurgents and the like, all supported by Mother Russia. Hell, those a$$holes in the Taliban wouldn't have even been able to be the repressive evil regime they became if we didn't provide clandestine support for the mujahadeen to kick the commies out of Afghanistan (hows that for irony). My point: the U.S. did not wily nilly ally or support any old douche bag that came along and said, "hey! I'm evil and opressive to my own people! Support me so that years later terrorists will murder your own people!" At the time, the choise was to support non commie status quos, or risk yet another country becoming a Soviet sattelite, strengthing them and weakening us.
9 - the Rev Nick
man, I suck at spelling.
10 - Brian Flemming
Rev Nick,
Here are links from the first 10 results I got from a simple Google search:
The report:
http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/chembio.html
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/riegle_report/staff_report/staff_report_s01.htm
Reports on the report:
http://www.cursor.org/stories/burying_news_on_iraq.htm
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/ussentgerms.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm
So, Rev Nick, tell me what it means that you were not aware of this.
11 - Brian Flemming
Rev Nick,
Oh, yeah, and thanks for the news that Iran is a Communist country. I had no idea.
I guess we did have to sell Iraq those weapons, then.
12 - the Rev Nick
"The United States had exported chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile-system equipment to Iraq that was converted to military use in Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons program. Many of these weapons -- weapons that the U.S. and other countries provided critical materials for -- were used against us during the war." The key phrases, in my mind would be "systems that were converted to military use." Did we apperantly give them the ingredients to make that crap? looks like it. Was that stupid? Definately. Does that not mean it's OUR responsiblitiy to disarm Saddam and prevent him from usind sais material? Yup. And as for "Iran is a communist country" I should have said, "Communist and later on Anti American fundamentalist regimes supported by the Sovit Union." Smart ass.
13 - InMarin
Partial list of Bush LIES on Iraq
1. Powell relies on FORGED documents to link Saddam to terror.
MSNBC: "They have been the closest of allies. But under the intense pressure of a diplomatic crisis at the United Nations and an imminent war in Iraq, the friendship between the United States and Britain is beginning to fray. The most recent strain emerged when U.N. nuclear inspectors concluded last week that U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear program were based on forged documents. The fake letters supposedly laid out how Iraqi agents had tried to purchase uranium from officials in Niger, central Africa."
MORE: http://www.msnbc.com/news/883164.asp?cp1=1
CNN: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.
MORE: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia: The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has demonstrated that UK and US intelligence authorities relied on forged documents to support assertions that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.
MORE: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/15/1047583740556.html
LA Times: WASHINGTON -- Phony weapons documents cited by the United States and Britain as evidence against Saddam Hussein were initially obtained by Italian intelligence authorities, who may have been duped into paying for the forgeries, U.S. officials said Friday. The documents, which purport to show Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Niger, were exposed as fraudulent by U.N. weapons inspectors last week. The matter has embarrassed U.S. and British officials.
MORE: http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-docs15mar15,0,5016930.story
And even more:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=africa+uranium+forged+documents
===========================
2. Bush/Powell's UN "evidence" relies on even MORE supposedly "up to date" FORGED documents to link Saddam to terror.
CNN: Large chunks of the 19-page report -- highlighted by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the U.N. as a " fine paper ... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities" -- contains large chunks lifted from other sources, according to several academics. " The British government's dossier is 19 pages long and most of pages 6 to 16 are copied directly from that document word for word, even the grammatical errors and typographical mistakes," Rangwala said. Al-Marashi's article, published last September, was based on information obtained at the time of the 1991 Gulf War, Rangwala said. " The information he was using is 12 years old and he acknowledges this in his article. The British government, when it transplants that information into its own dossier, does not make that acknowledgement. " So it is presented as current information about Iraq, when really the information it is using is 12 years old."
MORE: http://asia.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/
UK Guardian: Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old. Amid charges of "scandalous" plagiarism on the night when Tony Blair attempted to rally support for the US-led campaign against Saddam Hussein, Whitehall's dismay was compounded by the knowledge that the disputed document was singled out for praise by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, in his speech to the UN security council on Wednesday.
MORE: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,892069,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,890962,00.html
http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/207939.htm
===========================
3. Bush/Powell tries to use edited audio-tape to LIE about Saddam/Bin Laden Connection.
NY Times: It offered little evidence of an alliance between Mr. Hussein and Mr. bin Laden, but it did seem to validate Arab leaders' warnings that Islamic extremists would exploit any assault on Baghdad to further inflame the region.
MORE: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/international/middleeast/12TAPE.html
NY Times: Germany dismissed Wednesday U.S. claims that a new audiotape purportedly by Osama bin Laden proved he was in league with Iraq, while some Muslims were cheered by the possibility the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks was still alive.
Philadelphia Daily News: But if bin Laden was trying to show personal solidarity with Saddam himself, he had a strange way of doing so. He denounced Saddam's secular, socialist al-Baath party as "infidels." What's more, the statement said that Iraq's rulers had "lost their credibility long ago" and that "socialists are infidels wherever they are." He didn't even mention Saddam by name.
MORE: http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/5157847.htm
Salon.com: War, lies and audiotape If truth is the first casualty of war, then this war's second casualty is the credibility of Colin Powell. Yesterday morning he insisted that the new tape from Osama bin Laden would show a "partnership" between al-Qaida and Iraq. He told the nation that he had a transcript of bin Laden's remarks. Understandably, however, the secretary of state didn't read from the transcript he claimed to have in his possession -- because it so clearly contradicted the headlines he was trying to create.
MORE: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/02/12/osama/index_np.html
===========================
4. Bush/Powell LIES again about Saddam's ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction.
News Interactive: An Iraqi drone found by UN weapons inspectors is of "very primitive" design and is definitely not capable of flying 500km as suggested by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Jane's Defence Weekly said today.
On February 5, Powell told the UN Security Council that the Iraqis possessed a drone that could fly 500km, violating UN rules that limit the range of Iraqi weapons to 150km. " There is no possibility that the design shown on 12 March has the capability to fly anywhere near 500 kilometres," drones expert Ken Munson said on Jane's website (http://jdw.janes.com). " The design looks very primitive, and the engines -- which have their pistons exposed -- appear to be low-powered," he said.
MORE: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6130936%255E1702,00.html
Originally from the NY Times: AL TAJI, Iraq -- To hear senior Bush administration officials tell it, Iraq's latest pilotless drone has the potential to be one of Saddam Hussein's deadliest weapons, able to deliver terrifying payloads of chemical and biological warfare agents across Iraq's borders to Israel or other neighboring states. It could even, they say, be broken down and smuggled into the United States for use in terrorist attacks. But viewed up close yesterday by reporters hastened by Iraqi officials to the Ibn Firnas weapons plant outside Baghdad, the vehicle the Iraqis have code-named RPV-30A, for remotely piloted vehicle, looked more like something out of the Rube Goldberg museum of aeronautical design than anything that could threaten Iraq's foes. To the layman's eye, the unveiling of the Iraqi prototype seemed to lend the crisis over Iraq's weapons an aura less of deadly threat than of farce.
"In any case, he and other officials said, the vehicle could not be controlled from a distance of more than 5 miles, in good weather, since its controllers tracked it "with the naked eye."
MORE: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/112262_drone13.shtml
Boston Globe: Duct tape reinforced by aluminum foil held together the black and white drone's balsa wood wings. The wooden propellers and tiny engines were fastened to a well-worn fuselage, fashioned from the fuel tank of a larger aircraft. The words ''God is Great'' were hand painted in red ink on both sides. Perched on a sawhorse at a military research base 20 miles north of Baghdad, the drone looked more like a large school science project than a vehicle capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons. Iraqi officials denied the airplane had any strategic use.
More: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/072/nation/Iraqis_display_drone_and_some_surprise%2B.shtml
===========================
5. Bush/Powell LIE about Iraq's Nuclear capabilities concerning "aluminum tubes":
ABC News: Before Congress, and in public, President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have repeatedly pointed to aluminum tubes imported by Iraq which they say are for use in making nuclear weapons. But on Friday, head United Nations nuclear inspector Mohammad ElBaradei told the Security Council that it wasn't likely that the tubes were for that use. ElBaradei also said that documents Bush had cited and relied upon to make the case that Iraq tried to buy uranium from a country in central Africa were fake.
More: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/2020/GMA030310Iraq_weapons_evidence.html
Washington Post: The finding: Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes, which Bush said were "used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." But according to government officials and weapons experts, the claim now appears to be seriously in doubt. After weeks of investigation, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to officials familiar with the inspection process. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment.
14 - Brian Flemming
InMarin,
Nice partial list (I know it's hard to be exhaustive with so many lies to document--let alone discover).
On behalf of Al Barger, who said this about the U.S.-gave-Iraq-chemical-weapons-charge...
"Moreover, I question whether the US in fact sold Hussein chemical weapons. What and when, exactly? I won't claim to be an expert on this particular issue, but what I've read suggests that Russia and maybe Germany would be the main responsible parties for this one."
...I will attempt to refute your charges. Here are Al's responses:
1. The Niger-Iraq nuclear accusation was made based on a single forged document. (More details: In fact, the forgeries were so bad that the U.N. team found out they were forgeries within hours of possessing them. In fact, according to Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, the Niger deception and the aluminum tubes deception were both delivered to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet in a classified briefing last September 24th, and those deceptions were instrumental in tricking wavering Democrats into voting for the resolution to authorize President Bush to wage war in Iraq.)
Al's response:
"That's not true."
(upon further research)
"Well, it doesn't matter anyway."
2. In front of the U.N., Colin Powell singles out "new" British intelligence that is in fact embarrassingly old, not to mention lifted from a California graduate student.
Al's response:
"No he didn't."
(upon further research)
"Well, it doesn't matter anyway."
3. Colin Powell creates headlines about an Iraq-bin Laden connection knowing that the transcript of the tape cannot in any way support this accusation.
Al's response:
"No he didn't."
(upon further research)
"Well, it doesn't matter anyway."
4. Powell calls a model airplane less sophisticated than toys flown by hobbyists in your own neighborhood a weapon of mass destruction.
Al's response:
"No he didn't."
(upon further research)
"Well, it doesn't matter anyway."
5. President Bush and Secretary of State Powell constantly and knowingly lie about the aluminum tubes in order to create enough noise to fool the American public into believing there is a nuclear threat in Iraq, when in fact there is no documented nuclear threat at all.
Al's response:
"No he didn't."
(upon further research)
"Well, it doesn't matter anyway."
Please understand, InMarin, it doesn't matter how crucial these lies were to gaining support for the war in the U.S. It doesn't matter that if you imagine the case for war without these lies at the strategic times they were told, American support may in fact have dropped below a threshhold that would have allowed the war to go on.
And it doesn't matter how many more lies will be discovered in the future.
It doesn't matter.
Lies are okay.
There is nothing wrong with lies.
Especially lies that get us into a war.
Stop being so damned unpatriotic and allow yourself to be lied to. Be an American for once.
15 - The Theory
I'm pretending that whatever else is said, that the war is in fact NOT all about the oil fields...
peace.
16 - InMarin
A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
WM: Yes.
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
PN: I give up!
http://www.minimumeffort.com/nutshell.html
17 - foolio
when asked why he was attempting to climb Mt. Everest, George Mallory stated simply "Because it's there." and that is precisely why there is war in Iraq: because it's there and because we can. why is it that every other people on the face of the earth are afforded the right to preserve their culture but the anglo-european? conquest and colonization are a part of our culture and possibly embedded in the codons of our genetic pool. there has been a long hiatus of formal conquest and colonization but it is well nigh time that we stopped repressing our natural inclinations. i think this whole business in Iraq is a ripe opportunity for us to exercise our cultural identity.
i read this on the BBC web site. it was taken from an article quoting a man concerning coalition involvement in the region.
"You are here on the condition that you liberate Iraq," said resident Ali Salman Hussein, 35. "We don't want you to occupy us, we want you to liberate us and leave. If you don't leave then we will hate you."
i think this good gentleman must have us confused with someone else. but who? actually i can't think of any liberating force that immediately left a land they just finished shedding blood to "liberate".
Muslim religious leaders all over the middle east have been calling for the Muslims to unite to cast the infidels (worthy of death for no other reason than they are not believers of Islam) out of Iraq and bury the stragglers in the deserts sands. if they had the resources to launch an even marginally likely to succeed campaign against the us they would be calling for that as well. as it is they have to settle for guerrilla style terrorist attacks. anyways i think the US is long overdue for a conquer and colonize period and Iraq (the cradle of civilization) is the ideal spot. under US development we will westernize the indigenous peoples on small tracts of desert land, tap the potential of the fertile farm lands surrounding the euphrates, solve our oil crisis (no more $1.95 a gallon) and create a shining jewel of a colony such as the middle east has never seen. rich democrats will have winter homes in Basra or Nasariya. rich republicans will open franchises in Baghdad and serve french fries to european tourists, and radical right wing fundamentalists will use the western desert region for training militia.
yes, the coalition needs to stop talking around the subject and just come out and embrace the idea of colonizing Iraq. if we are going to take the place by force lets do it right, otherwise not do it at all (my preferred course of action (or non-action as the case may be))
much love to all (especially my soon to be Iraqi neighbors)
one very humble fool
18 - Brian Flemming
Hey, by the way, thanks to everyone who submitted contributions. Will announce when the video is done.
19 - Dawn Olsen
I am pretending to give a shit what a bunch of patsyass pussy liberals think about world politics because they are too incapcitated with self-loathing, bitter broken dreams of utopia, and crap up to their eyeballs to get their heads out of their asses.
How thoughtful of me to think of the little people as the imperialistic Western world crushes the them and their pathetic ideals so we can have bigger and better whatever.
Oops I shed a fucking tear. Oh sorry that wasn't a tear, I was just being gassed by terrorists.
What up you knuckleheads!
20 - Nunya
Logical and coherent as always! Ladies and Gentlemen, Dawn Olson! WOOT WOOT WOOT
21 - Eric Olsen
"Olsen"
22 - Dawn
Well, admittedly I fucked up the last part, cause unlike Nunya - I have other things to do than edit a fucking comment.
But Nunya, I have to ask you, is it your personal mission to follow me around like kind of autistic asslicker? I could give you my daily schedule, limpdick.
23 - Maggie
I'm lying to myself by pretending that it's any of our business that Saddam murders, rapes and tortures people who were unfortunate enough to be born in Iraq. I'm also pretending that all cultures aren't equal. I'm pretending that a culture that respects the rights of women is superior to one that doesn't. I'm pretending that a culture that allows people to speak out against its leaders is superior to one that doesn't.
24 - Brian Flemming
Maggie,
Those are some great truths, but I was asking for lies. It's true that Saddam tortures, it's true that women's rights in Iraq are not at all what they are in the U.S., it's true that dissent isn't allowed in Iraq.
I didn't need truths, I needed lies.
For example:
"I'm lying to myself by pretending that humanitarian concerns have anything at all to do with this war, and that those same concerns could not apply to dozens of other countries, whom we have now declared we have a reason to invade."
or
"I'm lying to myself by pretending that this Administration's sudden concern for women's rights is not the most laughable charade since the conservative justices on the Supreme Court suddenly became enamored of 'equal protection' when it meant GWB would take office."
Thanks for helping out anyway.
25 - Dawn
I am lying to myself by saying that Brian Flemming isn't completely full of shit. I am lying to myself that people don't use this site a soapbox for their retarded brain spittle.
Myself included.
One man's lie is another man's truth.
Go have a latte and a cookie Brian, and you will feel better. It's shocking how low blood sugar and lack of caffeine can make your brain a vacuum of thought and logic.