Early Iragi Turnout Appears Huge!
jonathan
With only sporadic and ineffective insurgent activity
so far. A huge victory for democracy and Iraq seems
to be taking shape.
With the recent and spectacular triumphs of
democracy in the Ukraine, Afghanistan and
now Iraq, the world is on a roll.
Jonathan
s
Scott Lowther
>With only sporadic and ineffective insurgent activity
>so far. A huge victory for democracy and Iraq seems
>to be taking shape.
>
>
I'm sure Tom Daschle is Deeply Saddened.
casioc...@gmail.com
Yallo
It's interesting to observe that the two most democratic elections in
any arab country are both taking place under occupation: American
occupation in Iraq and Israeli occupation in the west bank and Gaza.
This must be causing arab governments a lot of embarrasment.
Alex Terrell
jonathan
"Yallo" <ya...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:26bb7c7e.05013...@posting.google.com...
Democracy is infectious, I bet the tyrants in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia
are looking at their own future from within some spider-hole.
Jonathan
s
Ed Earl Ross
> No, that SHOULD be causing arab governments a lot of embarrasment
>
Charles Buckley
More importantly, what happens if the result of this election is
an anti-America theocracy?
PayneN.Diaz
"jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote in message
news:41fc7ce2$1...@127.0.0.1...
>
>
YAY!
uhhh... You do know how upsetting that is to PagCal and the rest of the libs
don't you?
Where be your compassion, dude?
They should have reported it, "Election out come yet undecided as less than
25% refuse to participate."
... wait a minute... that's like maybe 200% less than those who don't vote
in the U.S.
Scott Lowther
Then Iraq ends up as an anti-American demopcratic theocracy. Certainly
an improvement over what it was, and what it's neighbors are.
Fred J. McCall
Unlikely, since at least in the near term the new government probably
needs us there.
However, if that's what happens that's what happens. Democracy is
like that sometimes. I would not expect such a government to last and
remain a democracy. It will either suspend democracy or people will
push it to be more moderate.
--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
dbo...@mindspring.com
the poster means is that the people effectively vote to end the
democracy. This is what happened in Nazi Germany amd nearly happened
in Algeria. There is always the danger that this will happen but it is
worth the risk. It is possible to put some checks into the
constitution to minimize the risk and they have yet to vote on such a
constitution.
Charles Buckley
No, I meant exactly what I said.
There is an election and the start initiating items, such as the Sharia
as basis of law. The democratic form can be layered over any basis of
government.
Democratic only states you vote. Not what you vote for or against.
Iran has been having elections for 20+ years and is effectively a
theocracy.
Would the creation of another Iran in the region be a good result
over what was in the region before?
The government being elected this election is going to be writing
the new constitution. It can put anything it wants into it.
Scott Lowther
>Obviously a democratic theocracy is a contradiction
>
Not really. Britain is a democratic monarchy, as are a number of other
nations. A nation that is both democratic and run from within a
religious frame work is possible. One mioght say that nations like
Israel and to a lesser extent Britain are like that.
>but what I think
>the poster means is that the people effectively vote to end the
>democracy.
>
If they do that, they do that.
Charles Buckley
> Charles Buckley <rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> :Ed Earl Ross wrote:
> :> Alex Terrell wrote:
> :>
> :>> No, that SHOULD be causing arab governments a lot of embarrasment
> :>>
> :> How will the non-democratic Arab leaders react?
> :
> :More importantly, what happens if the result of this election is
> :an anti-America theocracy?
>
> Unlikely, since at least in the near term the new government probably
> needs us there.
>
So?
The new government will have to establish it's independence and
prove whether it is sovereign. You can expect a number of anti-US
actions on one level, or another.
Needing someone does not make you allies or grateful. Or, even
friendly.
> However, if that's what happens that's what happens. Democracy is
> like that sometimes. I would not expect such a government to last and
> remain a democracy. It will either suspend democracy or people will
> push it to be more moderate.
>
Like Iran is more moderate?
Jim Oberg
"PayneN.Diaz" <Payne...@HomeAndEverywhere.Else> wrote
> ... wait a minute... that's like maybe 200% less than those who don't vote
> in the U.S.
Except in Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and certain precincts in Washington
state!! <grin>
Ed Earl Ross
As long as a government represents the will of the people, the
world should support that government, including America.
Whether or not the government becomes a theocracy, the people of
Iraq are most likely to adopt many Islamic laws. Die-hard
terrorists will not be dissuaded from their attacks on America,
regardless of whether Iraq is a democracy or not.
Helping Iraqis take control of their lives, is an American gesture
to build good will. If it is a futile effort, at least we have tried.
Alain Fournier
Ed Earl Ross wrote:
Yes the intent was to do good. Unfortunately something like 100,000
Iraqis died in the process.
Alain Fournier
Charles Buckley
When did we go from "No more 911's" to "At least we tried"?
Seriously, if Iraq becomes another Afghanistan or Iran, can you
really say that we are better off?
Iraq was not supporting terrorist attacks against the US. There
is a very good chance that that could change with an anti-American
government in power there. We deprived Al-Qaeda of a nation
state support, it makes zero sense to create another in it's
place that has far greater material wealth to support such a
movement.
We did not invade Iraq to be nice or in some futile misguided
effort. It was very specific to a set of goals. Remove
Saddam and *install a government that would not threaten
world peace*. If Iraq moves into the same camp as Iran, we
*failed* and the world is not a better place.
It is not a question of dissuading terrorists. It is a question
of dissuading a nation from deciding to support them. Iraq
turning into a safe haven for terrorists and providing support
for terrorists would certainly offset anything gained to date
in the war on terrorism. There are a lot of reasons for an Iraqi
government to move into that camp - starting with the fact that
there are a large number of occupation forces in that country
and that a large number of Iraqis have died in the conflict. Even
a secular government would have to deal with a very, very large
anti-American voter base and calls for revenge for the dead in
this war.
This is not some academic challenge here. Tens of thousands have not
died for "oh well, we tried".
mad hatter
The Dumbocrats don't understand elections, which is why they lost the
White house, the Senate and the House. They are all fags anyway.
Fred J. McCall
:Democratic only states you vote.
No. It states that the vote MATTERS. Lots of non-democratic
governments have 'votes'.
:Not what you vote for or against.
:Iran has been having elections for 20+ years and is effectively a
:theocracy.
And is not generally regarded as a democracy. See above.
:Would the creation of another Iran in the region be a good result
:over what was in the region before?
Generally, yes, it would.
:The government being elected this election is going to be writing
:the new constitution. It can put anything it wants into it.
You say this as if you disapprove. I'm curious why that would be.
--
"I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right
to say it."
-- Voltaire
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Charles Buckley <rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com> wrote:
:>
:> :Ed Earl Ross wrote:
:> :> Alex Terrell wrote:
:> :>
:> :>> No, that SHOULD be causing arab governments a lot of embarrasment
:> :>>
:> :> How will the non-democratic Arab leaders react?
:> :
:> :More importantly, what happens if the result of this election is
:> :an anti-America theocracy?
:>
:> Unlikely, since at least in the near term the new government probably
:> needs us there.
:
:So?
So I assume they are both sane and not suicidal.
:The new government will have to establish it's independence and
:prove whether it is sovereign. You can expect a number of anti-US
:actions on one level, or another.
To quote you, "So?"
:Needing someone does not make you allies or grateful. Or, even
:friendly.
It does, however, generally prevent you from blowing your own dick off
just because you can, if you are sane and not suicidal.
:> However, if that's what happens that's what happens. Democracy is
:> like that sometimes. I would not expect such a government to last and
:> remain a democracy. It will either suspend democracy or people will
:> push it to be more moderate.
:
:Like Iran is more moderate?
Iran is not a democracy. They're struggling back in that direction
but they have a LONG way to go.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
:Seriously, if Iraq becomes another Afghanistan or Iran, can you
:really say that we are better off?
I see. You're only a fan of democracy when you get to run it and are
against it if it might decide something you don't like.
You're obviously quite conflicted.
--
"But if this ever changing world in which we live in
Makes you give in and cry...
Say live and let die."
-- Paul McCartney & Wings
Charles Buckley
> Charles Buckley <rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> :Seriously, if Iraq becomes another Afghanistan or Iran, can you
> :really say that we are better off?
>
> I see. You're only a fan of democracy when you get to run it and are
> against it if it might decide something you don't like.
>
> You're obviously quite conflicted.
>
Umm. You really might want to examine the US strategic interest.
There is no conflict. Countries that are not supporting terrorism
against the US are better than the ones who do support terrorism.
Is there any point to creating more of the latter type?
Waving a banner saying DEMOCRACY does nothing to denote a country's
goals, values, objectives, or how it pursues it's strategic interests.
I oppose countries that oppose the US have means, motive, and
opportunity to act militarily.
I don't particularly care what sort of government they have if they
meet the prior criteria and think it is pointless to give some
country a free-ride because they have some specific form of
selecting the official who will decide *how* to attack America.
It ignores the underlying issues and restricts US actions by
applying false principles to the decision matrix in actions.
Charles Buckley
> Charles Buckley <rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> Charles Buckley <rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :Ed Earl Ross wrote:
> :> :> Alex Terrell wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :>> No, that SHOULD be causing arab governments a lot of embarrasment
> :> :>>
> :> :> How will the non-democratic Arab leaders react?
> :> :
> :> :More importantly, what happens if the result of this election is
> :> :an anti-America theocracy?
> :>
> :> Unlikely, since at least in the near term the new government probably
> :> needs us there.
> :
> :So?
>
> So I assume they are both sane and not suicidal.
Why on Earth would you assume that?
They have to live in that region, but they have a number of
reasons to believe that the US will leave. They have a reasonable
expectation that the US can not move militarily against them barring
a significant break, but they certainly can hamper US activities.
>
> :The new government will have to establish it's independence and
> :prove whether it is sovereign. You can expect a number of anti-US
> :actions on one level, or another.
>
> To quote you, "So?"
>
So, we are dependant upon them not asking the US to leave and further
depending upon them to not invite in Al-Qaeda, or other groups whose
goals oppose the US.
> :Needing someone does not make you allies or grateful. Or, even
> :friendly.
>
> It does, however, generally prevent you from blowing your own dick off
> just because you can, if you are sane and not suicidal.
>
Remember that goes both directions. The US can not invalidate this
election by interfering with the results. Right now, the US needs a
friendly government more than the Iraqi's need the US. That country
is trashed and already at war, but large portions of it are neutral.
A hostile government can garner a lot of domestic support by opposing
the US and escalating the war. The US does not have the manpower to
handle an escalation from the current level for any extended period.
> :> However, if that's what happens that's what happens. Democracy is
> :> like that sometimes. I would not expect such a government to last and
> :> remain a democracy. It will either suspend democracy or people will
> :> push it to be more moderate.
> :
> :Like Iran is more moderate?
>
> Iran is not a democracy. They're struggling back in that direction
> but they have a LONG way to go.
>
Iran is as much a democracy as you can expect in the region. There is
simply no tradition for that form of government in Iraq and expecting to
to be implemented overnight is suicidally stupid if you are expecting
people to.. well.. ignore the fact that they are in the middle of a
warzone that they did nothing to create or deserve, for the most part.
Wars tend to inflate extremists. It is no accident that Sadr is well
known now and had killed more Americans than Saddam, yet was virtually
nothing only 2 years ago. He's also the leader of a large - legitimate -
political party running in this election, although he is not a candidate
himself.
Ed Earl Ross
> Ed Earl Ross wrote:
I'm tired of playing what if.
Ed Earl Ross
Whatever the final count, war deaths and destruction are tragic.
I'll not participate in a morality debate that may degenerate into
flame wars.
Charles Buckley
Which concisely sums up the the reason why things have
deteriorated in Iraq.
gregg
> I'm sure Tom Daschle is Deeply Saddened.
or, he finds it outrageous...OUTRAGEOUS!!!!
;^)
--
Saville
Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
Steambending FAQ with photos:
Ed Earl Ross
> Ed Earl Ross wrote:
>
>> Charles Buckley wrote:
>>
>>> Ed Earl Ross wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm tired of playing what if.
>
>
>
> Which concisely sums up the the reason why things have
> deteriorated in Iraq.
Nothing bad will result from my not playing with you.
Charles Buckley
Then, why did you post to two separate posts just to say you are
apathetic? (This being your third post on a topic you say you care
nothing about and are tired of).
Bigdakine
>From: "jonathan" Wr...@Instead.com
>Date: 1/29/05 8:01 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <41fc7ce2$1...@127.0.0.1>
>
>
>
>With only sporadic and ineffective insurgent activity
>so far. A huge victory for democracy and Iraq seems
>to be taking shape.
I wouldn't get too giddy yet. But I must say, I was surprised by the turnout.
If it exceeded 50%, its a huge victory for them given the circumstances.
>
>With the recent and spectacular triumphs of
>democracy in the Ukraine, Afghanistan and
>now Iraq, the world is on a roll.
Well, that remains to be seen.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
"Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."
Bigdakine
>From: Charles Buckley rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com
>Date: 1/30/05 5:49 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <41fd0220$0$204$7586...@news.frii.net>
>
>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Charles Buckley <rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>> :Ed Earl Ross wrote:
>> :> Alex Terrell wrote:
>> :>
>> :>> No, that SHOULD be causing arab governments a lot of embarrasment
>> :>>
>> :> How will the non-democratic Arab leaders react?
>> :
>> :More importantly, what happens if the result of this election is
>> :an anti-America theocracy?
>>
>> Unlikely, since at least in the near term the new government probably
>> needs us there.
>>
>
>So?
I think its unlikely, as in Iraq their are significant minorites Sunni, Kurds
etc. An Iranian style Islamic republic won't work in Iraq. It will precipitate
a civil war, which I think few Iraquis want.
>
>The new government will have to establish it's independence and
>prove whether it is sovereign. You can expect a number of anti-US
>actions on one level, or another.
Perhaps so, but none of that implies an Iranian style theocracy is in the
future.
>
>Needing someone does not make you allies or grateful. Or, even
>friendly.
>
>> However, if that's what happens that's what happens. Democracy is
>> like that sometimes. I would not expect such a government to last and
>> remain a democracy. It will either suspend democracy or people will
>> push it to be more moderate.
>>
>
>Like Iran is more moderate?
Iran is not a democracy. The people can only vote for candidates vetted by the
mullahs, and regardless, of who is voted for, the mullahs have ultimate
authority.
Christopher M. Jones
> Ed Earl Ross wrote:
>> Charles Buckley wrote:
>>> Ed Earl Ross wrote:
>>
>> I'm tired of playing what if.
>
> Which concisely sums up the the reason why things have
> deteriorated in Iraq.
Deteriorated... into democracy! Oh, horrible, horrible
democracy! What foul, cruel machinations are in store
for those sad little wogs once they travel down the
road of democratic rule? Just the thought of all the
blood shed from people poking themselves with political
buttons makes my heart ache. Perhaps one day the wogs
will learn their proper place in the universe and will
refuse utterly the bait of democratic self-rule.
Perhaps one day they will rise up, cast of the shackles
of freedom and say "NO MORE!" and call with a
unanimous voice for a return to the halcyon days of
tyranical despotism and brutal thugocracy. Perhaps...
Our hope for such a day has been sadly diminished by
recent events in Iraq, but we cannot let such things
erode our determination or quench our eternal hope that
one day the stability of tyranny will return to the
peoples of Iraq.
George William Herbert
>[...]
>More importantly, what happens if the result of this election is
>an anti-America theocracy?
Vanishingly unlikely, as even the Shia cleric supported platform
consisted almost entirely of secular leaders. The United Iraqi
Alliance has 228 candidates, of which only 6 are clearics.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Charles Buckley
> Charles Buckley wrote:
>
>> Ed Earl Ross wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Buckley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed Earl Ross wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm tired of playing what if.
>>
>>
>> Which concisely sums up the the reason why things have
>> deteriorated in Iraq.
>
>
> Deteriorated... into democracy! Oh, horrible, horrible
> democracy! What foul, cruel machinations are in store
> for those sad little wogs once they travel down the
> road of democratic rule? Just the thought of all the
> blood shed from people poking themselves with political
> buttons makes my heart ache.
Let's see.. from 5 attacks a day to 2500 a day?
You're right, those political buttons only killed what..
a couple hundred people this week.
It isn't a democracy. The have taken a grand total of
*one* vote for a large number of people too afraid to even
announce their names or motives to form a government, then
write a constitution.
There are a lot of potential outcomes to this vote and
a fairly large number of them destabalize the region even further.
Chris, I have been reading your stuff on here for a couple years
now about this war. Do you really want to see your trackrecord on
accuracy in your predictions?
One of my favorites:
"Oh, but please, go on pretending that Saddam's regime
never had anything to do with international terrorism or
al'qaeda, or that they never had a current WMD program,
or that there was never any danger of Iraq's WMDs
falling into the hands of terrorists. Sometimes it can
be emotionally difficult when your precious security
blankets get ripped away by the harsh reality of the
world, so just curl up and keep pretending. "
That *was* the official conclusion of the US government agencies
researching it.
>Perhaps one day the wogs
> will learn their proper place in the universe and will
> refuse utterly the bait of democratic self-rule.
And, of course, no democracy anywhere would wage war killing
hundreds of thousands of people or pursue an aggressive radical
policy of establishing a form of government around the world
without consulting said world as to the advisability of such a move.
Democracy is just a form of government. It is not a
panacea, nor does it negate any hostile feelings. It is *not*
in the US strategic interest to allow a hostile government to
form in Iraq under any guise or form. And, the best - the very
best to be expected - is neutrality.
> Perhaps one day they will rise up, cast of the shackles
> of freedom and say "NO MORE!" and call with a
> unanimous voice for a return to the halcyon days of
> tyranical despotism and brutal thugocracy. Perhaps...
>
> Our hope for such a day has been sadly diminished by
> recent events in Iraq, but we cannot let such things
> erode our determination or quench our eternal hope that
> one day the stability of tyranny will return to the
> peoples of Iraq.
This is a single vote. The results of this vote will play
out over a long period of time and it is foolish to think that,
in a country where 98% of the population oppose the occupation
to one degree or another, that an election with a large turnout
would be necessarily favorable to the occupying power.
But, of course, you have no objection should the next 911
be done by a democratic government. It's only those
ones from the types of governments you don't approve of that
upsets you.
Charles Buckley
> Charles Buckley <rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>More importantly, what happens if the result of this election is
>>an anti-America theocracy?
>
>
> Vanishingly unlikely, as even the Shia cleric supported platform
> consisted almost entirely of secular leaders. The United Iraqi
> Alliance has 228 candidates, of which only 6 are clearics.
>
George, I think you might want to more closely examine the
interim constitution proposed last year by the CPA and whatever
form of interim government was in at that time. That is a likely
starting point for anything new.
It is entirely up to the government to decide the degree to
which it implements islamic law:
"Article 7 [State Religion, Freedom of Religion, Arab Nation]
(A) Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered
a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed
tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in
Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period.
This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi
people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to
freedom of religious belief and practice."
While there may not be much in terms of candidates at this point,
you have to consider their sponsers and their agendas. Consider
for a moment that the Tsar of Russia was overthrown by a democratic
federal government.. A lot of the conditions that lead to the downfall
of that government are very much in evidence in Iraq. Instablility
tends to favor the focussed and organized. This election, at best,
will be a some wierd negotiated coalition and the power in those
belongs to the most cohesive blocks. It is instability layered on
instability held together by a force that is the one group that none
of the major groups like and quite a few hate. Arguably, the lack of
clerics in the election was nothing more than a waiting game. They can
easily institute most of their goals within the framework and have
the US in a position of having to help them enforce those goals without
any moral argument to oppose them. The US government poll showed a solid
23% of the population wanting to implement an islamic government and
that is a very significant fraction in a coalition government.
(http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2005/Jan/25-268515.html)
Until they actually pull together the framework and have it *function*,
then this election is meaningless. And, the framework it will adopt
is anyone's guess. No one even knows who the players are yet in the
new government. There are too many failed democracies where long term
instability lead to a popular adoption of an autocratic form of
government for this particular election to lead to any great
expectations. It's just another step that has the potential to
destabalize the situation even further. Is the voting uniform
across the country? Is it regional in nature? What proportion of
the vote was done by proxy where the head of household voted
for all the people in the house?
Mike Rhino
news:UB6Ld.2772$Ny6...@news02.roc.ny...
> Charles Buckley wrote:
>
> > Ed Earl Ross wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> No, that SHOULD be causing arab governments a lot of embarrasment
> >>>
> >> How will the non-democratic Arab leaders react?
> >
> >
> >
> > an anti-America theocracy?
> >
> an improvement over what it was, and what it's neighbors are.
The Shaw of Iran was overthrown in 1979. Do you think it has improved?
Bushes inauguration speech sounded a lot like Jimmy Carter's policy. The
difference is that Jimmy didn't start any wars. Marcos of the Philippines
was also overthrown during Carter's administration. I would say that the
Philippines have improved, but Iran has gotten worse.
Jo Schaper
the US on September 12, 2001 was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi
government. If you don't believe me, go look it up in your favorite
newspaper archive. He was as against Muslim extremist groups such as
Al-Quaeda, threatening HIS power as much as the US found them a threat
to theirs.
No WMDs were ever found in Iraq. Yes, the country had their share of
dissidents and freedom-fighters prior to our invasion, internal politics
and horrors. Certain factions, such as the Kurds, were being horridly
persecuted. However, there were no battles in the streets, no suicide
bombers, no tanks rolling through Baghdad, no calls for jihad...the
Americans brought all that, disrupting a Western-style civilization
along with the Saddam dictatorship. Was Iraq under Saddam paradise?
Definitely not. Was it extremely dangerous to oppose Saddam? Yes. But
neither was it a daily random hell as it is right now. Iraq under Saddam
had religious freedom, even Christians in high places of power. Unlikely
that will happen under a Shiite regime, and that may be a source of
private consternation to those folks who see this mess as a religious
conflict. Women in Iraq could be moderately and modestly westernized if
they wished, or traditional if they did not so wish. It awaits time to
see what happens now.
The US fight was with the Iraqi government. But it is the Iraqi people
which has paid the price for their government. Saddam and his minions
sit, 'safe' in their prisons. The everyday people are unable to go about
their daily business without fear of death, maiming, kidnapping or
worse. Is this progress?
Despite the UN embargo, and the oil for food program curtailing oil
sales to the West, the Iraqi oil industry under Saddam was not bombed to
pieces nearly daily by insurgents, and fuel within the country was
plentiful, unlike today. Water in the desert was scarce, but not because
the water plants and pipelines were periodically destroyed. You don't
'save' a natural resource by destroying its infrastructure. You don't
save a country by calling down civil war upon it.
May whatever God or Allah Iraqis implore watch out for them now--
And no, I'm not going to publicly debate the above. Go, do your own
research. YOu might be surprised to see what you find.
Rand Simberg
Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> Helping Iraqis take control of their lives, is an American gesture to
>> build good will. If it is a futile effort, at least we have tried.
>
>Yes the intent was to do good. Unfortunately something like 100,000
>Iraqis died in the process.
That's a bogus number. And many (including children and babies) were
dying under Saddam's regime as well, so it's pointless to whine about
how many died removing.
Christopher M. Jones
> Christopher M. Jones wrote:
>
>> Charles Buckley wrote:
>>> Which concisely sums up the the reason why things have
>>> deteriorated in Iraq.
>>
>> Deteriorated... into democracy! Oh, horrible, horrible
>> democracy! What foul, cruel machinations are in store
>> for those sad little wogs once they travel down the
>> road of democratic rule? Just the thought of all the
>> blood shed from people poking themselves with political
>> buttons makes my heart ache.
>
> Let's see.. from 5 attacks a day to 2500 a day?
Attacks by ... democracy?
> You're right, those political buttons only killed what..
> a couple hundred people this week.
All the fault of horrible, horrible democracy!
> It isn't a democracy. The have taken a grand total of
> *one* vote for a large number of people too afraid to even
> announce their names or motives to form a government, then
> write a constitution.
Ummm, no, they have already taken many votes on local
levels. The process of democracy has been established
for about a decade in the Kurdish north, for example.
> There are a lot of potential outcomes to this vote and
> a fairly large number of them destabalize the region even further.
For example, if the Iraqis were to vote in the "best
dressed celebrities of 2004" list then the world may
well be subjected to paroxysms of fashionista attacks.
Or, OR!, maybe, just maybe, the Iraqis will accidentally
vote an extra-terrestrial into a position of authority,
where he (err, it) will begin to enslave the population
of the world after finishing construction of the
Kle'q'q'q'nnion mind-ray device. Or not. Hard to say
until the votes are counted. Until then such idle
speculation is nigh unto worthless.
> Chris, I have been reading your stuff on here for a couple years
> now about this war. Do you really want to see your trackrecord on
> accuracy in your predictions?
>
> One of my favorites:
>
> "Oh, but please, go on pretending that Saddam's regime
> never had anything to do with international terrorism or
> al'qaeda, or that they never had a current WMD program,
> or that there was never any danger of Iraq's WMDs
> falling into the hands of terrorists. Sometimes it can
> be emotionally difficult when your precious security
> blankets get ripped away by the harsh reality of the
> world, so just curl up and keep pretending. "
>
> That *was* the official conclusion of the US government agencies
> researching it.
It's really, really super that you're literate and all,
that's great, a remarkable achievement really, and I
don't want to denigrate that. However, you might try
learning how to read for comprehension. Many community
colleges offer extension courses on fundamental reading
skills that might be of especial use to you.
For example, such improved reading skills could help you
better understand my post. Which concerns past events
not future predictions per se. And which contains very
few items of serious dispute. For example, not even
Saddam's government made the claim that they never *had*
WMD. Similarly, it would be very difficult to characterize
the Ba'athist Iraqi regime as never having had ties to
international terrorism. Moreover, being able to read
for comprehension would give you the ability to read the
Duelfer report, which backs my point of view on these
matters rather than your mischaracterizations.
>> Perhaps one day the wogs
>> will learn their proper place in the universe and will
>> refuse utterly the bait of democratic self-rule.
>
> And, of course, no democracy anywhere would wage war killing
> hundreds of thousands of people or pursue an aggressive radical
> policy of establishing a form of government around the world
> without consulting said world as to the advisability of such a move.
The track record on democracies waging war against each other
is pretty good. Especially so when you consider waging
sneak attack / terrorist wars against each other. Maybe not
100% perfect, but certainly good enough for most people to
sleep safe at night.
> Democracy is just a form of government. It is not a
> panacea, nor does it negate any hostile feelings. It is *not*
> in the US strategic interest to allow a hostile government to
> form in Iraq under any guise or form. And, the best - the very
> best to be expected - is neutrality.
Well golly gosh, imagine if the whole middle east were
transformed into such a vile, anti-american pit of
democratic states that they worked as much against
American interests as France or Germany. Oh what
horror. Cruel, cruel fate, why woulds't thou forsake
us so? Actually, I think I could live with that.
>> Perhaps one day they will rise up, cast of the shackles
>> of freedom and say "NO MORE!" and call with a
>> unanimous voice for a return to the halcyon days of
>> tyranical despotism and brutal thugocracy. Perhaps...
>>
>> Our hope for such a day has been sadly diminished by
>> recent events in Iraq, but we cannot let such things
>> erode our determination or quench our eternal hope that
>> one day the stability of tyranny will return to the
>> peoples of Iraq.
>
> This is a single vote. The results of this vote will play
> out over a long period of time and it is foolish to think that,
> in a country where 98% of the population oppose the occupation
> to one degree or another, that an election with a large turnout
> would be necessarily favorable to the occupying power.
The only result "favorable to the occupying power" I really
care about is curtailing international terrorist attacks on
the US. Spreading democracy is a nice, a very nice, effect.
On the whole, I think I could manage to live my life if the
Iraqis ended up as resentful of American occupation as the
Japanese, Germans, Koreans, or even the French.
> But, of course, you have no objection should the next 911
> be done by a democratic government. It's only those
> ones from the types of governments you don't approve of that
> upsets you.
Many democracies upset me. I'd rather they upset me and
caused me heartburn than that they'd kill my friends and
relatives with terrorist attacks on my country. There are
a great many fundamental reasons why democratic countries
are very much less likely to undertake terrorist attacks
against other countries. Most people know and accept this
simple fact.
Maybe, just maybe, you and your ilk could express a
fraction of a second's worth of unadulterated appreciation
for an event of historical proportions, which will almost
certainly prove to be a good thing for the Iraqis, without
trying to think up how you can shit all over it. Maybe?
Rand Simberg
Schaper <joschape...@2socketdot.no5net> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>The US fight was with the Iraqi government. But it is the Iraqi people
>which has paid the price for their government. Saddam and his minions
>sit, 'safe' in their prisons. The everyday people are unable to go about
>their daily business without fear of death, maiming, kidnapping or
>worse. Is this progress?
A large majority of them seem to think so, by their enthusiasm in
going to the polls.
<rest of ignorance snipped>
>And no, I'm not going to publicly debate the above. Go, do your own
>research. YOu might be surprised to see what you find.
<laughing>
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Charles Buckley <rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com> wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :> Charles Buckley <rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :Ed Earl Ross wrote:
:> :> :> Alex Terrell wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :>> No, that SHOULD be causing arab governments a lot of embarrasment
:> :> :>>
:> :> :> How will the non-democratic Arab leaders react?
:> :> :
:> :> :More importantly, what happens if the result of this election is
:> :> :an anti-America theocracy?
:> :>
:> :> Unlikely, since at least in the near term the new government probably
:> :> needs us there.
:> :
:> :So?
:>
:> So I assume they are both sane and not suicidal.
:
:Why on Earth would you assume that?
Why on Earth would you assume otherwise? Not everyone is a loon, you
know, despite your experiences with your cousins.
:They have to live in that region, but they have a number of
:reasons to believe that the US will leave. They have a reasonable
:expectation that the US can not move militarily against them barring
:a significant break, but they certainly can hamper US activities.
You seem confused. Why the hell would they want to do that, given
that we're there to help THEM stay in power?
:> :The new government will have to establish it's independence and
:> :prove whether it is sovereign. You can expect a number of anti-US
:> :actions on one level, or another.
:>
:> To quote you, "So?"
:
:So, we are dependant upon them not asking the US to leave and further
:depending upon them to not invite in Al-Qaeda, or other groups whose
:goals oppose the US.
Wrong twice. If they ask the US to leave, it's their funeral (and
they know it). They're not interested in inviting in al Qaeda. If
you were even marginally informed you would know that. Part of the
insurrection right now is being caused by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is
primarily Sunni. Do you know ANYTHING about the region?
Again, I assume a certain amount of sanity and instinct for
self-preservation. It's quite simple. If they ask us to leave, we
leave. If they invite in al Qaeda, we remove them.
:> :Needing someone does not make you allies or grateful. Or, even
:> :friendly.
:>
:> It does, however, generally prevent you from blowing your own dick off
:> just because you can, if you are sane and not suicidal.
:
: Remember that goes both directions.
Well, no.
:The US can not invalidate this
:election by interfering with the results.
You seem to be the one who wants us to.
:Right now, the US needs a
:friendly government more than the Iraqi's need the US.
Nope. We just need a legitimate government. It doesn't have to be
friendly and, in the long run, probably won't be particularly
friendly.
:That country
:is trashed and already at war, but large portions of it are neutral.
:A hostile government can garner a lot of domestic support by opposing
:the US and escalating the war. The US does not have the manpower to
:handle an escalation from the current level for any extended period.
A hostile government would put things back in the realm of regular
war. That would be EASIER.
:> :> However, if that's what happens that's what happens. Democracy is
:> :> like that sometimes. I would not expect such a government to last and
:> :> remain a democracy. It will either suspend democracy or people will
:> :> push it to be more moderate.
:> :
:> :Like Iran is more moderate?
:>
:> Iran is not a democracy. They're struggling back in that direction
:> but they have a LONG way to go.
:
:Iran is as much a democracy as you can expect in the region.
Horse manure.
:There is
:simply no tradition for that form of government in Iraq and expecting to
:to be implemented overnight is suicidally stupid if you are expecting
:people to.. well.. ignore the fact that they are in the middle of a
:warzone that they did nothing to create or deserve, for the most part.
:Wars tend to inflate extremists. It is no accident that Sadr is well
:known now and had killed more Americans than Saddam, yet was virtually
:nothing only 2 years ago. He's also the leader of a large - legitimate -
:political party running in this election, although he is not a candidate
:himself.
Being the most wanted criminal in Iraq will tend to keep him from
running. Al Sadr is a Jordanian who is backed by Shiia PERSIANS.
He's not going to win much of anything and he knows it, which is why
he's in the insurgency business in the first place.
You are REALLY ignorant about all this, aren't you?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
In other words, you're stuck in the same kind of primitive mindset as
folks in the Middle East - "My enemy's enemy is my friend."
That hasn't worked out very well for them - OR for us.
--
You are
What you do
When it counts.
Bigdakine
>Date: 1/30/05 4:11 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <ptgLd.4786$WD4....@twister.socal.rr.com>
Marcos was overthrown during GHWB's administration.
Eric Chomko
: "jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote in message
: news:41fc7ce2$1...@127.0.0.1...
: >
: >
: > With only sporadic and ineffective insurgent activity
: > so far. A huge victory for democracy and Iraq seems
: > to be taking shape.
: >
: > With the recent and spectacular triumphs of
: > democracy in the Ukraine, Afghanistan and
: > now Iraq, the world is on a roll.
: >
: >
: > Jonathan
: YAY!
: uhhh... You do know how upsetting that is to PagCal and the rest of the libs
: don't you?
: Where be your compassion, dude?
: They should have reported it, "Election out come yet undecided as less than
: 25% refuse to participate."
: ... wait a minute... that's like maybe 200% less than those who don't vote
: in the U.S.
The whole thing has a "Mission Accomplished" aspect to it. This time Bush
didn't land on a flight deck, but he's just as happy with the outcome.
I'm a little more skeptical.
I hope that things can get stable like they did in West Germany after WWII
and South Korea after the Korean War.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: dbo...@mindspring.com wrote:
: >Obviously a democratic theocracy is a contradiction
: >
: Not really. Britain is a democratic monarchy, as are a number of other
: nations. A nation that is both democratic and run from within a
: religious frame work is possible. One mioght say that nations like
: Israel and to a lesser extent Britain are like that.
The monarchy i Britain is mostly for show these days. They have no real
power like in the days of old when Henry VIII was chopping off heads.
And separation between church and state ought to be the goal in the Middle
East wherever possible if they expect democracy to actually take root.
: >but what I think
: >the poster means is that the people effectively vote to end the
: >democracy.
: >
: If they do that, they do that.
And nationalize the oil and start accepting euros for payment of that
nationalized oil?
Eric
Eric Chomko
: Ed Earl Ross wrote:
: >
: >> Ed Earl Ross wrote:
: >>
: >>> Alex Terrell wrote:
: >>>
: >>>> No, that SHOULD be causing arab governments a lot of embarrasment
: >>>>
: >>> How will the non-democratic Arab leaders react?
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >> More importantly, what happens if the result of this election is
: >> an anti-America theocracy?
: >
: > As long as a government represents the will of the people, the world
: >
: > Whether or not the government becomes a theocracy, the people of Iraq
: > are most likely to adopt many Islamic laws. Die-hard terrorists will not
: > be dissuaded from their attacks on America, regardless of whether Iraq
: > is a democracy or not.
: > Helping Iraqis take control of their lives, is an American gesture to
: When did we go from "No more 911's" to "At least we tried"?
: Seriously, if Iraq becomes another Afghanistan or Iran, can you
: really say that we are better off?
: Iraq was not supporting terrorist attacks against the US. There
: is a very good chance that that could change with an anti-American
: government in power there. We deprived Al-Qaeda of a nation
: state support, it makes zero sense to create another in it's
: place that has far greater material wealth to support such a
: movement.
: We did not invade Iraq to be nice or in some futile misguided
: effort. It was very specific to a set of goals. Remove
: Saddam and *install a government that would not threaten
: world peace*. If Iraq moves into the same camp as Iran, we
: *failed* and the world is not a better place.
: It is not a question of dissuading terrorists. It is a question
: of dissuading a nation from deciding to support them. Iraq
: turning into a safe haven for terrorists and providing support
: for terrorists would certainly offset anything gained to date
: in the war on terrorism. There are a lot of reasons for an Iraqi
: government to move into that camp - starting with the fact that
: there are a large number of occupation forces in that country
: and that a large number of Iraqis have died in the conflict. Even
: a secular government would have to deal with a very, very large
: anti-American voter base and calls for revenge for the dead in
: this war.
: This is not some academic challenge here. Tens of thousands have not
: died for "oh well, we tried".
A point you are missing is that Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia are part of
OPEC. IF Iran and Saudi Arabia plan a move to raise the price of oil, we
want to be able to counter that with more production in Iraq. The point
is that we want to be able to prevent OPEC from being monolitic in
the sense the whole cartel functions as a single unit. Invading Iraq
allowed us to do that. Having a friendly government in Iraq will continue
to have control over OPEC in that sense, rather than they have control
over us.
Eric
Scott Lowther
>And separation between church and state ought to be the goal in the Middle
>East wherever possible if they expect democracy to actually take root.
>
>
Yeah, good luck with that.
>: >but what I think
>: >the poster means is that the people effectively vote to end the
>: >democracy.
>: >
>: If they do that, they do that.
>
>And nationalize the oil and start accepting euros for payment of that
>nationalized oil?
>
>
Good. The maybe we can start cranking out nuclear reactors again. A few
dozen tarawatts of installed nuke power, hooked into the national grid
and used to power thermal depolymerization plants across the country,
could easily create all the gasoline we need, adn we coudl shut off the
tap from the middle east and watch 'em all starve. Let them eat Euros!
jonathan
"Jo Schaper" <joschape...@2socketdot.no5net> wrote in message
news:10vr5ij...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> No WMDs were ever found in Iraq.
Really? I'm sorry to spoil your delusion, but
there's plenty of evidence of mass weapons.
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
He did this to over TWO hundred towns
"Please understand, the Kurds were for practice."
> Yes, the country had their share of
> dissidents and freedom-fighters prior to our invasion, internal politics
Internal politics? Are you referring to the one million that
died in the war Iraq started with Iran? I'm trying to envision
the Iranian human wave attacks. To make a path through
the Iraqi mine fields they resorted to roping groups
of children together, typically about 25, and sending them
in to clear the mines by stepping on them.
One group after another, over a hundred thousand
children died that way if I remember correctly.
Sadaam has more blood on his hands than any tyrant
since Stalin or Mao. The world has an obligation to
stop such evil before millions more die at his hands.
Thanks to the ever-appeasing Europeans our choice
was reduced to fighting Sadaam years later when
he had the bomb. Or taking him out now when
he's at his weakest.
The choice between seeing a few large cities, such
as Baghdad or Tel Aviv ....MELT, and this very
limited war .....is easy. The choice was simply
thousands now, or tens of millions later.
Continued appeasement would only allow another
incarnation of Hitler.
We needed no excuse, such as WMD, to invade that
country. It was our moral obligation. Hundreds of
thousands starved to death last year alone in N Korea.
Pity they already have the bomb, now we'll just
have to ...sit and watch.... the rest of them
starve to death year after year.
Iran is next.
In about two years Iraq will no longer need our troops.
In about two years Iran will have the bomb.
What do you think the insurgency is all about???
It's a stalling tactic by the Iranians to keep our troops
busy until Iran has developed the bomb.
This is something we cannot hide from.
The race is on and we had better not let
any 'dates'...slip.
Jonathan
s
Eric Chomko
: Eric Chomko wrote:
Nuclear energy? Hah, the oil companies will simply incite the leftists
with all the dangers, blah, blah, blah, and your pipe dream will go up in
smoke.
Eric
Jim Oberg
compare the claim of a captured American soldier
at http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050201/D87VTJHG0.html
to a photograph of a GI Joe toy and his equipment
at http://www.drudgereport.com/toy.jpg
Mitch Farmer
No way, even the primitives could not be this stupid. Someone hacked
their Islamofascist website and did this.
This makes Dan Rather look like Edward Murrow!
Rand Simberg
Farmer <mi...@nospam.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 20:22:10 GMT, "Jim Oberg"
Well, al Reuters seems to have bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Rand Simberg
Oberg" <james...@houston.rr.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Mujahadeen brag of capture of 'GI Joe' Doll?
It's the only type of American soldier that they don't fear, at this
point.
Rand Simberg
Oberg" <james...@houston.rr.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Mujahadeen brag of capture of 'GI Joe' Doll?
The rapid-response team is on the job:
Mitch Farmer
More interesting than this is your header for those to whom you're
responding:
...made the phosphor...
Very good. Usually these are pretty lame, but yours is indeed quite
original!
Now, how much do you think this special ops toy will sell for on eBay?
Mitch Farmer
LOL!
I can't wait for Leno, Letterman, and MadTv over this one!
Rand Simberg
Oberg" <james...@houston.rr.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Mujahadeen brag of capture of 'GI Joe' Doll?
Osama's been captured, too!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1333697/posts
What a day...
Christopher M. Jones
Are you sure they don't? They do have a gun trained on
him.
Rand Simberg
"Christopher M. Jones" <christoph...@gmail.com> made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> point.
>
>Are you sure they don't? They do have a gun trained on
>him.
Hmmmm...good point.
richard schumacher
Please post only to appropriate groups.
Rand Simberg
Oberg" <james...@houston.rr.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Mujahadeen brag of capture of 'GI Joe' Doll?
They've found his war diary:
http://techcentralstation.com/020205F.html
"The insurgents caught us by surprise in that deserted Iraqi backyard.
BBs perforated the sullen quiet of the hot Iraqi afternoon.
Firecrackers sizzled and roared around us in a symphony of
extremity-disintegrating horror. Mean little kids stomped us with the
hard soles of their brand-new Keds -- weapons of mass destruction. And
the gentlest one of us all lost it completely. 'Elmo is thinking about
genocide!' he screamed, as he unleashed a hail of foam darts upon our
adversaries. 'Elmo is Death, destroyer of worlds!' War does awful
things to toys.
I tried to remember my training. My old drill sergeant, G.I. Joe, had
put me through worse than this. 'Are you gonna MOR yet, maggot?' he
would scream, as he tied me to the wheel of a 10-speed Schwinn. (MOR:
Melted On Request.) 'Sir, no, sir!' I would scream, even as the
gravel scraped the paint off my face. He pushed me and prodded me, but
he made me the action figure I am today. Just before Water Survival
training, he gave me a piece of advice I'll always remember: 'Son,
when you get right down to it, you have no nerve endings.' Then he
flushed me down the toilet.
A repulsive splatting sound above my head brought me back to the
present. 'Gas! GAS!' We scrambled in vain for our gas masks as a haze
of vaporous death descended upon us. Mustard gas? Try beans and
broccoli. The last thing I remember was the leering visage of our
hated enemy, the puppet master of al Qaeda, peering down on us.
The CIA lied. The bombs in Bora Bora hadn't killed him after all.
Evil Bert. The legends were true."
Mike Combs
news:SxRLd.100231$Ta2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Mujahadeen brag of capture of 'GI Joe' Doll?
I just know those Islamist bastards had better stay the hell away from the
Star Wars action figures, or they'll find themselves on the wrong end of a
light saber.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.
Sander Vesik
This is the same thing as claiming that WTC deaths don't matter as
many more people die on roads and that if anything, deaths caused
by vehicular accidents were being diminished - that is bot incorrect
and obnoxious.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Rand Simberg
Sander Vesik <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >Yes the intent was to do good. Unfortunately something like 100,000
>> >Iraqis died in the process.
>>
>> That's a bogus number. And many (including children and babies) were
>> dying under Saddam's regime as well, so it's pointless to whine about
>> how many died removing.
>
>This is the same thing as claiming that WTC deaths don't matter as
>many more people die on roads and that if anything, deaths caused
>by vehicular accidents were being diminished - that is bot incorrect
>and obnoxious.
No, it's not, unless you're moral (and logical) midget.
The Ancient One
"Sander Vesik" <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
news:11073881...@haldjas.folklore.ee...
Not really, Saddam was killing tens to hundreds of thousands of his own
people per year, removing him put a stop to future killings that would have
occured if he had remained in power.
So unless the WTC attacks somehow prevented people from dying in auto
accidents in the future the comparison is flawed.
Eric Chomko
: "Sander Vesik" <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
Do you have a reference to the 10K a years deaths under Saddam? Not saying
I don't believe it, just want to read the source of the claim.
: So unless the WTC attacks somehow prevented people from dying in auto
: accidents in the future the comparison is flawed.
No connection.
Eric
Tom
Most credible estimates (Amnesty International) are in the
neighborhood of 200,000-220,000, who disappeared over
a 35 year period.
> : So unless the WTC attacks somehow prevented people from dying in auto
> : accidents in the future the comparison is flawed.
>
> No connection.
According to the 911 Commission Report, we have just one
man to thank for the WTC attack. Actually both attacks, if
you include the 1993 bombing.
George Herbert Walker Bush.
Rand Simberg
<m...@privacy.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:
>According to the 911 Commission Report, we have just one
>man to thank for the WTC attack. Actually both attacks, if
>you include the 1993 bombing.
>
>George Herbert Walker Bush.
You must have read a different report than I did.
Tom
2.3, pg. 57
"In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Ladin, whose efforts in
Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the
Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake
Kuwait. He was rebuffed, and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led
coalition. After the Saudis agreed to allow U.S. armed forces to be
based in the Kingdom, Bin Ladin and a number of Islamic clerics
began to publicly denounce the arrangement. The Saudi government
exiled the clerics and undertook to silence Bin Ladin by, among
other things, taking away his passport. With help from a dissident
member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country
under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in
April 1991. By 1994, the Saudi government would freeze his
financial assets and revoke his citizenship. He no longer had a
country he could call his own."
Etc.
Bush knew perfectly well what the eventual consequences of our
presence in Saudi Arabia would be. He knew America would
become a target of attacks because of it.
Rand Simberg
>Bush knew perfectly well what the eventual consequences of our
>presence in Saudi Arabia would be. He knew America would
>become a target of attacks because of it.
Ignoring your pathetic attempt at clairvoyance as to what President
Bush knew, I find it more than a little absurd that you're willing to
apportion no blame to anyone else (e.g., bin Laden).
Tom
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:58:13 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Tom"
> <m...@privacy.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
> to indicate that:
>
> >Bush knew perfectly well what the eventual consequences of our
> >presence in Saudi Arabia would be. He knew America would
> >become a target of attacks because of it.
>
> Ignoring your pathetic attempt at clairvoyance as to what President
> Bush knew,
No clairvoyance is required. Al Qaeda didn't make any secret
about their grievance, nor their threats. And as if these weren't
enough notice, the 1993 WTC, USS Cole and US embassy
bombings certainly were.
> I find it more than a little absurd that you're willing to
> apportion no blame to anyone else (e.g., bin Laden).
All I'm saying is, according to the 9/11 report, none of these
attacks would not have taken place had Bush simply enlisted
Usama bin Laden in the campaign to remove Hussein from
Kuwait, as our government had enlisted him to help expel the
USSR from Afghanistan.
And compare the actual reasons for 9/11 to Bush Jr's absurd
"they hate our freedoms" pablum. He's a demagogue of the
first order.
Rand Simberg
>> >Bush knew perfectly well what the eventual consequences of our
>> >presence in Saudi Arabia would be. He knew America would
>> >become a target of attacks because of it.
>>
>> Ignoring your pathetic attempt at clairvoyance as to what President
>> Bush knew,
>
>No clairvoyance is required.
Yes, it is. There's no way for you to know what Bush knew.
>> I find it more than a little absurd that you're willing to
>> apportion no blame to anyone else (e.g., bin Laden).
>
>All I'm saying is, according to the 9/11 report, none of these
>attacks would not have taken place had Bush simply enlisted
>Usama bin Laden in the campaign to remove Hussein from
>Kuwait, as our government had enlisted him to help expel the
>USSR from Afghanistan.
The 911 report did not say that. It's simply your nutty inference.
>And compare the actual reasons for 9/11 to Bush Jr's absurd
>"they hate our freedoms" pablum. He's a demagogue of the
>first order.
Physician, diagnose and heal thyself.
Christopher M. Jones
> And compare the actual reasons for 9/11 to Bush Jr's absurd
> "they hate our freedoms" pablum. He's a demagogue of the
> first order.
Eric Chomko
: "Eric Chomko" <echom...@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message news:cttvli$19gg$3...@news.ums.edu...
Does that include the Kurds that he gassed back in thw late
80s? Does it include Iranian deaths from the 80s war with
Iran?
Eric
: > : So unless the WTC attacks somehow prevented people from dying in auto
Tom
> : >
> : > : Not really, Saddam was killing tens to hundreds of thousands of his own
> : > : people per year, removing him put a stop to future killings that would have
> : > : occured if he had remained in power.
> : >
> : > Do you have a reference to the 10K a years deaths under Saddam? Not saying
> : > I don't believe it, just want to read the source of the claim.
>
> : Most credible estimates (Amnesty International) are in the
> : neighborhood of 200,000-220,000, who disappeared over
> : a 35 year period.
>
> Does that include the Kurds that he gassed back in thw late
> 80s?
Yes.
> Does it include Iranian deaths from the 80s war with Iran?
No.
Fred J. McCall
Well, no, since knocking down the WTC did nothing about the cause of
auto deaths. Knocking down Iraq certainly did something about the
cause of deaths under the then-existing regime.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
:On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 13:31:24 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Tom"
Someone should have told him it was intended to be read. I think he
must have smoked it, instead.
Eric Chomko
: "Eric Chomko" <echom...@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message news:ctuqni$27f2$2...@news.ums.edu...
: Yes.
Do you know how many Kurds make up the 220K figure?
: > Does it include Iranian deaths from the 80s war with Iran?
: No.
Eric Chomko
: Sander Vesik <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
But the WTC deaths were not connected to Iraq as too many believe.
Eric
: --
Mike Combs
news:36g47dF...@individual.net...
>
> And compare the actual reasons for 9/11 to Bush Jr's absurd
> "they hate our freedoms" pablum. He's a demagogue of the
> first order.
You mean even after al-Zarqawi's statement you guys are still pretending
that there's room for debate on this issue? Isn't democracy one of our
freedoms?
Seems like he also stated his hatred for our freedom of religion.
To say that our enemies hate us for our freedoms is not rhetoric, it's a
simple statement of fact. One only has to take them at their word.
Rand Simberg
Combs" <mike...@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>"Tom" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:36g47dF...@individual.net...
>>
>> And compare the actual reasons for 9/11 to Bush Jr's absurd
>> "they hate our freedoms" pablum. He's a demagogue of the
>> first order.
>
>You mean even after al-Zarqawi's statement you guys are still pretending
>that there's room for debate on this issue? Isn't democracy one of our
>freedoms?
>
>Seems like he also stated his hatred for our freedom of religion.
>
>To say that our enemies hate us for our freedoms is not rhetoric, it's a
>simple statement of fact. One only has to take them at their word.
Ah, but it's so much easier and more comforting to blame George Bush
(both elder and current) than it is to face reality.
Ed Earl Ross
Political rhetoric is a fancy phrase for talking trash.
XpatriotgamesX
>From: echom...@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko)
>Date: 2/4/2005 10:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cu0e76$r9c$7...@news.ums.edu>
Saddam ran terrorist camps, one of which contained a B-707 fuselage for hijack
training.
Jordan
>Bushes inauguration speech sounded a lot like Jimmy Carter's policy.
The
>difference is that Jimmy didn't start any wars.
No, Jimmy Carter just refused to prosecute the war he was handed when
the Iranians seized the Embassy, and as a result America was humiliated
for over a year. That's why he was a one-term President.
The equivalent would have been if the current President Bush had
attempted to solve the "dispute" with Afghanistan after 9/11 by
negotation.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Tom
That's a truly remarkable statement, considering the Taliban
was precisely what the USSR was trying to get rid of when
*they* invaded Afghanistan. Had we helped the Soviets,
instead of funding fundamentalist Islamic boobs and
boycotting the freaking Olympics, the Taliban problem
never would have existed in the first place.
Tom
That's a truly remarkable statement, considering the Taliban
Christopher M. Jones
> That's a truly remarkable statement, considering the Taliban
> was precisely what the USSR was trying to get rid of when
> *they* invaded Afghanistan. Had we helped the Soviets,
> instead of funding fundamentalist Islamic boobs and
> boycotting the freaking Olympics, the Taliban problem
> never would have existed in the first place.
Uhhh, the Taliban did not exist, as such, when the USSR
invaded afghanistan. The Taliban was a particular group
within the mujahadeen, which came about after the Soviet
invasion.
As far as American involvement, I thinked we backed the
right side in that particular conflict but our major
error was not fixing things after the Soviets were
defeated. Yet another reason why so-called Realism is
not all it's cracked up to be.
Tom
> Tom wrote:
> > That's a truly remarkable statement, considering the Taliban
> > was precisely what the USSR was trying to get rid of when
> > *they* invaded Afghanistan. Had we helped the Soviets,
> > instead of funding fundamentalist Islamic boobs and
> > boycotting the freaking Olympics, the Taliban problem
> > never would have existed in the first place.
>
> Uhhh, the Taliban did not exist, as such, when the USSR
> invaded afghanistan. The Taliban was a particular group
> within the mujahadeen, which came about after the Soviet
> invasion.
Abysmal ignorance. Have you even read the 911 Report?
Usama bin Laden went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet
invasion and organize the mujahideen. He was on the CIA's
payroll for chrissakes.
> As far as American involvement, I thinked we backed the
> right side in that particular conflict
Another remarkable statement, considering what's transpired
since then. Bin Laden fancied himself a war hero and leader
of radical Islam because of his "victory" in that conflict, thanks
to red baiting American ignoramuses.
Christopher M. Jones
> "Christopher M. Jones" <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:G6adnWk2J6C...@comcast.com...
>>invaded afghanistan. The Taliban was a particular group
>>within the mujahadeen, which came about after the Soviet
>>invasion.
>
> Abysmal ignorance. Have you even read the 911 Report?
> Usama bin Laden went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet
> invasion and organize the mujahideen. He was on the CIA's
> payroll for chrissakes.
>
>>As far as American involvement, I thinked we backed the
>>right side in that particular conflict
>
> Another remarkable statement, considering what's transpired
> since then. Bin Laden fancied himself a war hero and leader
> of radical Islam because of his "victory" in that conflict, thanks
> to red baiting American ignoramuses.
Could you, uhh, try to actually *read* my post and then
respond to what I actually *wrote* rather than what you
think I was going to write? I would muchly appreciate it.
kthxbye
P.S. Bin Laden wasn't a very large figure in the leadership
of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan early on, he gained
prominance later.
George William Herbert
>"Christopher M. Jones" <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>> > That's a truly remarkable statement, considering the Taliban
>> > was precisely what the USSR was trying to get rid of when
>> > *they* invaded Afghanistan. Had we helped the Soviets,
>> > instead of funding fundamentalist Islamic boobs and
>> > boycotting the freaking Olympics, the Taliban problem
>> > never would have existed in the first place.
The Soviet Union moved into Afghanistan in order to move
its armies closer to a warmwater port, either in Pakistan
or Iran. There was no islamic terrorist group in the
country of note at the time; it was a poorly run socialist
borderline marxist puppet state of the Soviet Union, but one
which had a reasonably independent government. The Russians
decided they wanted to go from a friendly puppet government
next door to actually running things directly, and sent
commandos in to kill their "ally" the then-president,
and invaded.
The subsequent Soviet governments (and Russian, post-collapse)
have all admitted what they did.
>[...]
>> As far as American involvement, I thinked we backed the
>> right side in that particular conflict
>
>Another remarkable statement, considering what's transpired
>since then. Bin Laden fancied himself a war hero and leader
>of radical Islam because of his "victory" in that conflict, thanks
>to red baiting American ignoramuses.
It is a little hard to understand how anyone could
live in ignorance of the Soviet hostile intentions that
got it all started. You're acting like there was no
threat of the Soviets continuing into Iran or Pakistan,
when they have admitted that doing so was exactly
their plan and if they hadn't ended up bogged down
with the Mujahadeen and seen US forces readying to
fight them off, they would have done so.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Tom
> Tom <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >"Christopher M. Jones" <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Tom wrote:
> >> > That's a truly remarkable statement, considering the Taliban
> >> > was precisely what the USSR was trying to get rid of when
> >> > *they* invaded Afghanistan. Had we helped the Soviets,
> >> > instead of funding fundamentalist Islamic boobs and
> >> > boycotting the freaking Olympics, the Taliban problem
> >> > never would have existed in the first place.
>
> The Soviet Union moved into Afghanistan in order to move
> its armies closer to a warmwater port, either in Pakistan
> or Iran. There was no islamic terrorist group in the
> country of note at the time; it was a poorly run socialist
> borderline marxist puppet state of the Soviet Union, but one
> which had a reasonably independent government. The Russians
> decided they wanted to go from a friendly puppet government
> next door to actually running things directly, and sent
> commandos in to kill their "ally" the then-president,
> and invaded.
At least since the early 1970's the Soviets recognized the rise
of Islamic extremism for what it is: a disease that converts
modern civilizations into 6th century hellholes, and grows like
cancer -- causing political, social and economic chaos wherever
it is allowed to spread. It impacted them on several fronts, not
just in Afghanistan. By the time they invaded Afghanistan in
1979 full-scale civil war was already on the horizon.
Yes, the Soviets did have intentions in Pakistan and Iran, and
it was at least primarily for the exact same reason: to nip the
problem of Islamic extremism in the bud. And the forces that
stopped the Soviets in Afghanistan had to deal (and are still
dealing) with the consequences. Nearly all the Taliban were
Pakistanis, and the few native Afghanis were trained in Pakistan.
> The subsequent Soviet governments (and Russian, post-collapse)
> have all admitted what they did.
>
> >[...]
> >> As far as American involvement, I thinked we backed the
> >> right side in that particular conflict
> >
> >Another remarkable statement, considering what's transpired
> >since then. Bin Laden fancied himself a war hero and leader
> >of radical Islam because of his "victory" in that conflict, thanks
> >to red baiting American ignoramuses.
>
> It is a little hard to understand how anyone could
> live in ignorance of the Soviet hostile intentions that
> got it all started. You're acting like there was no
> threat of the Soviets continuing into Iran or Pakistan,
> when they have admitted that doing so was exactly
> their plan
Well, I'm sorry you never woke up from the 'red under every
bed' scare tactic that the Pentagon so successfully used (and
still uses) to further their defense budgets every year. What's
truly amazing is that some people still believe the "world
domination through force" crap, even though the Soviets after
nearly TEN YEARS weren't able to conquer even a small,
nearly defenseless patch of dirt on their immediate border.
Truly amazing.
Rand Simberg
gher...@retro.com (George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>Another remarkable statement, considering what's transpired
>>since then. Bin Laden fancied himself a war hero and leader
>>of radical Islam because of his "victory" in that conflict, thanks
>>to red baiting American ignoramuses.
>
>It is a little hard to understand how anyone could
>live in ignorance of the Soviet hostile intentions that
>got it all started.
It's easy to understand. Such ignorance is a necessary defense
require to sustain vital hatred and fear of the evil Bushitler (pere
and fil).
Jordan
Tom wrote:
> "Jordan" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107564704.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Mike Rhino said:
> >
> > >Bushes inauguration speech sounded a lot like Jimmy Carter's
policy.
> > The
> > >difference is that Jimmy didn't start any wars.
> >
> > No, Jimmy Carter just refused to prosecute the war he was handed
when
> > the Iranians seized the Embassy, and as a result America was
humiliated
> > for over a year. That's why he was a one-term President.
> >
> > The equivalent would have been if the current President Bush had
> > attempted to solve the "dispute" with Afghanistan after 9/11 by
> > negotation.
>
> That's a truly remarkable statement, considering the Taliban
> was precisely what the USSR was trying to get rid of when
> *they* invaded Afghanistan.
That's a truly remarkable response, considering that "the war he
[Carter] was handed" was not the Soviet-Afghan War, but rather the
Iranian Hostage War. A war with _Iran_, in other words, not with the
Soviet Union. It's even more remarkable when one considers that the
government of Afghanistan which the Soviets overthrew was a (dissident)
Communist regime, not an Islamic Fundamentalist one, and that "the
Taliban" didn't even exist yet.
Congratulations for scoring roughly zero on the history test.
> Had we helped the Soviets,
> instead of funding fundamentalist Islamic boobs and
> boycotting the freaking Olympics, the Taliban problem
> never would have existed in the first place.
And you get the bonus question wrong. But your score can't go any
lower than zero.
FYI, in 1979 the important conflict was between the US and the Soviet
Union; it was called the "Cold War." If we'd done badly in the Cold
War, we would have had problems totally dwarfing the current Terrorist
War.
But thanks for playing.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Jordan
>
>> Uhhh, the Taliban did not exist, as such, when the USSR
>> invaded afghanistan. The Taliban was a particular group
>> within the mujahadeen, which came about after the Soviet
>> invasion.
>
>Abysmal ignorance. Have you even read the 911 Report?
>Usama bin Laden went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet
>invasion and organize the mujahideen. He was on the CIA's
>payroll for chrissakes.
You know, it's always funny when someone says "abysmal ignorance" and
then follows up with a statement that demonstrates his own lack of
grasp of history. Tom, the Soviet-Afghan War lasted ten years. When
the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban did not yet exist. It
came into being _in the course of_ the war. And Osama Bin Laden joined
the fight about midway through, not at the war's outset.
Tom, try paying attention to those things called "dates", and you may
come to realize that the past didn't all happen at the same time.
Okay?
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Jordan
>
>At least since the early 1970's the Soviets recognized the rise
>of Islamic extremism for what it is: a disease that converts
>modern civilizations into 6th century hellholes, and grows like
>cancer -- causing political, social and economic chaos wherever
>it is allowed to spread. It impacted them on several fronts, not
>just in Afghanistan. By the time they invaded Afghanistan in
>1979 full-scale civil war was already on the horizon.
If the Soviets had meant to prevent the fall of Afghanistan to local
Islamic extremists, their logical strategy in 1979 would have been to
prop up, rather than to overthrow, the existing Afghan regime, which
was Communist, not Islamic fundamentalist. Actually, I'm not sure
_why_ they felt they had to overthrow that regime -- it strikes me as a
mistake at least as severe as the American connivance in the coup
against Diem in South Viet Nam in the early 1960's.
>Yes, the Soviets did have intentions in Pakistan and Iran, and
>it was at least primarily for the exact same reason: to nip the
>problem of Islamic extremism in the bud.
I think the Soviets, in 1979, were more interested in obtaining naval
bases on the Persian Gulf, and thus the ability to choke off oil
supplies to Western Europe in the event of WWIII.
>Well, I'm sorry you never woke up from the 'red under every
>bed' scare tactic that the Pentagon so successfully used (and
>still uses) to further their defense budgets every year.
The Cold War (1945-89) was very real. We won it; had they won it, or
kept on waging it, the world today would be very different.
Incidentally, "the Pentagon" is not very concerned with international
Communism these days. Nor has it been since 1990 or so. Our main
problems with remaining Communist states (China, North Korea, and Cuba)
have absolutely nothing to do with any fear of the spread of Communist
ideology; they are purely old-fashioned threats of spheres of influence
and piracy ("terrorism").
>What's truly amazing is that some people still believe the "world
>domination through force" crap, even though the Soviets after
>nearly TEN YEARS weren't able to conquer even a small,
>nearly defenseless patch of dirt on their immediate border.
1) The Soviets did, pretty much, conquer Afghanistan. By the end of
the Cold War the mujehadeen were operating almost entirely out of
Pakistan, not Afghanistan itself. The reason the Soviets pulled out
was that they lost the Cold War on other fronts, primarily the economic
ones.
2) The Soviets did this with a very small portion of their whole army.
>Truly amazing.
Yes, it is truly amazing that, a mere 16 years after the Cold War's
end, you've forgotten so much of what actually happened.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Christopher M. Jones
> At least since the early 1970's the Soviets recognized the rise
> of Islamic extremism for what it is: a disease that converts
> modern civilizations into 6th century hellholes, and grows like
> cancer -- causing political, social and economic chaos wherever
> it is allowed to spread. It impacted them on several fronts, not
> just in Afghanistan. By the time they invaded Afghanistan in
> 1979 full-scale civil war was already on the horizon.
Umm, yeah, that's great. Maybe you could go tell the
Soviets who explained why they invaded Afghanistan that
they gave the wrong reasons.
> Yes, the Soviets did have intentions in Pakistan and Iran, and
> it was at least primarily for the exact same reason: to nip the
> problem of Islamic extremism in the bud. And the forces that
> stopped the Soviets in Afghanistan had to deal (and are still
> dealing) with the consequences. Nearly all the Taliban were
> Pakistanis, and the few native Afghanis were trained in Pakistan.
Oh, I'm sure it had nothing to do with access to the
Persian gulf. Odd how folks such as yourself are keen
to jump on the ridiculous notions that the US is
prosecuting the war on terror in a covert attempt to
gain exclusive access to oil, yet somehow manage to
ascribe only virtuous motives to the Soviet Union.
Exceedingly odd, actually.
Moreover, you seem to be having the hardest time
understanding that the Afghanistan mujahadeen and the
Taliban *did* *not* *exist* prior to the Soviet invasion.
The previous statement that the Soviets invaded in order
to fight the Taliban is so incredibly ludicrous that it
invites copious quantities of deep guttural laughing
coupled with finger pointing.
> Well, I'm sorry you never woke up from the 'red under every
> bed' scare tactic that the Pentagon so successfully used (and
> still uses) to further their defense budgets every year. What's
> truly amazing is that some people still believe the "world
> domination through force" crap, even though the Soviets after
> nearly TEN YEARS weren't able to conquer even a small,
> nearly defenseless patch of dirt on their immediate border.
> Truly amazing.
Umm, yeah. The Red Army has never been all that great.
They managed to halfway best the Nazis through sheer
brute force coupled with quite a lot of help from western
allies. Since then they haven't had a great track record
in anything other than fighting civilians with tanks.
Meanwhile, the US and allies (including Afghanis) managed
to successfully prosecute a war in Afghanistan which
lasted mere months, the result of which has sinced held up
for going on several years. I think you need to update
your "Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires!" script, it
seems to be several years out of date.
Rand Simberg
<JSBass...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>Yes, it is truly amazing that, a mere 16 years after the Cold War's
>end, you've forgotten so much of what actually happened.
"Forgotten"?
You assume with no evidence that he ever had any awareness of reality.
Christopher M. Jones
You left out the possibility that the gentleman in question
is younger than the end of the cold war, or at least was very
young when it ended. Not that that makes his ignorance of
recent history any more excusable, but it is an alternate
explation for the origin of that ignorance.