What, nothing on the Elections? [Archive]

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 07:57 AM

well, I hope the Iraqis can get their country back and run it under whatever model of government they choose.

That is to say, maybe they'd like having a king and queen (like most of the rest of their neighbours), but by the looks of things they'd prefer a religious leader like an ayatollah or an imam, so we'll see how long the current structure lasts after the coast is clear.

Iraq hasn't really had a chance at non-interference self rule for quite some time. Let's see, the King was put in by the British, then he and his family were killed, then nothing for a while, then the Batthists came to power and then saddam who because of his power gained the support of the United states and others like France, Germany, Russia, Britain... and when Saddam became a problem for the kuwaitis he became a problem for britain and the states and they gathered everyone round the campfire under the banner of 'we are righteous' and proceeded to knock the crap out of Iraq and followed that up with 12 years of pressing them all down with sanctions and finally when they were weak enough, running in and finishing them off.

how inspiring, how amazing!

Don't know if western style democracy will have any effect for long. Maybe the Iraqis just want their country back so they can go about their business. Hopefully it will be their business.

In short, whatever, the election was not really what I would call anything but a surreal sham played out on our t.vs for us.

Huge regions couldn't vote, the only areas that are pretty safe are those that were complicit with the US and British and are the same areas that opposed Saddam after GW1 for the most part and were allowed to be pressed down by saddam again because the UN, the US and all other parties involved wouldn't help them out after GW1 when they failed to take Saddam out...
.. for whatever reason, probably a back room deal, but that's just speculation. For most of us with better than grade 4 and do not have Lurleen making us possum stew tonight, It was ridiculous that saddam was not removed when he should have been and that was at the beginning of the 90's.

Says a lot for education. Says a lot about what people's perceptions are and what they care about. It certainly ain't the Iraqis that people care about, that much is quite clear.

The rhetoric is laughable, the news is not reliable and I don't think you care so much about Iraqis as you care about how you are viewed after killing 100,000 plus of them with your tax dollars.

relieve that guilt with sound bytes and picture, stat!

we'll see what happens, I really don't see it going far without constant ushering and interference from the States though and as soon as there is any voice of dissent to the new overlords, the bombs will come again.

way to go america. :rolleyes:

FuXnDajenariht

01-31-2005, 08:18 AM

mmmhmm....are ya done? lol is the soapbox back in the closet? :p

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 08:21 AM

you can agree or disagree. Zim put up a post about the elections and made his views known. I am only a participant. It was his soapbox originally, I just borrowed it for a second and turned it to face the other way.

red5angel

01-31-2005, 08:24 AM

sigh, you just won't be happy kung lek until Canada actually starts to affect this world wil you? Until they stop playing 100th fiddle to the Americans, America can do no right. :rolleyes:

I'm personally glad to see it come. I don't think it wil fix all or heal all wounds and as for "western" democracy you can shove that and any other label you want to throw around, up your arse. The people get to vote and this is a beginning that if they can hold on, will affect not only the country of Iraq, but the entire region and probably the world in a profound way.

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 08:31 AM

red, did you actually read my post?

as an afterthought, did you actually get a handle on the -Iraqi Elections-

The people did NOT get to vote. -Some- people got to vote. And who were they voting for?

Would you like to buy a bridge?

When will people understand that things aren't just because they say they are. :rolleyes:

You can say it as often as you like and it will still come up as untrue, tainted and skewed. No matter how many pictures you can find of people with the purple finger, it seems that it is fair to assume most people want to live peacfully.

But how long has it taken America to get used to a democracy? Does it even work there? lol and you expect a country filled with rural folks who have never lived with a representative government ever, to get it? Ridiculous at the level of absurd when held to teh light of day in my opinion.

I think it is getting a little boring, the personal attacks as opposed to some counterpoints every time i stick a pin in the patriot baloon head.
:p

FuXnDajenariht

01-31-2005, 08:39 AM

geezus red. your killing me. your posts can't be seen too close ta mines in a thread. it almost seems like we're ''agreeing''. thats against my religion. its bad karma by association.

lmao..... im only ****in with ya :D

red5angel

01-31-2005, 08:41 AM

yes, I read your post, as usually it's filled for your distain for america and your misunderstanding and bizarre view on what's going on around the world. Just so you understand though ass, I'll try to explain it slowly in terms you can understand, then you can go back to cruising your paranoid propogandist links ok?

Of course not al the people got to vote, what the fukk did you expect in a war torn country. also, what do you expect when there are terrorist - that's right, terrorist, jnot americans - stopping people from voting through.....terror. That's how it works, and that's how terrorism works. Several small minded narrow sighted people get together and decide people should look at the world they way they want them too.

You can say it as often as you like and it will still come up as untrue, tainted and skewed

ironic don't you think? I like how you chicken little types on this forum are consistant with this sort of behavior.

lol and you expect a country filled with rural folks who have never lived with a representative government ever, to get it? Ridiculous at the level of absurd when held to teh light of day in my opinion.

It's not that complicated, and unlike you I don't have such a low opinion of the people in Iraq. They've lived under a repressive regime for years, so it may take them some time to get used to freedom as it's being established. Also, if you'll note - you won't but I thought I'd point it out again - atleast I took a more moderate view and stated it isn't the end all, it's the beginning, and I believe as long as the poeple of Iraq remain strong, and the world supports them in a turbulent time, they will be fine.

I think it is getting a little boring, the personal attacks as opposed to some counterpoints every time i stick a pin in the patriot baloon head.

You're not worth counterpoints since you consistantly don't bother to listen, continue to spout your paranoid anti-american crap and can't see the forest through the trees. It's tired and your' crap is falling on deaf ears so stop bothering to flood this forum with **** that you spew form your mouth please.

The irony, and I think just about everyone on htis forum will agree, is that Iraq could become one of the strongest economies in the world because of all this change, and you would still be screaming about the injustices of america and blahbbady blah blah. That's because you're a small minded individual with a small view and narrow field of vision on what's right and wrong. You keep saying all these other people are wrong but I think it's people like you that are the worst. hopefully, not all cnaadians who grew up in the rough part of town :rolleyes: are like you.

red5angel

01-31-2005, 08:45 AM

geezus red. your killing me

Sorry Fuxn, I'll have to make sure we stay on opppsite sides of the thread from now on :D

FuXnDajenariht

01-31-2005, 08:47 AM

and KL.. i like your posts. you gotta alot of good points that i agree with most times. but u dont gotta lecture us 'dumb americans' every time u get the chance. your preaching to the choir. well atleast half of it.....anyhow.... but every one isn't a proud flag waving gun owning republican here.

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 08:59 AM

red, you would love it if it was as easy as me just being some dumb ass 23 year old uni student marching around with a Ché flag chanting Chomsky mantras wouldn't you. lol

However, this is not the way.

Please don't make me out to be a 'death to america' head, I am not. I don't know how many times i have to repeat that... but I do notice that everytime I counter this type of what I see to be nonsense and patriotic drivel, the first comments are of a personal nature towards me. Remarks about dumb etc etc.

Nowhere in this subject do I call Zim dumb, or even you. You are entitled to your opinions and you are as equally entitled to believe what you believe.

I am also entitled, so live with it red. I don't see the Bush administration as anything but harmful to your country and to the rest of the world and can only sit and endure the inanities of its policies and actions for another 47 months.

The iraqi elections were a big sham. war torn or not. They were a put on and the reason that is most in front for having them is because of bad press at home for the Bushies who's only recourse for their errant ways is to pull out of Iraq a.s.a.p and in order to do this, they also have to save face.

This shallow and absurd election is for paper and is not in any way shape or form something that will hold, is real or is tangible proof of success. If nothing else it is a shinig beacon of the failure of the US and Britain and their coallition of the bribed and is only a door to once again back out of Iraq.

This is my opinion. I don't share your views, or Zim's and in your democractically driven wisdom, you should be happy about that and smiling that you don't live somewhere where fear is your reason and motivation for doing what you do and saying what you say....:rolleyes:

count

01-31-2005, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
and KL.. i like your posts. you gotta alot of good points that i agree with most times. but u dont gotta lecture us 'dumb americans' every time u get the chance. your preaching to the choir. well atleast half of it.....anyhow.... but every one isn't a proud flag waving gun owning republican here. Hey!!!!!, at least half of us proud (yes), flag waving (sure), gun owning (definately), republican (most of the time), Americans (all the time), support the war in Iraq or the idiot in the White House speaking for us in the World. :mad:

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 09:09 AM

but u dont gotta lecture us 'dumb americans' every time u get the chance.

Please don't take it as a lecture. And as far as I know, this forum is populated with people from all around the world.

I don't regard americans as dumb.

The views I express are simply the views I have. Shared by many and apparently reviled by a few. I would say that in personal experience, -most- people I encounter -share- my views.

some people take personal issue with me because of my hammer method of countering their points. This usually results in personal attacks on me and degradation of what is otherwise a pretty good chance for an argument.

Now that, is what I would call dumb. :p

Merryprankster

01-31-2005, 09:11 AM

The voter turnout was much much higher than anybody who isn't an administration appointee anticipated. I am personally very surprised at the 60% to 70% turnout according to some estimates.

For the people who claim this doesn't matter, you don't understand the Middle East or Iraq at all. Zero. This is monumental. Huge. Right now, if you're paying attention, you should be sort of sitting with your eyes wide open going "Wow, this really changes things."

How does it change things? It's called legitimacy. Even the UN thinks so or they wouldn't have issued press releases to that effect.

The UNAMI staff helped set up and monitor the elections - free and fair, people.

A legitimate government installed by a legitimate election. Wow.

It also does something else that's very important. It reduces the prestige of the insurgents and terrorists. What it says is "The Iraqi people think you offer no viable alternative." Once again, if you don't think that's important, you don't understand the Middle East, or Iraq.

Now the challenge is going to be keeping the country together. I am personally skeptical. Originally, I thought that would not be an issue, because Iraqi's have had a fairly strong national identity for a few generations (unlike Yugoslavs), but it seems to be weakening. We have yet to see if the elections will be a stabilizing or dividing influence.

But don't think for a moment that this wasn't a colossally successful event, a major coup for the Bush administration, and a tremendous defeat for the terrorists, with impacts that will extend from Morocco to Pakistan.

If you can't see or admit that, you're wearing ideological blinders.

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 09:27 AM

For the people who claim this doesn't matter, you don't understand the Middle East or Iraq at all. Zero.

I don't think that your view invalidates anyones. What do you say about all the Iraqis who refused to participate because they also see it as nothing but a sham?

What of them after all this is past?

This matters for a couple fo reasons and I don't think people are saying it doesn't if ya cipher through these posts. 'Matters' and 'Sham' are different words, with different meanings and implications in the context to which they are used.

Now the challenge is going to be keeping the country together.

This has been the challenge since the Bush administration ordered the Attack on Iraq. It was before the election, it is now and it will be so long as their is an occupational force on Iraqi soil.

You use words like terrorists and insurgents and those people you regard as such use words such as hero or freedom fighter.

The language we use is very important. The Iraqi people will probably do just about anything to get their country back.

you say 60% turn out. Where? 60% of Najaf? 60% of the zones where it was safe to vote? 60% of the areas where people even wanted to participate? IE: the Kurdish North and heavily occupied areas and Shiite dominated areas?

60% is an empty statistic.

There are expats, in the safety of other countries who do not regard this as anything more than an attempt at backing out of the mess that has been created with the war. These are procedures that will ensure that the Co-allition can't be tried as criminals for the war and can't be sued for the deaths of countless Iraqis in a pre-emptive attack on a country for trumped up reasons based on shoddy and sloppy intelligence.

Spark

01-31-2005, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by red5angel
Several small minded narrow sighted people get together and decide people should look at the world they way they want them too.

Bush, Cheaney, Rumsfeld?

woooo that was too easy!

rogue

01-31-2005, 10:00 AM

Who's unhappier with the elections, Sadaam or poor old KL? Really KL you sound disappointed that the Shia haven't killed off the Sunni's yet.

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 10:06 AM

yeesh what is it with some of you guys? lol

Rogue-ish one. I am neither happy, nor unhappy with the elections in Iraq. I am looking at them for what they are, empty put on by an egg faced administration trying to get out of a war it shouldn't have started and with no regard for the people of Iraq.

I laugh when I hear people say "I care about Iraqis" only a few months after calling them rag heads or sand nigg.ers. It is amazing!

whatever. :rolleyes:

ZIM

01-31-2005, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Merryprankster

Now the challenge is going to be keeping the country together. I am personally skeptical. Originally, I thought that would not be an issue, because Iraqi's have had a fairly strong national identity for a few generations (unlike Yugoslavs), but it seems to be weakening. We have yet to see if the elections will be a stabilizing or dividing influence.

I don't have the same degree of skepticism. If I'm reading you rightly, a lot of your doubts stem from the sectarian differences. Sunni vs, Shia vs. Kurd, etc.
But there is another factor which has precedence in Arab culture, that of Family. Within Iraqi families, it isn't all that unusual to have a Shia cousin or whatever. I think that Iraqis can be as least as mature/realist about their decisions as Westerners can be.

For KL. (http://www.themanwhofellasleep.com/communism.html)

See, I've a problem with you calling it all a 'sham'. You can certainly do so- *you* live in a society that encourages free speech.
But lets examine that, hey?
99.9% voter turnout for Saddam getting elected last time. No violence. None needed. Was that legitimate?
vs.
72% voter turnout, under fire or threat of it. People risked their lives to vote.

And you, sitting at a screen, call it a sham. Shame on you. When have you risked your life for *anything*? If you have, can I call it a sham, a waste, a lie? What would you say to that?

Merryprankster

01-31-2005, 10:39 AM

ZIM,

While what you say is true, I'm hesitant to say that's a trump card...lots of people don't intermarry like that. And smaller things have torn apart families.

ZIM

01-31-2005, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Merryprankster
ZIM,

While what you say is true, I'm hesitant to say that's a trump card...lots of people don't intermarry like that. And smaller things have torn apart families. True that. There's a ways to go, certainly.

The wisest thing I've ever heard in poli sci: "The most important election for a new country is not the first, but the second"

Merryprankster

01-31-2005, 10:50 AM

ZIM,

True.

KL. Take a deep breath. Relax. Eliminate your hatred of Dubya for just a second and view this objectively. Whatever you think of the war or the administration, the fact is that there was 72% voter turnout.

In Palestine, there was 43% voter turnout. Were their elections a sham?

As usual, when it comes to this type of stuff, you've got your head up your ass.

This isn't about ideology. It's about facts on the ground.

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 11:15 AM

As usual, when it comes to this type of stuff, you've got your head up your ass.

Oh my, i'm experiencing an epiphany based upon your words of infinite wisdom and consice knowledge of what is really happening in the world!

NOT.

I'll reiterate. Because one says "it is so" does not make it so.

Everything is not black and white. There is a lot of grey to spread around. Particulalry in the effects of external influence in middle eastern politics and why that external influence is there in the first place.

Do you honestly think this is some kind of noble helping hand up to those poor backwater people in the middle east? If so, then I would say it is you with your head up your ass. Nothing personal, just it seems that people conveniently forget what came before to push forth the agenda of now and it is a one sided agenda in many respects with little or no concern for the safety and well being of those people it is being pushed upon.

Do the people of Iraq want the invading army out? Yes. I would guess they have come to terms with the fact that they have no recourse but to do it on the terms of their occupiers or continue to be cut down in bombings. Iraq is not united and obviously it has it's groups who act violently and those who comply and those who collaberate and those who try to actually find a path towards that countries freedom from it's occupiers and from it's strife within.

The palestinians are a whole other story, but connected in a lot fo respects because of western influence in the entire region that is the middle east and the reasons that influence and heavy military back up is there.

Indeed I am listening to you guys and I see the view of pushing and forcing as -not- the correct.

anyway...

Merryprankster

01-31-2005, 11:31 AM

Missing the point as usual KL.

I'm not defending the actions of the Bush administration. I'm not talking about U.S. goals or foreign policy. That's a totally different subject.

The reason you're on my ignore list is because you can NEVER back up anything you say with relevant facts.

Tell me why the election is a sham. Tell me why it's irrelevant and doesn't matter. What forces do you see that trump this?

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 11:44 AM

If I am on your ignore list, you will have difficulty seeing readily the points I have already made about why I think it is a sham.

I am not missing the point nearly so much as -I see- you are. I don't think I even mentioned your support of Bush or any of the rest of what you said.

red5angel

01-31-2005, 11:45 AM

there's only one thing funnier then KL's opinion on the state of the world and that's watching someone try to talk some sense into him :D

Missing the point as usual KL.

that's why you're destined to fail MP. while you're using your head, he's using his gut.

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 11:49 AM

Huddling together in the dark is typical of those who can't think out of the box.

Guy's, reading comprehension is important when arguing via this medium.

So, instead of patting each other on the back and ganging on your detractors, why not make some points that aren't just regurgitated musings of wolf blitzer and anderson cooper.

:rolleyes:

wdl

01-31-2005, 11:56 AM

I was a bit doubtful as to whether or not they would know how to take advantage what freedoms they were going to be given the chance to pocess.

I wonder if the recent situation in the Ukraine inspired any of them? It's certainly a possibility.

-Will

red5angel

01-31-2005, 11:56 AM

you crack me up, you really don't get it. Not only are you not really seeing what anyone who disagrees with you is really seeing, but your own inadequacy is what you end up accusing others of.
I don't get it, I really don't. You're hatred for all things american and all things Bush, have so blinded you to seeing anything from your own point of view that you're essentially hopeless. It's sad really. Do you always have ahard time admitting you're wrong or is it a political thing?

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 11:57 AM

I was a bit doubtful as to whether or not they would know how to take advantage what freedoms they were going to be given the chance to pocess.

you make it sound like they will be given a cookie if they are good doggies.

perhaps your assessment is startlingly real. If so, it is a foundation for further disaster.

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 11:59 AM

You're hatred for all things american and all things Bush, have so blinded you to seeing anything from your own point of view that you're essentially hopeless. It's sad really. Do you always have ahard time admitting you're wrong or is it a political thing?

apparently you are failing to see and understand that this position is reflective of your own stance.

you use strong words like "hate" and "blinded" etc etc. I completely allow for other views and opinions and actually think about them before I speak or write something however.

You are too quick to use that which you say I am.

Curious that is.

red5angel

01-31-2005, 12:16 PM

you use strong words like "hate" and "blinded" etc etc. I completely allow for other views and opinions and actually think about them before I speak or write something however.

bull****. I've never seen you budge or give an inch kung lek and I challenge to find an example of that.

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 12:20 PM

red

why would i agree with something i disagree with anymore than you would? I don't understand your reasoning on that point. But I do understand your reasons for believing what you believe.

I'm ok with it really. I just don't agree with the point of view you put forth in regards to this. That's all.

red5angel

01-31-2005, 12:24 PM

the point is that over the course of an argument you can see anothers point or you can concede that what they are saying makes some sense. typically when I discuss something with someone, my view on it changes, even if subtly over time. That doesn't mean I'm changing my entire view on the subject but that the details fill in a little more.
On several occasions in this forum people have been able to convince me of something else, or atleast get me to consider another angle. I see no evidence of that from you.

mortal

01-31-2005, 12:27 PM

The Iraq people are dancing in the streets. I think that says it all.

Bush turned two horrible regimes in two country's into democracy's. Bottom line.

He has been succesful. So John Kerry(phony) and Ted Kennedy(murderer) are the ones with the egg on their ugly swollen faces. Thank God a majority of Americans see these short cited monday morning quarterbacks for what they are. The elections in 2008 will be another republican victory.

There wasn't even a thread on this liberal website about the elections until Zim started one. But when something goes "wrong" all you misguided college kids are all over it with your "facts" from liberal anti-american bloggers.

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 12:35 PM

red-

Aristotle once said that the views held in one's youth will change with time and in some cases even reverese entirely with experience.

we are talking about a specific subject -Iraq-

My views haven't changed on theh subject because from the get go there were far to many contradictions and lies that got the coallition in there for the second time.

the wmds is a good one, the shoddy intelligence, the detraction by many members within the organizations within the US government under the Bush admin and their subsequent resignations and stepping downs, the info bubble bush seems to live in and on and on and on.

I see no evidence of that from you.

I, like you, am not here to present evidence, only my views and opinions. You are as free as I am to like them, share them or not.

red5angel

01-31-2005, 12:39 PM

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 12:45 PM

It shouldn't matter what the subject is. To claim you have it all clear and down is sheer hubris. I know how I feel about Iraq, and how I think about Iraq, and I know those change subtly all the time. This particular point is that whether you're for the war or not, the Iraqis have a real chance, and maybe, whether you're for the war or not, you can see that some good has come from it. Yet you're the only one so far who has to bust in and claim conspiracy theory. It's a pattern.

It does matter what the subject is. Context is very important when speaking of specific topics.

I think I made it very clear in regards to how I view a lot of the situation as "grey". This is clearly indicative that I do Not have it all "clear and down".

I too know how I feel and think about Iraq. And my views change as well, how couldn't they?

I have already clearly stated I am not for the war.

And yes, I agree that any steps that the coallition takes to get out of the affairs of Iraq is good. So even this opening of the gate for withdrawal even if just to save face and avoid more harsh criticism is acceptable. In my opinion, the countries involved can't get out fast enough.

I haven't made any conspiracy theory claim at all. It's pretty much right there in front of us what is going on for the most part. What I do point to is the spin that is put on things to alleviate criticism and blame of the countries that pre-emptively struck Iraq after 12 years of sanctions based on incorrect intelligence.

As for patterns... Is this a conspiracy theory about me you have going? :p

ZIM

01-31-2005, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek

I, like you, am not here to present evidence, only my views and opinions. You are as free as I am to like them, share them or not. Yes, one can state whatever one wishes- that is a right.
It is also part of that right to take responsibility for what one says. You say, you own it.
From what you have said and now do say, the lives of everyone you were so concerned with have been given for a 'sham'.
All the sacrifices of Iraqis- never mind the sacrifices of anybody else- are for nothing. Their hopes- nothing. Their struggles- nothing. Their suffering under Saddam- nothing. The bombings and terror- nothing.

Even the insurgents themselves were fighting for nothing. Since there was no risk whatever of a democracy emerging in Iraq, they'd nothing to fear from it. So their cause- nothing. A sham.

You care nothing for the lives of others, KL. Not their beliefs, not their struggles, not their livelihoods.

I can excuse a certain amount of speech when it comes under the threat of retaliation. That Iraqi Information Minister that was such fun during the war, for instance- he could not say any truthful. If h said the same sort of nonsense now, sure I'd hold him accountable, but not for the stuff he said then- it was under the threat of a dictator after all.

You however haven't got that excuse. You're not under a threat of harm to say awful, hateful things.

I'm generous enough not to consider you a fool. So I conclude you're simply a hateful man.

None of this, I suspect, will matter to you one whit. That's fine, since its the nature of the beast. But it is, nevertheless, part of your burden for what you say.

SPJ

01-31-2005, 01:26 PM

The first election in 50 years.

Cool.

:cool:

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 01:36 PM

Yes, one can state whatever one wishes- that is a right.
It is also part of that right to take responsibility for what one says. You say, you own it.
From what you have said and now do say, the lives of everyone you were so concerned with have been given for a 'sham'.
All the sacrifices of Iraqis- never mind the sacrifices of anybody else- are for nothing. Their hopes- nothing. Their struggles- nothing. Their suffering under Saddam- nothing. The bombings and terror- nothing.

Even the insurgents themselves were fighting for nothing. Since there was no risk whatever of a democracy emerging in Iraq, they'd nothing to fear from it. So their cause- nothing. A sham.

You care nothing for the lives of others, KL. Not their beliefs, not their struggles, not their livelihoods.

I can excuse a certain amount of speech when it comes under the threat of retaliation. That Iraqi Information Minister that was such fun during the war, for instance- he could not say any truthful. If h said the same sort of nonsense now, sure I'd hold him accountable, but not for the stuff he said then- it was under the threat of a dictator after all.

You however haven't got that excuse. You're not under a threat of harm to say awful, hateful things.

I'm generous enough not to consider you a fool. So I conclude you're simply a hateful man.

None of this, I suspect, will matter to you one whit. That's fine, since its the nature of the beast. But it is, nevertheless, part of your burden for what you say.

Again, you personal attacks really amount to nothing tangible except for vitriol towards me with that last bit of drivel zim.

You care nothing for the lives of others, KL. Not their beliefs, not their struggles, not their livelihoods.

Now how did you come to that conclusion? :rolleyes:

Here's a question maybe you can answer.
Have the insurgents caused as many deaths to civilians as teh US and British forces have?

The answer is No. and I leave it to you to source the materials that verify this because I am not going to do your homework for you. You probably shouldn't let Fopx or CNN do it for you either.

Did I ever once say I agreed with violence from any angle? No.

And who started this war? Get a clue, it was a pre-emptive strike based on incorrect intelligence from the USA and the British. Since the exposure of this scandalous fact, people have lost their jobs, stepped down, resigned out of frustration and in some cases turned up dead.

For the Iraqis, maybe they will finally get to see a withdrawal of the occupational armies that are there. Bit by bit, several of the other "coallition" countries are leaving and that is good. Apparently they are seeing why they should not be there on many levels.

for the states and britain it's a bigger problem. Probably mores o the States because you have another 4 years of a guy in office who believes in his mistakes and won't budge one inch in regards to his errors. Apparently he thinks he has never made an error in his decisions while in office and has made that claim himself. IN fact he will go so far as to let the **** roll down hill instead of doing what any honourable and honest president in that office would do and that is uphold the idea put forth some time ago that "The Buck stops here" , meaning the oval office.

So, you think I don't think about the lives of others and don't care about them under occupational control of an army that by many is there for all the wrong reasons?

Dude, that is the weakest pile of crap you have put forth in this thread yet.

- as for first election in 50 years, do you know what the last election in Iraq was? How it was held?

red5angel

01-31-2005, 01:49 PM

Have the insurgents caused as many deaths to civilians as teh US and British forces have?

for a group of people who are supposedly fighting for the "good" of Iraq, they sure have done a number on the people there.

And who started this war? Get a clue, it was a pre-emptive strike based on incorrect intelligence from the USA and the British.

According to your sources, but you still consider the matter an issue of oil recovery based in the lie of WMD's.

Apparently they are seeing why they should not be there on many levels.

way to put your own spin on it KL. OR, since the occupation is ramping down, they are slowly pulling out as promised.

Face it Kung Lek, you just don't get it.

SPJ

01-31-2005, 01:53 PM

Both sides are right.

Blessings in disguise.

A stable middle east in the hands of a democratic government is better than that of a tyrrant that may support terrorists.

The oil fields are vital to the rest of the world.

Local people may enjoy economic booms with stability and prosperity.

Culture clashes are always the issues in the areas.

Moslems cover their women. No eating pork etc.

Some people see dangers. US GI's and draining of US federal money.

Some people see opportunities for the area. Democracy and freedom.

It is so much easier to invade a country then to run a country.

An Army is used to fight and not to run a country.

Once the area is stable. US military will reduce in presence.

Merryprankster

01-31-2005, 01:55 PM

"Moslems cover their women"

Actually, there's no explicit requirement for this. The Koran only requires them to dress with "modesty."

SPJ

01-31-2005, 01:56 PM

Sorry I broke my promise not to touch politics.

Make peace.

I hate to see my fellow forummates fight.

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 01:59 PM

Face it Kung Lek, you just don't get it.

all i can say is likewise red, likewise i'm sure.

rogue

01-31-2005, 02:55 PM

Again, you personal attacks really amount to nothing tangible except for vitriol towards me with that last bit of drivel zim.
Zim, Maybe KL isn't hateful, just totally self absorbed.

Here's a question maybe you can answer.
Have the insurgents caused as many deaths to civilians as teh US and British forces have?
KL, you're getting strange. The things you're saying are bizaar. You see things in a way that I just can't understand. You're equating dictators, terrorists, and the US and Brit forces? This is getting really sad.

ZIM

01-31-2005, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Again, you personal attacks really amount to nothing tangible except for vitriol towards me with that last bit of drivel zim.

Now how did you come to that conclusion? :rolleyes:
Nothing tangible but lives that are no more.

I come to this conclusion because I can empathize and I can remeber what came before, (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/5a920ae8-732c-11d9-86a0-00000e2511c8.html)
even if I've never had to face it.
"Kurdish people were tortured, and we have the same rights as anyone in the world to vote without being blown up," said Bariar Kamal, a man of 20 in Arbil with jeans and slicked-back hair. "I'm young but I still remember how we fought so hard for many years for this."
And I can appreciate this (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20050130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote) as well:

Women in black abayas whispered prayers at the sound of a nearby explosion as they waited to vote at one Baghdad polling station. But the mood for many was upbeat: Civilians and policemen danced with joy at one of the five polling stations where photographers were allowed, and some streets were packed with voters walking shoulder-to-shoulder to vote. The elderly made their way, hobbling on canes or riding wheelchairs; one elderly woman was pushed along on a wooden cart, another man carried a disabled 80-year-old on his back.
Now, imagine if people were shooting up your neighborhood to keep people away from the polls and all your neighbors came out, shoulder to shoulder, to go vote with you.

I can't see how anyone can read that without getting a little choked up, honestly. They, never mind you, believed in it that strongly. For many, it was a vindication of everything they'd been through. An eloquent answer to the deaths caused by Saddam, even the occupation.

This isn't about patting ourselves on the back, KL. This is about Iraqis who had tanks rolled over their heads because they wanted a government that was free from dictatorship. And the election was the culmination of those hopes.

I do, in fact, understand what you're on about. Apparently the UN, Kofi Annan, the EU, the independent observers, they don't agree.

And no- no links. Do it yourself, just as you so haughtily tell others to look it up.

Vitriol. Pfft. Shoe fits, KL.

red5angel

01-31-2005, 03:07 PM

KL, you're getting strange. The things you're saying are bizaar. You see things in a way that I just can't understand. You're equating dictators, terrorists, and the US and Brit forces? This is getting really sad.

KL sees no difference Rogue. To him a soldier is a terrorist. not only that but the soldiers who are ACTUALLY fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people, including the Iraqi soldiers, are worse then the so called freedom fighters aka terrorists, who are not only trying to kill foreign soldiers and civilians, but their own people because they will kill whoever they have to to get their point across.

ZIM, how dare you post links. You know they will be dismissed as propogandist crap for Bush and his lackeys.

no wonder KL thinks US soldiers are worse then terrorists:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6889106/

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 06:11 PM

It's an easy road to call me hateful. :rolleyes:

You guys may read all you want into what I have to say and feel free to hurl names and insults because i don't agree with what you are saying. I have come to expect it. It is now on the -typical- list.

How about those judgements on the guantanomo prisoners this week? You know, how they have a constitutional right to have their case heard? Hope it ain't a preposterous habeus corpus scene.

Word from some stationed there is that a few of these prisoners are indeed innocent of what tehy are being held indefinitely there for.

Do I think Iraq should control it's own country? You bet. I don't know what it is I'm saying that is somehow getting blocked out to you guys on that point.

Do I think that the war is wrong and ultimately a waste of lives on both sides, money and a strongarm tactic and only slightly myopic of the Bush administration to do and Blair as well? You bet.
Dunno what kind of bubble you guys live in, but look around and hey! The rest of the worlds governments for the most part hold that view as well.

Do I think the occupational forces will leave, yep, they'll leave but not until it's politically opportune and that is possibly the most self absorbed and ridiculous reason.

And what happens if the whole democracy thing doesn't work out there and they decide to move back to other forms of government? Will the US invade again and immediately capture oil fields first like they did this time around? (which was highly transparent and revealing in regards to the motivations of the British and the americans for being there in the first place).

Will they once again bomb the crap out of those people they are saving? Resulting in massive casulaties despite all the nonsense of "precision tactical weapons" et al.

My concern for the lack of concern regarding peoples lives in that country or any country is pretty much evident in what I say. But you guys are real quick to point fingers and give the one sided flag waving arguments you present about how great america is for doing what they have done and are doing.

Are there evil people in the world? No **** Sherlock. I don't see too much concern about the countries that deal with dictatorial attrocities, ethnic cleansing and so on. Examples are to many to indicate and you all know it. But what is done about that?
Virtually nothing from the oval office.

And you have the audacity to say I am hateful?

Nice. :rolleyes:

SPJ

01-31-2005, 06:25 PM

Here are the possibilities.

If US leaves today;

Iraq will be divided by its neighbors.

Turkey will move into the North. Turkey does not want Kurds to be independent.

Iran will move west to unite Shiite.

Arabs will move east to unite Sunni.

Syria or Jordan will move in, too.

Persia was divided by the British and the French into British Iran and French Iraq.

With Saddam out, who is going to lead and fend off the borders?

Everything will fall into places all in due time.

FuXnDajenariht

01-31-2005, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Merryprankster
"Moslems cover their women"

Actually, there's no explicit requirement for this. The Koran only requires them to dress with "modesty."

lol the choice between wearing a vail and getting stoned to death more like or similarly murdered in a humiliating fashion. :o

atleast a few years ago.... Iran seems to have alittle hope with the younger generation rebelling against the fundamentalists.

FuXnDajenariht

01-31-2005, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by count
Hey!!!!!, at least half of us proud (yes), flag waving (sure), gun owning (definately), republican (most of the time), Americans (all the time), support the war in Iraq or the idiot in the White House speaking for us in the World. :mad:

lol its just means your misguided and evil....eeeeviiiiiil!!.

j/k ;)

ok ok......... i apologize. i admit that i made the same mistake that i accused Kung Lek of. namely stereotyping. but honestly i have no problems with anyones views. i'll just as likely buy you or anyone else on this forum a round of Beck's as any of my friends...even the ones that i think are on crank half the time. that includes 'mine' dear friend mortal :D. most of my friends are indifferent to politics and are in the 'turn Iraq into a parking lot and be done with it' camp. so i wholedheartedly disagree but im smart enough to know that no one is defined by their opinions or their politics. impermanence... as some famous buddhist dudes say.

my point being we're not all mindless propaganda fed retards drooling all over ourselves. that goes for republicans and liberals and everything else in between regardless of your country of origin. even Canadians aint so bad :p :D

ZIM

01-31-2005, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
It's an easy road to call me hateful. :rolleyes:

Because its true.

You guys may read all you want into what I have to say and feel free to hurl names and insults because i don't agree with what you are saying. I have come to expect it. It is now on the -typical- list.

Say what you want. I'm just saying you're responsible for it.

How about those judgements on the guantanomo prisoners this week? You know, how they have a constitutional right to have their case heard? Hope it ain't a preposterous habeus corpus scene.

Word from some stationed there is that a few of these prisoners are indeed innocent of what tehy are being held indefinitely there for.

This is all tu qoque and doesn't properly belong in this discussion. Oh, and F-U.

Do I think Iraq should control it's own country? You bet. I don't know what it is I'm saying that is somehow getting blocked out to you guys on that point.

Do I think that the war is wrong and ultimately a waste of lives on both sides, money and a strongarm tactic and only slightly myopic of the Bush administration to do and Blair as well? You bet.
Dunno what kind of bubble you guys live in, but look around and hey! The rest of the worlds governments for the most part hold that view as well.

Nobody was asking you any questions.

Do I think the occupational forces will leave, yep, they'll leave but not until it's politically opportune and that is possibly the most self absorbed and ridiculous reason.

And you're still talking to yourself.

And what happens if the whole democracy thing doesn't work out there and they decide to move back to oth[b]er forms of government? Will the US invade again and immediately capture oil fields first like they did this time around? (which was highly transparent and revealing in regards to the motivations of the British and the americans for being there in the first place).

Will they once again bomb the crap out of those people they are saving? Resulting in massive casulaties despite all the nonsense of "precision tactical weapons" et al.

Ever think you just worry too much? That the future, all possible futures, are uncertain by their very nature? No? Can't stomach change?

My concern for the lack of concern regarding peoples lives in that country or any country is pretty much evident in what I say. But you guys are real quick to point fingers and give the one sided flag waving arguments you present about how great america is for doing what they have done and are doing.

Funny, nobody brought up 'how great America is for doing what they have done'. Except you. Which is all quite revealing.

Are there evil people in the world? No **** Sherlock. I don't see too much concern about the countries that deal with dictatorial attrocities, ethnic cleansing and so on. Examples are to many to indicate and you all know it. But what is done about that?
Virtually nothing from the oval office.

And nothing from Ottawa, the UN, the Hague, Moscow, Peking, etc. etc. But the US is supposed to do your bidding, eh?

And you have the audacity to say I am hateful?

Nice. :rolleyes:

Its just honesty, KL. If your friends don't tell you, who will?

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 08:30 PM

Not every society makes social progress at the same pace. nor can it be expected.

Consider this, How long was it before women got the vote in the states? How long before Blacks could vote? (it is said that in full practice it wasn't until 1965 with the voting rights act) And to be fair, in Canada, Native peoples were disallowed from voting as late as the 1960's!

So, it is clear that there are different speeds of progress no matter where you go.

Also, it is incorrect to blanket Islam. there are different sects like any religion and there is of course periods of schism. A glaring example being the Sunni and the Shiite. Sunni are considered more liberal in their views while Shiite are more bound by Sharia or so called Islamic law. It is as well, worthy of note that tere is a clear division between Islam the faith and Muslim the faithful. the acts of a muslim may not be in accordance with the quran just the same as the acts of a catholic may not jibe with the tenets of Christianity.

etc etc...

rogue

01-31-2005, 08:42 PM

How long before Blacks could vote? I think they could always vote, they just weren't allowed to.

David Jamieson

01-31-2005, 08:44 PM

Zim- Give "Shake Hands with the devil" by general Romeo Dallaire a read to get an idea of what Canada dealt with i Rwanda during the horrible ethinic cleansings and strife between Hutu and tutsi.

Might give you a better idea of what Ottawa tries to do with Canada's armed forces.

We also have contingents on the ground in many war torn countries and thanks to Lester B. pearson (one of our illustrious prime ministers) our Canadian armed forces serve as one of the outstanding peacekeeping forces in the world and have done a hecka lotta time with UN missions all over the world.

We are in country in Afghanistan right now. We are still in bosnia, we are in africa, we are deployed with US naval forces and have long held roles in peacekeeping in Cyprus and any other nation that calls upon us for these types of duties including helping with US operations overseas.

Our federal police force spent time in Syria recently training Iraqi police forces.

anyway...it goes on and on what Ottawa does with our armed forces. Don't make fun of em. :mad:

FuXnDajenariht

01-31-2005, 08:53 PM

your being a bit hostile dont ya think ZIM? making it kinda personal?

mmmkay. say it with me. Goosfraba......Goosfraba.....

ZIM

01-31-2005, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek

anyway...it goes on and on what Ottawa does with our armed forces. Don't make fun of em. :mad:
I never make fun of anybody that puts their lives to the test. You do.
I never belittle anyone who puts their lives on the line.
You do.
And I'd never sit in my comfy chair typing out hateful comments about people who are out doing something positive in the world, especially for their own people, in accordance with their fondest hopes.
You do.

ZIM

01-31-2005, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
your being a bit hostile dont ya think ZIM? making it kinda personal?

mmmkay. say it with me. Goosfraba......Goosfraba.....
Yes. I'm full-on disgusted.

Contempt for the contemptible, I say.

FuXnDajenariht

01-31-2005, 08:59 PM

I feel pretty,
Oh, so pretty,
I feel pretty and witty and gay!
It's a pity
Any girl who isn't me tonight.

I feel charming,
Oh, so charming
It's alarming how charming I feel!
And so pretty
That I hardly can believe I'm real.

See the pretty girl in that mirror there:
Who can that attractive girl be?
Such a pretty face,
Such a pretty dress,
Such a pretty smile,
Such a pretty me!

I feel stunning
And entrancing,
Feel like running and dancing for joy,
For I'm loved
By a pretty wonderful boy!

MoreMisfortune

01-31-2005, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by rogue
Let's not forget the men and women that gave all for this day to happen.

voluntary invaders and murderers

its obvious the "eagle" will put its hand over this elections... we can guess for whom's favor

MoreMisfortune

01-31-2005, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Merryprankster
A legitimate government installed by a legitimate election.

untitled poem, by me:
"i stared at the "legitimate"
and i laughed"

omarthefish

01-31-2005, 09:13 PM

5 pages and I still haven't seen any one actually refute any of Kung Lek's points.

Apparently it's easier to just label him as a leftist wacko full of hate. Emotional arguments are often more effective than logical ones. Same for the links. Lots of people waited in line to vote. Are we supposed to be impressed? 60% is only record breaking by American standards. But the real comedy is in what it is 60% of.

What IS it 60% of? Eligeble voters? What defines that in Iraq? 60% of the adult population in areas securely controlled by US forces? lol. That would be rich. "60% of all the people who agree with us turned up to vote for the candidates that we selected for them to choose between..." What the hell is THAT supposed to prove?

What can I say....elections are happening. Good. How anyone can get excited and claim it proves a success of any kind is a mytery to me. Did someone think that we weren't EVENTUALLY going to stage some elections?

Someone on page 3 or 4 claimed that they were finally going to have legitimate elections and get a legitimate government. Our own **** government doesn't even pass the international standards for legitimacy that we place on other fledgling democracies. Not enough transparency, no paper trail, lost of suspicion of corruption. America lacks the credibility at this point to make any kind of broad sweeping statements about democracy or to heralding it's self as some kind of vanguard.

meh.

I wish them luck. And if anyone says it...they's right. I don't specifically care about the Iraqi people. No more than I specifically am concerned for my friends here in China or the extremely serious concerns I have for the floundering constitutional rights of my compatirots back home.

In the end I suspect we've done some good but I can't detect even the glimmer of altruism out there and I can hardly be expected to clap my hands and applaud the US for removing someone that they put there themselves in the first place and even then only because it served their own new best interests.

MoreMisfortune

01-31-2005, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by mortal
The Iraq people are dancing in the streets. I think that says it all.

certainly,
happy they are since they feel closer to be free from the dirty yankees invasion, but that will take a looong time still oh yeah

imagine someone sticking a huge thick log (from a tree) up your ass so hard
and it hurts
now this person removes the log about 1/3 of the logs total lenght from your ass
it hurts less
but it still hurts

lyrics from a song, not mine, i just translated, you may relate it and use it or not whatever you want to
"suffering for some is to be happy
for those that never had anything
its all they ever wanted"

SPJ

01-31-2005, 09:35 PM

Politics are like the wind. They come and go.

Today is blowing the east. Tommorrow is blowing the west.

A good sailor will set sails according to the wind.

Power is the same. It comes and goes.

US intervention in Iraq has a long history.

Stationing troops along the Arabian border, enforcing no fly zone, checking Iraqi ships along the gulf to enforce embargo etc since the end of the first gulf war.

What is next? Yes, troops to go in.

French has long interests in the area. French opposed the invasion.

German does not like the idea of using troops in other country without proper cause. The case of WMD, nuclear and intermediate threats to US?

Blair and Bush are cornered to say to remove a tyrant. A tyrant must go.

Rumors flew around about Afganstan and Iraq interventions long before it actually happened.

Frankly, nobody was surprised.

rogue

01-31-2005, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by MoreMisfortune
voluntary invaders and murderers

its obvious the "eagle" will put its hand over this elections... we can guess for whom's favor
You know I never said this to anyone before, but drop ****ing dead.

SPJ

01-31-2005, 09:40 PM

No imposing power lasts forever.

People will survive, endure and win in the end.

Freedom is inevitable.

As KL said, democracy may be a long way to go.

Middle east politics are as entangled as 6000 years ago.

MoreMisfortune

01-31-2005, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by rogue
You know I never said this to anyone before, but drop ****ing dead.

good luck developing the mind bullet chi power
sucker

youre false moralist, like thousands out there
"Thou shall not murder" yeah, but i guess killing people from other country is ok, aaah sorry i missed that detail

SPJ

01-31-2005, 09:44 PM

People live in Iran and Iraq since 4000 B.C.

And yes, they will solve their own problems.

FuXnDajenariht

01-31-2005, 10:37 PM

well **** it... i tried to keep the peace. :o

your all taking this way too serious...

ZIM

01-31-2005, 11:00 PM

its obvious the "eagle" will put its hand over this elections... we can guess for whom's favor

Utter nonsense.

The FACTS:

June 2003: The original U.S. plan following the invasion was for elections to be held only AFTER a new national constitution had been written.

The US cancelled ad-hoc local elections all across Iraq in June of 2003.

Grand Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa calling for national elections as the only way to choose the assembly that would draft a constitution, rejecting the U.S. plans to appoint a committee.

Fall 2003: American administration tried to ignore or sidestep Sistani's decree for months, until it became clear that the Governing Council were refusing to go along with US plans.

January 2004: Sistani organized massive demonstrations in Basra and Baghdad to make his growing impatience clear.

Seeing hundreds of thousands of Shiites in the streets of Baghdad, Bush and Bremer back down, invite the UN to design a new transition, just as Sistani had demanded.

Bottom line:
These were homegrown elections, Sistani's brainchild. They've already shown a remarkable degree of independence from the 'occupiers'.

========
omarthefish -He's honest when he says he doesn't care. Fine. I don't respect it, but fine.

MoreMisfortune

01-31-2005, 11:17 PM

thats booshet and the hand of the eagle manipulating is obvious
WAIT AND SEE
you will see in teh future i was right

I HAVE NEVER BEEN WRHONG IN HERE WHEN I MADE MY PREDICITONS ABOUT THE WAR BEING WRONG
I SEE THISNG YOU RINGHT WINGS TDONT SEE

The eagle will manipulate to put someone that supports the eagle in there to influence and the influence will be maintained for years and years
the eagle will want big deals on oil
the eagle will do mean things as usual

and some people have the NERVE to reffer to ME as the BAD one?
ball lickers

im just being nice here

ZIM

01-31-2005, 11:21 PM

I SEE THISNG YOU RINGHT WINGS TDONT SEE
You were warned about that brown acid.

Merryprankster

02-01-2005, 07:01 AM

I still haven't seen any one actually refute any of Kung Lek's points.

That requires a point to refute. KL's "argument" is nothing but an anti-American diatribe - which he is entitled to. However, it is absolutely not grounded in an understanding of the Middle East, Iraq, Iraqi politics or anything else factual that you can point to.

It also has very little to do with the subject at hand, interestingly. American policy really isn't the crux or impact of the elections.

I have a lot of work to do, but if I have time I'll get around to writing something with some substance.

Merryprankster

02-01-2005, 08:57 AM

I have little time.

The reason the elections are important is because they are free and fair and smack on the border of two of the most authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

It's also important because it represents the first time, outside of the Iranian revolution, that Shiite clerics have advocated involvement in politics. Throughout history, Shiites, have been largely uninvolved in politics, representing a parallel power structure to the state's authority. This has allowed them to survive. In fact, one of the common Shiite phrases to describe both themselves and the role of their clergy is "The oppressed of the earth."

Well, a voting majority in an election can act on that and that's a new, big thing. That's going to be a serious thorn in the side of several of the smaller GCC states, because many of them have significant shia minorities that may start to demand some sort of say in the political structure. This is very different from the effects of the Iranian revolution - that was an overthrow, and provided justification for the GCC states with Shia minorities to suppress them even more. The elections will be hard to paint in that light.

Iran's theocracy is running into some serious legitimacy problems. The theocracy has discovered that running a country is hard work! It's much easier to play the opposition. The continuing economic problems and lack of opportunity is not playing well with the Iranian public. The high turn out in the elections shows that there is a potential viable alternative to the theocratic, autocratic state....and it's RIGHT NEXT DOOR. Further, because of religious study and family considerations, Iran will have a very hard time eliminating this influence from moving across its borders. Pilgrimages, religious schooling, etc. They can't stop it and maintain their Islamic legitimacy.

Saudi Arabia's monarchy is going to get nervous for the same reasons as I listed above.

Syria and Jordan too, but to a lesser extent. Jordan is more stable as is Syria. There is less unrest just below the surface.

Now, this doesn't mean the elections will hold. It's possible they'll fall apart and I give survival of Iraq a 70/30 shot - 70 to survive as a nation and 30 to split along Kurd, Sunni and Shiite lines. However, the Sunni's have a major incentive to play along - they've got no natural resources (oil) in the sunni triangle. It's all in the Kurdish north and Shiite south, except for one or two minor deposits that aren't really worth exploiting.

The crux, of course is whether or not the elections were legitimate. I think it's very difficult to conclude that they were NOT legitimate. UN observers have declared them legitimate and Kofi Annan has declared them legitimate - in a carefully worded statement that acknowledged the need to bring the Sunni's into the government. I believe the Shiite's have agreed that the Sunni's should definitely be involved, but I'm unsure about the Kurds.

So the issue is not that I see some sort of bright shiny future for Iraq. There's a long long road ahead. But the FACTOF elections flies directly against the terrorist message and against the powers of the region. If you can't recognize the symbolic victory and force this represents, I don't know what to tell you. The terrorists lost this round. That doesn't mean they're done for, but it does send two messages - 1. That the terrorists are not winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, despite their rhetoric, and 2. The terrorists do not offer a viable alternative - not enough people support them to stifle the elections.

The FACT OF elections represents a serious threat to the legitimacy of several regimes in the area

Whether or not that materializes is a different issue. But I guarentee you that the King and the Grand Ayatollah are sweating bullets right now - especially if Iraq gets its oil production on line. Then they've got some economic clout to go with their shiny new democracy. That would be a disaster for Iran, which has very high extraction and processing costs per barrel, when compared with both Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Finally, the talk about linking the elections and oil is the biggest red herring I've ever seen. The largest importers of Middle Eastern oil are China, Japan and Europe. These are NOT US OIL COMPANIES. The United States gets most of it's oil from Nigeria and Venezuela. Oil is not a fungible commodity the way people think it is. Iraqi crude is not the same as Venezuelan and Nigerian crude and cannot be processed in the same plants the same way without serious retooling. The refineries here in the United States would have to undergo billions of dollars of recapitalization that would take years to recoup. Further, the instability in the region means they'd be taking a horrible risk. Not exactly big on the corporate do list.

Here's the laugher in all this. The people who use the oil/economic argument as the reason we're in Iraq ignore the actual economics. They don't understand the oil business or the system.

Opinions are nice and all, but have an informed one. Learn a little about the region and the history. The problem with economic determinism is that it's a one size fits all model....and that worked SO WELL for communism....

red5angel

02-01-2005, 08:59 AM

Apparently it's easier to just label him as a leftist wacko full of hate.

omar, you've been around long enough to see why. this has been tried before to no avail.

You know I never said this to anyone before, but drop ****ing dead.

You'll have to excuse Xebs for his misbehaviour, he's a college kid and can't help getting swept up in hatred. That's the funny thing about college kids, they spend a lot of time protesting the violence and hatred, usually they fight all this through violence and hatred. It's an odd cycle but their young and dumb. eventually they grow up and those eyes open wide to see that the world isn't quite what the hippies on the street corners want you to believe it is ;)
I sit by the government cneter here in minneapolis while I'm at work and any time their is a protest we pul out the binoculars to see what's the new flavor of choice for protestors. I've noticed that they seem to be mostly made up of college kids, with old ex-hippie types following a close third and a smattering of normal folks I personally think are actually college kids in disguise to try to lend some credibility to their actions ;)

I'm going to go ahead and give you some help Xebs -

you said:

youre false moralist, like thousands out there

Back that statement up, don't spout college kid propoganda at us please. You claim Rogue is a "false moralist" but Rogue never claimed he was against killing anyone. As a matter of fact, in this case he's arguing that those who choose to die should be honored for their sacrifices, something that can be done without acepting the necessarily agreeing with the cause they are fighting for.
You however, stand as a perfect example of a "false moralist". Not only do you claim to hate those who kill in a foreign land, but you hate them because they kill in a foreign land and have said multiple times, you wish them dead. until you can get you story straight, I suggest you STFU Newb. Too much semen spinning around in your body for you to really understand what is going on at this pointin your life anyway, you should focus on thinsg you understand, like video games and trying to get laid, and homework.

David Jamieson

02-01-2005, 09:13 AM

merry-

my point was not an anti-american diatribe.

My point was from my first post that I considered the elections to be a sham born out of war that was based on lies.

Do I support the dictator Saddam? No, and I don't support those totalitarian leaders of countries out there who press down their own people all over the world. Of which there are many.

Zim asked us to "support us". I do not support what I consider to be a lie.

The entire scenario from start to finish is reeking of hypocrisy and not from the american people so much as from the oval office.

I don't support any might makes right idea put forth from a school yard or a political office. I see it as wrong and I see the Iraqi people as being duped and the elections in Iraq as just another tactic in an already protracted war.

There was no free election. There was an election for those people in those areas that are complicit with the occupational forces.

What of the millions of Sunni? What about their election? Or are they all just a bunch of Saddam loyalists because they are sunni?

Who were the candidates? Who put them forward? Why can people who have never even been to Iraq, the homne of their parents, vote as expats in foreign countries? Is that democratic in the realest sense? Iraq is hardly what I would call a free country. It's freedom is tentative if not withheld entirely until they do what they are told by those countries that are now occupying their soil.

In my opinion, that makes this show a sham.

Now, if there were no occupational armies, if there were no running street battles and the Iraqis were living in their own country and having an election, then taht would be different. But this is not how it is.

When a culture has significant differences from ones own, it is very easy to see what is right about your and wrong about theirs. This is having a lack of perspective on a thing called cultural relativity.

The killing of inniocents in prison is brought about in regards to Saddams ruling, but I would ask, don't you think that is the pot calling the kettle black? How many people are held in American prisons that may be innocent? How many people were executed in Texas alone last year? (a:50% of all executions took place in texas and the majority of death sentences occur in teh Southern states of the US with Black men being the number one demograph getting strapped in).

Yes, there are a lot of problems with America and it is Hubris on the part of the Bush administration to have the gall to think it is ok to go out and fix the world and mold it into some sort of place that holds to their views while in the meantime turning a blind eye to the staggering domestic problems they have at home.

One of the american presidents who is highly admirable is Eisenhower. He was a soldier, and he said this (i'll paraphrase):

Every dollar spent on a gun, or a tank is a dollar taken away from feeding a poor person or helping someone up in our society.

He warned the public of the Military industrial complex.

Iraq is pretty much a shining example of the results of that military industrial complex in america getting and taking root and now being thoroughly entrenched. And now it is not only at the expense of your own fellow countrymen, it is at the expense of people in a country a half a world away.

So, should I support "you" in this entire affair? I think not.

There are going to be more questions once the troops go home. Troops by the way do what they do by the orders they are given. That is their job and I don't blame troops and I don't call them murderers. They are not. They are bound by oath of service. I do think that there are a great deal of american troops who feel they have been the victim of a massive bait and switch program in regards to the whole operation in Iraq.

I do support the general idea behind Operation Enduring Freedom which is what Iraq somehow falls under although it was originally a plan to mobilize against terrorist forces globally and does have the support of some 60 + countries including Canada.

The initiative in theory is a good one and it asks countries to participate in helping to put an end to terrorism. But from where is terrorism born? It is born from oppression. It is born from abject poverty. It is born from denial of fundamental rights and freedoms that should be yours and mine from the point we leave the womb.

How is the idea of enduring freedom put into practice? Militaristically. yeesh! What an incredibly ridiculous path to get on!

So, I am not buying into the rhetoric put forth in regards to this because I see the idea as good, but the machinery of its manifestation as broken before it got out of the shop. That is what is most sad.

Now you can throw about whatever posturing nonsense about noble ideals that you want, but the truth of the matter in my eyes is that these elections were merely a push at getting the Bush admin out of the mess they have gotten themselves into.

The truth of the matter is that if the US and Britain do not maintain their occupation fo Iraq, there will not be a democracy there.

The Kurds and the Shiites see this as an opprtunity to take control and possibly even take revenge on those who they regard as their oppressors under Saddams regime.

The whole thing was gone about from invasion to the election in a completely incorrect way and there will be repercussions and strife for another generation of Iraqis.

Tell me this, when the Shiites and Kurds start locking up Sunnis and torturing them for nothing more than being a Sunni, who will set that straight?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions in other words.

TaiChiBob

02-01-2005, 09:44 AM

Greetings..

There is wisdom in all perspectives.. and the truth is butchered somewhere in the middle..

A person's compelling beliefs to serve their country at the expense of their life and health is honorable, regardless of that government's overt or covert values..

So far, there are no official election results, i suggest we wait to see who emerges the winner before deciding legitimacy..

The Bush administration set a date and kept it, regardless of whatever wisdoms or requests to postpone it.. there are valid issues on both sides of that situation..

The US has installed several leaders in that region, none of which matured into lasting or favorable (by US standards) allies.. we can only hope history doesn't repeat itself..

It is my sincere wish that Iraq is allowed to determine its own destiny.. again, there's that history problem..

But, to agree with Zim, it is indeed a time for hope and faith.. but, "faith without works is dead".. the "work" is yet to be done.. having a vote is not the same as setting up a functioning government.. one that represents its people and their beliefs..

I hope for the best but remain guarded and vigilant as to how my nation (the US) will ultimately proceed.. Bush's exporting freedom and democracy policy has some dark overtones to it..

This was a big battle, not the war.. another battle is shaping up between the Israelis and Palestinians.. and US policy here could undo much it claims it has accomplished..

Be well...

red5angel

02-01-2005, 09:44 AM

The killing of inniocents in prison is brought about in regards to Saddams ruling, but I would ask, don't you think that is the pot calling the kettle black? How many people are held in American prisons that may be innocent? How many people were executed in Texas alone last year? (a:50% of all executions took place in texas and the majority of death sentences occur in teh Southern states of the US with Black men being the number one demograph getting strapped in).

This is the only paragraph necessary to read KL to point out the error of your ways:

1 - Saddam killing people in prison is not the same thing as the US justice system. See, the difference between a dictatorship and a Democracy is atleast these people got a chance at a trial.

2 - Texas - the home state of your favored enemy Dubya. You're so focused on George you can't see anything else and you're hatred of him underlines every decision you make, every tidbit you try to use to make your points. you're credibility is gone out the window cause this isn't abotu anything but a bizarre fixation with Bush and hating him, it's sick dude.

3 - While you're throwing all sorts of numbers and "facts" around you don't provide anything to back it up. I see 50%, Southern Staes and Black men being thrown out there with nothing to help underscore your point. not only that but it's just one facet of the entire issue. That could lead to a fourth point but I will keep it at three - that you tend to provide some highly spun "proof" of your arguments, and turn around and claim everyone elses sources are all spin and no substance. the only thing that is the pot calling the kettle black here is you.

ZIM

02-01-2005, 09:47 AM

The initiative in theory is a good one and it asks countries to participate in helping to put an end to terrorism. But from where is terrorism born? It is born from oppression. It is born from abject poverty. It is born from denial of fundamental rights and freedoms that should be yours and mine from the point we leave the womb.
Actually, no. Surprisingly, it isn't.

The a- and illiterate farmer of Afganistan, say, is quite removed from the concerns of the Madrassas. His village probably supports only the most negligible of Mosques [that they're certainly proud of, of course] but strapping a bomb upon himself would strike him as outwardly & inwardly heinous for the same reasons it does us.

The majority of terrorists are in fact middle-class or higher, often educated. They're the same angry, misbegotten college kids that Red was poking fun at above.

That and Down's syndrome kids. But never mind that.

But wait-! Oppression, of course-! Well, there was terrorism in the region noted in our newspapers back in the 1930's, too. We certainly weren't there. Nor was Israel. Nor were the Palestinians. Nor was the Oil industry built up to the degree that it is today.

Something else, maybe.

ZIM

02-01-2005, 09:51 AM

While you're throwing all sorts of numbers and "facts" around you don't provide anything to back it up. I see 50%, Southern Staes and Black men being thrown out there with nothing to help underscore your point. not only that but it's just one facet of the entire issue. That could lead to a fourth point but I will keep it at three - that you tend to provide some highly spun "proof" of your arguments, and turn around and claim everyone elses sources are all spin and no substance. the only thing that is the pot calling the kettle black here is you.
C'mon, Red. You know that the first votes of the Blacks in the US was a sham. It was just pretty pictures and stuff. ;)

Radhnoti

02-01-2005, 09:55 AM

MP - "Oil is not a fungible commodity the way people think it is. Iraqi crude is not the same as Venezuelan and Nigerian crude and cannot be processed in the same plants the same way without serious retooling. The refineries here in the United States would have to undergo billions of dollars of recapitalization that would take years to recoup. Further, the instability in the region means they'd be taking a horrible risk. Not exactly big on the corporate do list."

Thank you MP, I did not realize that.

KL, you say there was no free election. I disagree, the people who didn't vote had EXACTLY the same opportunity to come vote as the (up to) 70% who did so. Are U.S. elections not "free" because of the libertarians who don't come vote since their candidate has no chance? Certainly not, to deny the legitimacy of this election, to me, minimalizes the rights of those who DID choose to risk their lives and claim their new right. It was the best election that could be put together, a FIRST election. And I've seen a list of the parties for whom the Iraqis could vote...it seemed to me as though a large cross-section of ideas and ideals were represented. Certainly more than the first U.S. election (after the ratification of the Constitution anyway) in which George Washington was unopposed...

A huge step forward for the Iraqi people, I'd say. I'm very happy for them.

David Jamieson

02-01-2005, 09:59 AM

red-

1.people being executed when innocent doesn't matter if it happens in a democracy or a totalitarian regime. Your point is moot, it is still wrong. People are currently held by the US without access to due process of the law which is their constitutional right. This was an action of the current administration to do so. Your point is moot.

see here: http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/usa-summary-eng

2. My pointing out that Bush and his admin are doing harm is not a fixation. IN fact, there are millions of americans who agree with it and are now through the US court system filing actions in this regards. Senators, Congressman and representatives alike make themselves heard on this matter everyday. Your point about fixation is silly.

3. The facts are a matter of public record. You or anyone can access the figures on executions in the 38 states that have the death penalty. It will take you about 10 minutes to get accurate figures. How you choose to understand the facts...is up to you I guess. Again, your point is moot.
see here : http://people.smu.edu/rhalperi/exec04.html

don't get me wrong, I do not know how many of that number from 2004 were guilty or not guilty of their crime. But I would say that there is a flaw, it has been discovered and there are currently actions pending before the courts that will seek to repair those errors. the first step is to put a stop to the death penalty until a system is in place that will ensure that it doesn't happen to an innocent person.

Zim-

Terrorists come from all walks of life and choose to take the actions they do based on their own conviction and beliefs. You inference that they are retarded in some way is myopic. It is indicative that perhaps you don't really understand the concept of cause and effect.

I don't agree with acts of violence to push an agenda or make change. In my opinion, that is backwater thinking. But there are glaringly apparent parallels between some of the actions the Bush administration has taken in their "you're with us or with the terrorists" stance, and that of some of these 'terrorist' organizations.

What is the difference between a Christian fundamentalist saying "kill them, wipe them out" and an Islamic Fundamentalist saying the same thing? Nothing as far as I can see. Do you see it differently only because of the side of the fence you live on?

Do you have electricity, health care and running water?
I would think so. And how long would it take for you to rise up after having those things and then having them taken away? 1 day? a month? 2 years?

rogue

02-01-2005, 10:11 AM

MP, don't you think Turkey is a big enough incentive for the Kurds to stick with a unified Iraq at least for the forseeable future?

Let's take KL's quote in two parts.

Yes, there are a lot of problems with America and it is Hubris on the part of the Bush administration to have the gall to think it is ok to go out and fix the world and mold it into some sort of place that holds to their views
What's the problem? Is it OK to fix the world and install someone who doesn't hold our views? You didn't like the Shah or Sadaam and they did not hold the same view of the world as we do. Can't have it both ways KL.

while in the meantime turning a blind eye to the staggering domestic problems they have at home.
Are you offering to join some kind of Canadian Peace Corp to come on down and help us out of the quagmire that we're in?

David Jamieson

02-01-2005, 10:25 AM

Are you offering to join some kind of Canadian Peace Corp to come on down and help us out of the quagmire that we're in?

Now that is an interesting question Rogue.

But I leave it to the intelligent people in your country to do their best and try to iron out those domestic problems that your current administration is ont doing anything about. I mean, it's not like the -people- are stupid.

I think it was the Iranians who didn't like the Shah. The US put him there and did business with him regularly until the Iranian people rose up and deposed him and installed their own government which still sits to this day. It's not a matter of me or you having our way.

Saddam is a like figure to the Shah. Except he had more power in his country than the Shah of Iran did and maintained his grip...with the complicity and support of the USA.

That is, until he started effecting British holdings and Americas flow of oil with his attack on Kuwait in the first Gulf War. Had he not done that, he would still be in power, still running his prisons like any other country in the region runs their prisons repleate with torture and murder and rape et al. You know, like Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia et al.

Their form of 'justice' is brutal and wrong, but these countries get the support of the US. So even playing the Saddam was a bad man card is mere distraction. By our standards and perceptions here in the west, All the leaders of the region that is teh Arab nations are brutal in how the control their people. I would also add that there aren't any democracies in teh region except those that are in Israel (the only actual working one) and the two dubious ones created by teh US and Britain and the 'coallition' of the willing in Afghanistan and now Iraq.

Brad

02-01-2005, 10:30 AM

I think these elections were about as free as they're going to get. I think it's good because there was a pretty good turnout showing that no matter what the Iraqi people think of us Americans, the majority of them are interested in solving their problems through peaceful democtatic means. Whether everyone will be mature enough to accept the results remains to be seen, but I'm optimistic.

David Jamieson

02-01-2005, 10:35 AM

free as they're going to get

That, in and of itself derails the validity of them.

Sorry Brad, but optimism in context to the situation in Iraq is for Pollyannas. Nothing personal, but we're talking about millions of people here and many lives in the balance.

there is an extreme risk of yet another totalitarian regime evolving out of this. The tables are turned and those who were seen as the former oppresors (the sunni) stand a very good chance of becoming oppressed now.

people dancing in the streets and firing guns in the air is fairly indicative of something I would think.

It is worth taking caution and not dressing up a fetid piece of dung and calling it a sweet apple in other words.

rogue

02-01-2005, 10:39 AM

At least you are not alone KL, al-Zarqawi feels the same way.

people dancing in the streets and firing guns in the air is fairly indicative of something I would think. MP was right, you know nothing about the Middle East.

David Jamieson

02-01-2005, 10:50 AM

what are you inferring?

Things aren't so black and white as that rogue. I would expect that you would be able to discern that point.

Al-Q and Al-Z and all the other Al's have their agendas. I am not saying they are correct in either philosophy or implementation. But I am saying that to some degree these organizations refutation of the west is something that should be on the table as far as what are their reasons and how do those reasons differ in context to the taking, keeping and administration of power in that region?

There is division, that is clear. In my opinion, as I said before, violence begets violence. Therefore, I see the actions of the Al's as egregious.

I also see the actions of the Coallition headed by the US and Britain as egrigious as well.

Both sides wrong, what is a better plan?

For now, I would think it is better to stay out of the yard that contains the rabid and vicious dogs. And by tossing our own dogs of war into the yard to get and hold it can result in many different outcomes.

Is the coallition of the willing prepared to accept the failure of democracy in a region that doesn't use it, hasn't used it and has a completely different paradigm?

Are you willing to accept firther taxation and loss of life of your country to maintain a slippery grip on it all?

Do you think there are alternatives to the situation? What are they and how can what has been done be repaired and order restored without the barrel of a gun forcing it?

Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda is still something that can't be said at this point.

There is an opportunity here that is not being taken because the people who can take the opportunity choose to do it through the ways and means that they have been doing it. That is to say, forcing their agenda on an entire nation to which that agenda is more or less alien.

Brad

02-01-2005, 10:51 AM

Well, it's up to the Iraqi people to validate the elections, not the international community which didn't give a darn about the Iraqi people in the first place. Most of the people in the country got to vote, and their new elected officials will have to come up with a constitution(which will also have to be ratified by the people through voting). It's a pretty good start for creating a legitimate Iraqi democratic system.

In a country with a lot of different groups like Iraq, oppression is allways a concern, but you can't eliminate the possibility entirely. What would you suggest? If the U.S. pulls out, the terrorists will take over and a totalitarian regime will almost be garaunteed. U.S. could stay in Iraq even longer without a vote happening, but that's not much different than a dictatorship. If after the vote the various groups don't want to work out their differences, then it's their problem. You can't force people to be good and like each other. At some point, they have to figure things out for themselves. What's going on right now seems to give the Iraqi's the best chance of figuring things out on their own, while having a barely reasonable amount of security.

David Jamieson

02-01-2005, 10:53 AM

I would also add, can any of you demonstrate your repleat knowledge of politics in the middle east? :rolleyes:

All any of us can do is call a spade as we see it, a spade.

David Jamieson

02-01-2005, 10:58 AM

Brad- The concern is not the terrorists at this point in regards to the US and Britain et al pulling their troops out.

The concern is what if the shiites decide to start becoming the ones who now oppress the Sunni.

What if Turkey moves in on the Kurds?

What if Syria and Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt put a stealthy hand into play and arm the Sunnin insurgency and another war is born from it all?

The major concern is outright civil war.

It's not about shadowy and indiscernable figures called "the terrorists". It is about the outbreak of a civil war.

In which case, this should, in my opinion be something that is on the Table at the UN general council. If stability is to be returned to the area, then I don't think a bogus democracy is the answer. I think that basic needs must be met and the peace must be kept.

ZIM

02-01-2005, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Brad
Well, it's up to the Iraqi people to validate the elections, not the international community which didn't give a darn about the Iraqi people in the first place. Most of the people in the country got to vote, and their new elected officials will have to come up with a constitution(which will also have to be ratified by the people through voting). It's a pretty good start for creating a legitimate Iraqi democratic system.

In a country with a lot of different groups like Iraq, oppression is allways a concern, but you can't eliminate the possibility entirely. What would you suggest? If the U.S. pulls out, the terrorists will take over and a totalitarian regime will almost be garaunteed. U.S. could stay in Iraq even longer without a vote happening, but that's not much different than a dictatorship. If after the vote the various groups don't want to work out their differences, then it's their problem. You can't force people to be good and like each other. At some point, they have to figure things out for themselves. What's going on right now seems to give the Iraqi's the best chance of figuring things out on their own, while having a barely reasonable amount of security.

Iraq won't be a success until they have a space program. And a Democrat is in office. Nothing less.

ZIM

02-01-2005, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Kung Lek

The major concern is outright civil war.

It's not about shadowy and indiscernable figures called "the terrorists". It is about the outbreak of a civil war.

In which case, this should, in my opinion be something that is on the Table at the UN general council. If stability is to be returned to the area, then I don't think a bogus democracy is the answer. I think that basic needs must be met and the peace must be kept.
They seemed pretty unified on the 30th. And holding an election is a fine first step towards avoiding that civil war, I'd say.

The UN has very little legitimacy for promoting 'stability', sorry. I don't quite understand why you're keen on taking away the first step towards independence they've taken and giving it to yet another bunch of outsiders, but then you simply want to thwart anything you percieve to be coming from the US.
As an anti-progressive position it makes sense, I suppose.

Brad

02-01-2005, 11:23 AM

Civil war is why they need to vote! If they don't vote and try to get a system set up, it'll be just like you said... bloody civil war, with other mid east countries trying to get a piece of the pie. Democracy at least gives them a chance... and I don't see how their voting is "bogus". The majority of Iraqis voting on Iraqi candidates. It seems legit to me. It might not work out, they may be as violent and stupid as you seem to think they are, but I think it gives them a better chance than trying to live off of U.N. handouts. The U.N. wouldn't have any more chance of establishing security than we are right now. What are they going to do different? The Iraqis aren't going to trust the U.N. anymore than the U.S. In fact, the U.N. is as big a part of the problem as anyone.

Spark

02-01-2005, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by ZIM
And holding an election is a fine first step towards avoiding that civil war, I'd say.

I've never heard of any case where a country averted civil war because of elections ... maybe this will be the first? Or can you tell us why exactly elections=no civil war.

Originally posted by ZIM
The UN has very little legitimacy for promoting 'stability', sorry.

And by "stability" are you referring to what has been achieved in the last year?

ZIM

02-01-2005, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Spark
I've never heard of any case where a country averted civil war because of elections ... maybe this will be the first? Or can you tell us why exactly elections=no civil war.

Operative words= "first step". I also have no a priori assumption of a civil war breaking out. Why do you?

And by "stability" are you referring to what has been achieved in the last year?

Nope. Where do you get this idea?

ZIM

02-01-2005, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Brad
Civil war is why they need to vote! If they don't vote and try to get a system set up, it'll be just like you said... bloody civil war, with other mid east countries trying to get a piece of the pie. Democracy at least gives them a chance... and I don't see how their voting is "bogus". The majority of Iraqis voting on Iraqi candidates. It seems legit to me. It might not work out, they may be as violent and stupid as you seem to think they are, but I think it gives them a better chance than trying to live off of U.N. handouts. The U.N. wouldn't have any more chance of establishing security than we are right now. What are they going to do different? The Iraqis aren't going to trust the U.N. anymore than the U.S. In fact, the U.N. is as big a part of the problem as anyone. From Ohio, no less!

red5angel

02-01-2005, 01:12 PM

But I leave it to the intelligent people in your country to do their best and try to iron out those domestic problems that your current administration is ont doing anything about.

Let me translate this replay for you Rogue, from KL:

I'm going to spin this the best way I can so as to point to Dubya as the cause of the worlds problems because I hate him so much. Never mind tha fact that most of Americas problems have been problems long before he got into office, and will probably be problems long after he is gone.

red5angel

02-01-2005, 01:14 PM

In which case, this should, in my opinion be something that is on the Table at the UN general council. If stability is to be returned to the area, then I don't think a bogus democracy is the answer. I think that basic needs must be met and the peace must be kept.

So you're advocating a UN ocupational force that will force the Iraqi people to live the way they want them to live instead of a US occupational force trying to install democracy?

What is it the UN could do that the US can't again? Especially when you consider we're HALF the UN when it comes to doing anything anyway?

Oh yeah, and try to make some sense of wanting the US to pull out, but worried about Iraqi imploding from the inside in civil war. Are you also advocating an early pull out so that that implosion is assured?

MasterKiller

02-01-2005, 01:16 PM

Just for information purposes:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=7&u=/nm/20050201/wl_nm/iraq_election_irregularities_dc

rogue

02-01-2005, 01:58 PM

Don't knock the UN, they did a great job in the Balkans, Somolia, Rowanda and doing just fine in the Sudan.

Hmmmm (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&ncid=1512&e=7&u=/afp/20050201/wl_afp/iraq_050201183637)

Did they kidnap GI Joe (http://apnews.myway.com/image/20050201/IRAQ_SOLDIER.sff_LON128_20050201125054.html?date=2 0050201&docid=D87VU1582)

Merryprankster

02-01-2005, 02:57 PM

Rogue,

I don't know that Turkey will be enough incentive to keep the Kurds in a country called Iraq. It might be. It might not be. Ethnic identity is a very powerful force.

I see KL is still on a steady diet of regurgitated drivel.

Zim, congrats on getting "who becomes a terrorist," correct. You get my thanks.

Let me say it again because it bears repeating.

People who become terrorists are generally not poor, uneducated, and untraveled. They are middle classish, well-educated in technical fields, vice the humanities and have usually seen a thing or two.

Rhadnoti, yup, our crude doesn't come from the ME... in fact, when this all started, I used Nigeria to lend the lie to the stupid, foolish claims that Iraq was "all about oil." Complete total asshattery.

red5angel

02-01-2005, 03:07 PM

anyone else seen that video of the suicide bomber that survived? The video I saw had him being interogated by Iraqi policeman. According to the story he tells on the video, he had no idea it was a suicide bombing. He was told to drive the fuel truck to a specific location and someone would take it from there. Instead when he got to the location, they detonated the truck on him.
Now, as much as it's poetic justice in my opinion, it also goes to show what sort of people these terrorist and "freedom fighters" are. Not only do they not have a problem killing soldiers, and innocent civilians, but they will lie to each other to get what they need done.

ZIM

02-01-2005, 06:43 PM

What is it the UN could do that the US can't again? Give a sense of legitimacy to Kung Lek. What else?

Now, as much as it's poetic justice in my opinion, it also goes to show what sort of people these terrorist and "freedom fighters" are. Not only do they not have a problem killing soldiers, and innocent civilians, but they will lie to each other to get what they need done. And they put that "martyr me" sign on his back and he didn't know, either. Its all fun and games around the Jihad water cooler....until, you know, someone gets their eye blown out....

MoreMisfortune

02-01-2005, 10:25 PM

red red red :mad:
im only taking my precious vacation time at this cos i think your ok

1) My method is often confused and misinterpretated. I am bitter, not full of hatred. And even the bitterness have nothing to do with world politics.
2) Is college the same as university? :confused:
3) I dont really protest, i just dis to force people into thinking. 99% they fail to do so.
4) I know the world cant be peaceful and hippy, thats also how i know that the "freedom" promoted by certain people is very much fake.
5) I will back up the words "false-moralist". Its quite the simple - Christianity says "dont kill", yet a widely christian nation run by a christian man (you see him saying "the lord", "god" all the time) have no problem in killing. Thats called a huge ****ing hypocrisy. Thats what happens when you dont pratice what you preach. Are you telling me i owe hypocrisy respect and understanding?? WTF?
I understand many nations and people everywhere have this hypocritical actions. Make no mistake, i judge them the same way, but since the topic here isnt those other people i not bother mentioning.
Maybe my mistake was assuming rogue was a christian and/or he believes in the bible and stuff - so none of that would apply to him. Sorry if youre not into the bible, rogue, i didnt mean to offend :)
6) Ha, i am NOT the false-moralist. Understand i am not attached to the rules of any religion, so i dont really have the moral weight over me. I simply shove peoples owns laws against their faces FOR THEM TO SEE HOW THEY ARE BETRAYING THEMSELVES.
I dont claim to be nice, i know am i not nice (and i do blame teh world including me). I dont recall wishing some some be dead, i do however expose the fate of those that take part of war - dying. Dont expect to pick up a weapon, go after some other armed dudes and not die. Expect your death. Expect to be treated with the same way (bullets) you treat this people. Expect to be shot or blown up when you invade and trash someone's elses land. And the most important thing - you didnt really have to do it, you chose to go and persuit the war. Persuit the war, it persuits you.

ok, thats all i think :)

rogue

02-02-2005, 08:26 AM

Who Becomes a Terrorist, and Why is a good report It pre-dates 9/11 but the data holds up.

I don't know that Turkey will be enough incentive to keep the Kurds in a country called Iraq. It might be. It might not be. Ethnic identity is a very powerful force.
Not to mention that they have been somewhat autonomous for years. I'd think Turkey would love to have those oil fields. We'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out.
No matter what this election has put egg on faces from the American left to the Middle East media. I don't know how it'll end up in the end but so far I've been happy at how the Iraqi people have stepped up.

SPJ

02-02-2005, 08:41 AM

It is a big victory in the 21 century.

If people step up and have a say, the voice will be heard.

Even the Sunni came out. Shiite took the lead and had the agenda or formats set.

If Mr. Ghandi might hunger strike and had India with him, the British Empire with her mighty Army might not suppress the voice of the people. It was one of the best revolution or independence story by peaceful means in the 20 century.

Most people focus on US troops and Iraq producing over 50% of middle east oil.

However, if people really are unified in their voices, than no power nor dictations may move them.

red5angel

02-02-2005, 09:04 AM

And since he didn't die, he misses out on the 72 virgins that the holymen promise the suicide bombers as well as the endless banquet and all the other perks of martyrdom.

the interesting thing is seeing this guy talk about how much he would like to see the terrorist he joined, punished and how he realizes that what they are doing is wrong. It's possible it's all set up, but my guess is one who gets that close to the martyr-death that they all seek suddenly finds out it ain't what it's all cracked up to be.

1) ok, then you need to get laid.

2) Yes College = University

3) Getting people to think is ok, sometimes the technique is wrong. Saying something too extreme doesn't make one think, it just gets them to react.

4) Freedom is a matter of perspective. for instance the argument I see more often then not is that America is trying to put what is essentially a puppet government in Iraq. Ok, it's possible, and I've never denied that, it happens all the time and it's the way of the world. However, I challenge you to think about the standard of living the people of Iraq will experience under even a puppet government put in place by the US, compared to what they had 2 years ago.

5) A lot of religions say a lot of things, you and are are mostly on the same page about this. Your post didn't indicate Bush as your target of that accusation but Rogue, in which case I tihnk you're wrong. also, keep in mind not all of us americans are religious or down with religion. I'm not against it, but I don't follow it and I would rather not see it dictate how my country behaves, the problems in the middle east are based on religion.

6) I accused you of being the false moralist because while you are against the killing going on in Iraq, for whatever reason, you at the very least pretend to be ok with the killing of US soldiers. however you could claim that that is all within your moral boundaries, and thats the funny thing abotu morals, there is no universal truth, they are what you make them or how you see fit to use them.

ultimately, I can be a nice guy but don't go out of my way to be. I'm nice to the people who earn my respect and who deserve it. All conveniently determined by me.

My main issue with your post, and others like it you have posted is your comments about US soldiers. Have you ever been a soldier? I have and a US soldier at that and I can tell you that those guys are fighting for freedom. Being a soldier is an odd thing, you spend your time preparing for war, and some soldiers even hope for it, but in the end you hope you're fighting for the right causes. Not every soldier is a mindless animal who just wants to kill people, a lot of them are thoughtful enough to know that ins and outs and the grey areas of what they do. A lot of those guys realize and feel the same why I do about what I said above, that they are at the very least giving the Iraqi people a chance.
you could argue that soldiers could quit anytime they want, all they risk is going to jail, but that's like saying you MM could go out and get laid anytime you want. Technically thats' true, but it's more complicated then that as it turns out.

FuXnDajenariht

02-02-2005, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by red5angel
5) .........I'm not against it, but I don't follow it and I would rather not see it dictate how my country behaves, the problems in the middle east are based on religion.

aaah but red-san that is the million dollar question with our own president...

SPJ

02-02-2005, 09:22 PM

KL;

I agreed to a lot of your arguments.

The US invasion seemed to be out of no provocation at all.

But if you expand the time span to more than 30 years or longer.

Iran was the US largest and closest ally in the region. The fundamentalists toppled Shah and intended to spread the revolution thruout moslem world.

Iraq and Iran 8 years border war in the 1980's.

French gave weapons. Chinese sold cheap weapons. US gave money to support Saddam to hold Iran at its border.

The change of heart happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

US led force defeated Saddam and chased him out of Kuwait. But short of full invasion into Bagdad.

Many CIA helped uprising were suppressed at the end of the first Gulf war.

A decade later, the chance again came for the Iraqi people.

A full US invasion was planned and prepared for 1 and 1/2 years.

Considered it as a continuation of the previous chapter.

The main thing is that the yokes of 35 years were lifted. People there really have a chance of freedom and democracy.

Let us revel in that.

This is the beginning of a new chapter for the millions of people there.

Merryprankster

02-03-2005, 08:04 AM

My point was from my first post that I considered the elections to be a sham born out of war that was based on lies.

See, Kung Lek,

This is the problem I have with what you call "reasoning." It isn't. It makes fundamental errors in logic.

It is possible to believe that the war was based on lies, and still find the elections legitimate. One does not preclude the other.

The UN says they are legitimate. Oddly enough, you and many other people were saying that the UN is the standard for international legitimacy. That is, the U.S. should have had (needed, in your opinion), the UN to act in Iraq.

Yet, now the blessing of the UN is not enough. What is? What do you want? Are you arguing that the pattern of U.S. security in the region insured that "what the U.S. wanted," is "what the U.S. got?"

From what I have seen, the turnout was 60% over all and estimates indicate perhaps 10% (optimistically, probably more like 6-8%) in the Sunni triangle. 10% isn't so hot, true. But there was more than just violence at work here. The British, when they were in charge of Iraq, resorted to a time honored colonial technique - find the second largest group of people and co-opt them into power. They only represent 20% of the population and were in power for years.

And now they are out of power - and legitimate elections mean they will probably stay that way and never dominate Iraqi politics again (provided elections stay fair). Many sunni's did not want to participate in an election because they didn't want to be out of power. Them's the breaks in a democracy. Voter apathy from "what's the point, we won't win anyway," is very different than fraudulent elections.

Now, it's possible that the elections were rigged or that irregularities render the result invalid. But, we keep bumping into that UN thing - their observers said the election wasn't a sham. Their people helped set them up. Their people helped institute a fingerprinting system to reduce fraud, or at the very least agreed to it.

What do you want in an election? 99% voter turnout?

Nobody is claiming that the elections represent the hinge event that creates smooth sailing from here, and the elections themselves do not validate the war or the Bush administrations POV - those are separate issues. So I don't understand where your objection, visceral or cerebral, comes from.

But to claim the elections are a sham because the war was a lie is poor thinking at best, sheer vituperativeness at worst.

SPJ

02-03-2005, 08:33 AM

The election is the seed.

Many good conditions are needed to make it grow into a big tree.

What US or any other country can do is to help planting the seed.

The rest is up to the Iraqi people themself.

If the wind of the change takes hold, it will spread thruout moslem world in the middle east, north Africa, central Asia etc.

Everyone knows that US advisors, business circles, and military etc will tag along to make the story of Iraq a success.

Then the brooding grounds of terrorism will be gone.

This is the long term strategy of US middle east policy.

Home land security etc are preventions of the disease on the skin.

A sound middle east policy will cure the disease of the heart.

TaiChiBob

02-03-2005, 08:51 AM

Greetings..

It is possible to believe that the war was based on lies, and still find the elections legitimate. One does not preclude the other. Absolutely, The US, along with its allies and the UN, has afforded the people of Iraq a voice in their future.. that was the easy part, will we (the US) have what it takes to insure that "voice" will mature into a functioning government?

The Bush administration's ideals are praiseworthy, the right of any people to determine their destiny.. it is the logistics and mechanics of those lofty goals that is the issue most often criticized.. i, for one, also tend to believe that the actions of the people are indicative of their intentions.. if they cannot self-actuate themselves to take advantage of the help provided, then they don't care to pay the price for freedom.. The US and many of its allies paid dearly for the freedom (psuedo or otherwise) they now enjoy.. but, continued harboring of insurgents, continued flight from combat, continued calls for US exit will sooner or later convince the generous providers of opportunity that the investment is unbalanced to the point of negative return..

The greater concern, for those with a history background and a sense of global politics, is the rise of a "new world order".. where "freedom and democracy" (as defined by US policy) is imposed rather than offered.. leaders say what they need to to get what they want.. it is the nature of politics. Public speeches and reality are most often very different situations in the delicate dance of world ploitics.. Look at the US history, its simple beginnings with such profound documents as The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, etc.. has evolved over the last 200 years into a code of laws, rules and regulations so convoluted as to be detached from our simple beginnings and the promises it held.. The US has become so mired in regulation that precious little is left to the common man to choose of his/her own "freewill".. I pray we do not export that burden with the seemingly simple ideology we hear in the public speeches..

Be well..

ZIM

02-03-2005, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
Greetings..

Absolutely, The US, along with its allies and the UN, has afforded the people of Iraq a voice in their future.. that was the easy part, will we (the US) have what it takes to insure that "voice" will mature into a functioning government?

The Bush administration's ideals are praiseworthy, the right of any people to determine their destiny.. it is the logistics and mechanics of those lofty goals that is the issue most often criticized.. i, for one, also tend to believe that the actions of the people are indicative of their intentions.. if they cannot self-actuate themselves to take advantage of the help provided, then they don't care to pay the price for freedom.. The US and many of its allies paid dearly for the freedom (psuedo or otherwise) they now enjoy.. but, continued harboring of insurgents, continued flight from combat, continued calls for US exit will sooner or later convince the generous providers of opportunity that the investment is unbalanced to the point of negative return..

The greater concern, for those with a history background and a sense of global politics, is the rise of a "new world order".. where "freedom and democracy" (as defined by US policy) is imposed rather than offered.. leaders say what they need to to get what they want.. it is the nature of politics. Public speeches and reality are most often very different situations in the delicate dance of world ploitics.. Look at the US history, its simple beginnings with such profound documents as The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, etc.. has evolved over the last 200 years into a code of laws, rules and regulations so convoluted as to be detached from our simple beginnings and the promises it held.. The US has become so mired in regulation that precious little is left to the common man to choose of his/her own "freewill".. I pray we do not export that burden with the seemingly simple ideology we hear in the public speeches..

Be well..
See, this is why I don't mind a lot of your criticism, TCB [although there's some I do].

The above strikes me as a "freedom plus one" position, something a great deal more progressive than the reactionary, small-minded nonsense I see/hear/read from the majority of the 'modern' Left.

And that, if you'll allow me, is what provokes concern on *my* part. I would hope that the Left embraces what is, after all, their raison d'etre, the Liberty of others, yet any progress on that front, currently, is met hostilely and that's troubling.

And one would think that the Left would be on the forefront of the battle against Islamic Fundamentalism. If one were to create a fictional bugbear that opposed everything the Left ostensibly upholds, one could never create one so thoroughly, innately alien than these.
While not a cause for war in and of itself, I find the excuse-making and de facto support for them to be alarming. Where are your roots? What happened to them? Why is the Right at the forefront of progressive politics?

WRT to the war being a tissue of lies:
This isn't really a good thread to be re-visiting that once again as we've done ad absurdam. We've said countless times that the causes were numerous, not one or two single, isolated things.

To reduce the cause to WMDs flies in the face of a year-long debate, ignores very real, legitimate causes that were part & parcel to the declaration, which included but were not limited to an attempted assassination of a former President, violation of cease-fire agreement, violation of UN resolutions, etc.

To reduce it all to "oil" or "WMDs" is to engage in lying. Its an effort to substitute fact for political advantage.