Bush-Haters Want America To Experience "Another Vietnam" In Iraq

D. Spencer Hines

unread,

Jun 20, 2005, 12:09:46 AM6/20/05

to

"hippo" <hi...@south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:119ei6o...@corp.supernews.com...

| "D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
|
| > | As I have told you time and again we learned from Soviet mistakes.
| > | You want us to repeat them by introducing vast changes in a day.
| > | That approach didn't work for the Russians and it wouldn't work
| > | for us. -the Troll

| > That's because Gans WANTS the Bush Doctrine and U.S. Foreign Policy
| > to FAIL. ---- DSH
|
| I don't think he thinks he does but I'm afraid what you say is true.

Hippo
-----------------

Bingo!

Of course it's true.

If a Democrat President were spreading Freedom and Democracy, bashing
tyrants on the head and making them wash out their own underpants in
jail, toppling the vicious, murderous Taliban, liberating Muslim women
and empowering Kurds, Shias, Latvians, Ukrainians and Georgians -- Gans
would be wildly cheering in the front row of the Peanut Gallery.

Further, The New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Los Angeles
Times, New Yorker and all the "Liberal" little magazines would be
analyzing the Bush Doctrine -- drawing historical comparisons to Woodrow
Wilson's visions, F.D.R.'s and Churchill's Atlantic Charter and
Roosevelt's Four Freedoms. They would compare Bush's policies at home
to T.R.'s Square Deal, F.D.R.'s New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal.

They would be drawing favorable comparisons with LBJ -- saying that Bush
43 is actually the Texan with the Greater Vision and Competence.

The prattlers, scribblers and academics of the Loony Left would be
absolutely ORGASMIC in their praise.

They would be talking about how Bush is doing exactly what F.D.R. would
have done to save Social Security and put it on a sound financial basis.

They would be saying how compassionate Bush is and "a man of the people"
who clears brush on his own ranch and is not afraid of hard work. They
would applaud the nomination of John Bolton as just the sort of man we
need at the U.N. to reform that benighted institution which has drifted
so far from its moorings.

But what they FEAR more than anything else -- is Permanent Minority
Status for the Democrat Party and a Republican ascendancy -- Gans
ominously calls it a political "sea change". ******

Yep, that frightens the kimchee right out of them.

So, Gans and his comrades see no alternative to obstruction, duplicity
and rear-guard action to defeat and discredit Bush and his
Republicans -- just as Harry Reid's agenda clearly reveals. Reid seems
to have outright lied to Bill Frist -- but we shall see.

| The inconsistencies in his opinion, like the one above, are too
| regular to assume anything else. ******

Correct.

I've been reading his Leftover-Leftist ramblings, warblings and screeds
for well over 8 years now -- so I have his number.

| The Left has always screamed about rapidly intruding
| American cultural ideas and institutions into underdeveloped
| countries. Now Bush is being criticized for listening to them.
| The often unintentional (I'm being charitable here) hypocrisy
| and capacity of the Left for self-delusion have always astounded
| me and precisely why they should never be permitted to
| govern unchecked.

Bingo!

Hypocrisy and Self-Delusion are Essential to "Liberals". -- They simply
couldn't live with themselves and think they are better than the rest of
us without those two trusty handmaidens as blinders.

| My brother-in-law, with a legal mind like a steel trap, has regular
| and predictable lapses of memory when politics is the topic of
| conversation. Right in the middle of the Monica scandal, he actually
| told his sons that Reagan was the biggest liar ever to occupy the
| White House. Fortunately both my nephews know their dad is a
| knee-jerk and disregard most of what he says.
| It is me they call when doing history papers. -the Troll

Yep. Just another Standard "Liberal" Red Herring. "When attacked on
the facts, change the subject and make a countercharge" -- you'll find
it in the "Liberal" Handbook. Tu Quoque....

I continue to be amazed at how ignorant these people are about the
Vietnam War. The period after Tet '68 is a Black Hole to them.

Further, they don't even understand the Cold War -- and they LIE and
DISSEMBLE about what they did and thought during those 40 long years.

Gans won't come clean on that. He wanted our Capitalistic Free Market
System to "CONVERGE" with Communism. He, and many other dumb-arsed
"Liberals", such as John Kenneth Galbraith, saw that policy of
appeasement as the only way to avoid World War III.

Some of them, such as John Kerry, were outright traitors.

Ronald Wilson Reagan taught us all otherwise. Yes, he's named after
Woodrow Wilson, The Great Democrat who believed in "Making The World
Safe For Democracy" ---- just like George Walker Bush.

These Cold War dissemblers can't be honest and straightforward about
what they thought, said and did -- because they feel Guilty &
Inadequate.

They never bought into Ronald Reagan's simple, correct formulation of
the United States versus the Soviet Union in the Cold War:

"We win, they lose."

These Leftover Leftists, Gans included, NEVER bought into that strategy,
indeed they were HORRIFIED by it -- and they were dumbfounded and
acutely embarrassed when it actually succeeded. -- That left them
totally flummoxed, flustered and fustigating.

Understandably, they now want us to FORGET how WRONG they were -- so
they keep backing and filling in an effort to cover their tracks and
make people forget How Wrong They Were about the Cold War.

And -- how wrong they are NOW with reference to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

hippo

unread,

Jun 20, 2005, 8:54:50 AM6/20/05

to

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message

> "hippo" wrote in message

> | > That's because Gans WANTS the Bush Doctrine and U.S. Foreign Policy
> | > to FAIL. ---- DSH
> |
> | I don't think he thinks he does but I'm afraid what you say is true.

> Bingo!

Yup.

> | The inconsistencies in his opinion, like the one above, are too
> | regular to assume anything else. ******
>
> Correct.
>
> I've been reading his Leftover-Leftist ramblings, warblings and screeds
> for well over 8 years now -- so I have his number.

I know you do and so do I. It is from this point we diverge.

You attack the man when it is his ideas which are wrong. By all means expose
his opinions and argue his facts, failed logic, and view of history. Leave
off the personal attacks, they get you nowhere as I have told you time and
again. I know too many like him who I have come to believe were cross-wired
somewhere early on in their lives. It doesn't make them monsters or evil,
only political enemies and, if unchecked and in places of power, potentially
dangerous.

Paul is not in politics or otherwise in a position of power. Personal
attacks only cements the generally held view that U.S. conservatives are
nothing but a bunch of ruthless bastards and mindless ideologues little
better than Marxists of the past century in their methods. To me the moral
high ground starts at home. but then you think I am a fossil of a paleo-con,
whatever that is.

> | The Left has always screamed about rapidly intruding
> | American cultural ideas and institutions into underdeveloped
> | countries. Now Bush is being criticized for listening to them.
> | The often unintentional (I'm being charitable here) hypocrisy
> | and capacity of the Left for self-delusion have always astounded
> | me and precisely why they should never be permitted to
> | govern unchecked.
>
> Bingo!
>
> Hypocrisy and Self-Delusion are Essential to "Liberals". -- They simply
> couldn't live with themselves and think they are better than the rest of
> us without those two trusty handmaidens as blinders.

Yup.

> | My brother-in-law, with a legal mind like a steel trap, has regular
> | and predictable lapses of memory when politics is the topic of
> | conversation. Right in the middle of the Monica scandal, he actually
> | told his sons that Reagan was the biggest liar ever to occupy the
> | White House. Fortunately both my nephews know their dad is a
> | knee-jerk and disregard most of what he says.
> | It is me they call when doing history papers. -the Troll
>
> Yep. Just another Standard "Liberal" Red Herring. "When attacked on
> the facts, change the subject and make a countercharge" -- you'll find
> it in the "Liberal" Handbook. Tu Quoque....
>
> I continue to be amazed at how ignorant these people are about the
> Vietnam War. The period after Tet '68 is a Black Hole to them.
>
> Further, they don't even understand the Cold War -- and they LIE and
> DISSEMBLE about what they did and thought during those 40 long years.
>
> Gans won't come clean on that. He wanted our Capitalistic Free Market
> System to "CONVERGE" with Communism. He, and many other dumb-arsed
> "Liberals", such as John Kenneth Galbraith, saw that policy of
> appeasement as the only way to avoid World War III.
>
> Some of them, such as John Kerry, were outright traitors.

Yes they were. Paul isn't one of them.

> Ronald Wilson Reagan taught us all otherwise. Yes, he's named after
> Woodrow Wilson, The Great Democrat who believed in "Making The World
> Safe For Democracy" ---- just like George Walker Bush.
>
> These Cold War dissemblers can't be honest and straightforward about
> what they thought, said and did -- because they feel Guilty &
> Inadequate.
>
> They never bought into Ronald Reagan's simple, correct formulation of
> the United States versus the Soviet Union in the Cold War:
>
> "We win, they lose."
>
> These Leftover Leftists, Gans included, NEVER bought into that strategy,
> indeed they were HORRIFIED by it -- and they were dumbfounded and
> acutely embarrassed when it actually succeeded. -- That left them
> totally flummoxed, flustered and fustigating.
>
> Understandably, they now want us to FORGET how WRONG they were -- so
> they keep backing and filling in an effort to cover their tracks and
> make people forget How Wrong They Were about the Cold War.
>
> And -- how wrong they are NOW with reference to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Again, we agree. -the Troll

martin reboul

unread,

Jun 20, 2005, 3:20:37 PM6/20/05

to

"hippo" <hi...@south-sudan.net> wrote in message

news:11bdf4f...@corp.supernews.com...

Well said that man! Thank the stars that DSH is not typical of American right
wingers, or anybody with any power or responsibilty on the planet...

I still maintain that nobody else on these groups did so much harm to the
Republican cause as the Cut 'n Paste Commander during the last election - by
ostensibly claiming to support President Bush. His unsavoury obsession with Paul
is..... disturbing.....

Julian Richards

unread,

Jun 20, 2005, 6:33:00 PM6/20/05

to

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:20:37 +0100, "martin reboul"
<martin...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>Well said that man! Thank the stars that DSH is not typical of American right
>wingers, or anybody with any power or responsibilty on the planet...
>
>I still maintain that nobody else on these groups did so much harm to the
>Republican cause as the Cut 'n Paste Commander during the last election - by
>ostensibly claiming to support President Bush. His unsavoury obsession with Paul
>is..... disturbing.....

Do you think that it is some sort of "Manchurian Candidate" thing?

--

Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL

hippo

unread,

Jun 20, 2005, 10:51:48 PM6/20/05

to

"martin reboul" wrote in message

> "hippo" wrote in message

[.]

> Well said that man! Thank the stars that DSH is not typical of American
right
> wingers, or anybody with any power or responsibilty on the planet...

His politics, with a few exceptions, are typical of US conservatives
including myself. We also share a similar view of the left. What we don't
share are his tactics, if what he does can be elevated to the level of
political tactics. Make no mistake US politics can be a dirty business, but
that sort of thing has no place in an open forum intended to exchange ideas.
It belongs with politicians and the political hacks, toadies, and
'professionals' surrounding them who are paid to do it.

> I still maintain that nobody else on these groups did so much harm to the
> Republican cause as the Cut 'n Paste Commander during the last election -
by
> ostensibly claiming to support President Bush. His unsavoury obsession
with Paul
> is..... disturbing.....

I agree completely and have told him that time and again.

His obsession with Paul is probably due to the poisonous atmosphere I
noticed when first visiting SHM. It was most like a dysfunctional family
where the alpha partners had lived together too long and life had
degenerated into recruitment of side-takers and mutual exchanges of insults.
If they hadn't enjoyed it they would have long since divorced. It was my
first warning that the anonymity of Usenet can bring out the worst in people
and logic and common sense too easily fall victim to personality and
egocentrism. It may be a mirror of the real world but I don't have to like
it. -the Troll

ray o'hara

unread,

Jun 21, 2005, 9:57:37 AM6/21/05

to

"hippo" >

> His politics, with a few exceptions, are typical of US conservatives
> including myself. We also share a similar view of the left. What we don't
> share are his tactics, if what he does can be elevated to the level of
> political tactics. Make no mistake US politics can be a dirty business,
but
> that sort of thing has no place in an open forum intended to exchange
ideas.
> It belongs with politicians and the political hacks, toadies, and
> 'professionals' surrounding them who are paid to do it.

all you consevative sell is hate. website already up and running like "stop
her now.com"
and a new book out on hilary clinton 'the truth about hilary clinton, what
she knew,when she knew it and how far she'll go to become president". this
book is hoping to capitilize on the success of the swift boat veterens for
truth" campaign to cast mud and inuendo on those they fear while at the same
time they cry that "dean is mean" for daring to hit back.

conservatives have polarized the country like never before and they sell
hate but they are the biggest crybabies when it is pointed out.

hippo

unread,

Jun 21, 2005, 11:22:24 AM6/21/05

to

"ray o'hara" wrote in message

> "hippo"

> all you consevative sell is hate. website already up and running like
"stop
> her now.com"
> and a new book out on hilary clinton 'the truth about hilary clinton, what
> she knew,when she knew it and how far she'll go to become president". this
> book is hoping to capitilize on the success of the swift boat veterens for
> truth" campaign to cast mud and inuendo on those they fear while at the
same
> time they cry that "dean is mean" for daring to hit back.
>
> conservatives have polarized the country like never before and they sell
> hate but they are the biggest crybabies when it is pointed out.

Let me speak for conservatives, I know what I am talking about. Most of us
don't indulge in hate mongering and other vile practices. That's the private
specialty of the 'dirty works' boys who I detest as do all of my friends.
These people do NOT speak for me or the vast majority of American
conservative voters. Even then they are no worse than the mud slingers from
the other side and no more divisive. There are as many hate-mongering
websites from the left as there are from the right. It has become an all too
prevalent feature of the modern US political landscape which I see as a
symptom of sickness and potential future danger which have pointed it out
often enough on these groups. Civil wars result from political radicalism
which polarizes societies. Don't fool yourself that Socialism hasn't and
isn't now polarizing politics. -the Troll

Grey Satterfield

unread,

Jun 21, 2005, 2:47:06 PM6/21/05

to

On 6/21/05 8:57 AM, in article gbqdnfmFstl...@comcast.com, "ray

o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> all you consevative sell is hate. website already up and running like "stop
> her now.com"
> and a new book out on hilary clinton 'the truth about hilary clinton, what
> she knew,when she knew it and how far she'll go to become president". this
> book is hoping to capitilize on the success of the swift boat veterens for
> truth" campaign to cast mud and inuendo on those they fear while at the same
> time they cry that "dean is mean" for daring to hit back.
>
> conservatives have polarized the country like never before and they sell
> hate but they are the biggest crybabies when it is pointed out.

Ray should relax and remember that Mr. Dooley was right when he said,
"Politics ain't beanbag." Presidential candidates are always subjected to
this kind of stuff, no matter their political affiliation.

Grey Satterfield

unread,

Jun 21, 2005, 3:12:10 PM6/21/05

to

On 6/21/05 1:47 PM, in article BEDDCADA.1847D%grey.sat...@oscn.net,

I apologize for responding to my own post but I just saw a highly critical
piece about the new book attacking Hillary:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/061505.htm
l

Dick Morris is as solid a Republican as their is and detests Hillary, to
boot. Nevertheless, he observes, correctly I think, that the Klein book
attacking Hillary is so over-the-top that it is counterproductive for
Republicans. I agree. Politicians launch attacks because they can be
productive but attacks that lack credibility always backfire.

Grey Satterfield

Fred J. McCall

unread,

Jun 21, 2005, 10:18:04 PM6/21/05

to

"hippo" <hi...@south-sudan.net> wrote:

:"ray o'hara" wrote in message
:>
:> all you consevative sell is hate. website already up and running like "stop

:> her now.com"
:> and a new book out on hilary clinton 'the truth about hilary clinton, what
:> she knew,when she knew it and how far she'll go to become president". this
:> book is hoping to capitilize on the success of the swift boat veterens for
:> truth" campaign to cast mud and inuendo on those they fear while at the same
:> time they cry that "dean is mean" for daring to hit back.
:>
:> conservatives have polarized the country like never before and they sell
:> hate but they are the biggest crybabies when it is pointed out.
:
:Let me speak for conservatives, I know what I am talking about. Most of us
:don't indulge in hate mongering and other vile practices. That's the private
:specialty of the 'dirty works' boys who I detest as do all of my friends.
:These people do NOT speak for me or the vast majority of American
:conservative voters. Even then they are no worse than the mud slingers from
:the other side and no more divisive.

In fact, mostly LESS so. Even worse, the hate mongers on the right
are generally viewed as 'fringe', while the hate mongers on the left
wind up being things like Chairman of the DNC.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

hippo

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 12:38:56 AM6/22/05

to

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

Probably right, Fred, but I didn't want to get into a tit-for-tat on the
subject. The damned things go on forever, get nowhere, and are themselves
tools of propagandists. -the Troll

D. Spencer Hines

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 2:46:36 PM6/22/05

to

Edward Klein was the editor of The New York Times Magazine for 11 years
and won a Pulitzer for it.

He is a Great Deal more credible than most people at the NYT.

Experienced, Respected Journalist...Who Does Not Want Hillary To Become
President.

There is nothing wrong with that -- and there is absolutely no "Zone Of
Privacy" for a Presidential candidate.

We need to know EVERYTHING about Hillary Clinton -- including all about
her sexuality at Wellesley, activities in Little Rock when her husband
was governor, her alleged affair with Vince Foster and her undergraduate
thesis -- which is allegedly stewed and suffused with Marxist thought
and jargon.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Grey Satterfield" <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote in message
news:BEDF072E.184EE%grey.sat...@oscn.net...

| His character notwithstanding, Morris is a savvy political operator
| who understands that attacks against one's opponents are effective
| only if they are credible. I'm not sure he is right about Klein's new
| Hillary book, though. It appears that Klein is an old time New York
| magazine guy who has no particular political axes to grind and has
| sources to back up what he has written about Hillary. Time will tell.
|
| Grey Satterfield

ray o'hara

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 2:23:14 PM6/22/05

to

"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dDhue.19$aH....@eagle.america.net...

then how about we get to know everything about the sitting president? his
drug use his drinking, his wife murdering her ex-boyfriend{i know it was
just an accident, he dumps her and she just happens to run a stop sign and
crash into his car and kill him,all a tragic coincidence, yeah right} the
stories of his homosexual orgies and threesomes with laura and condi, his
military service or lack there of.
whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

ray o'hara

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 2:26:48 PM6/22/05

to

"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dDhue.19$aH....@eagle.america.net...

and if "bush-haters "wanted another viet nam it would seem best to let it
happen rather than complain about the war and call for its end.
it's the bush-lovers who want a war without end and a head-in-the-sand
aquiesance from the people.

ray o'hara

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 12:46:43 PM6/22/05

to

"Grey Satterfield" <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote in message

news:BEDDD0BA>

> Dick Morris is as solid a Republican as their is and detests Hillary, to
> boot. Nevertheless, he observes, correctly I think, that the Klein book
> attacking Hillary is so over-the-top that it is counterproductive for
> Republicans. I agree. Politicians launch attacks because they can be
> productive but attacks that lack credibility always backfire.
>
> Grey Satterfield
>

dick morris was the one who told slick willy to deny the monica affair and
then he went on all those sunday morning talk shows attacking clinton, this
after he destroyed his own marriage with an affair. he is right up there in
the most disgusting personalities in politics today.
and being a sold republican didn't stop him from working for the dems.

ray o'hara

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 12:48:53 PM6/22/05

to

"hippo" <hi...@south-sudan.net> wrote in message

news:11bgc4p...@corp.supernews.com...

right like bill frist sells anything but discord and hate. and now that the
autopsy shows shiavo's husband was correct jeb bush has decided to sic the
police on him in revenge for showing jeb up. of course we all know they are
fringe republicans ,right?

Grey Satterfield

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 1:16:46 PM6/22/05

to

On 6/22/05 11:46 AM, in article GtCdnWWKg75...@comcast.com, "ray
o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> "Grey Satterfield" <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote in message
> news:BEDDD0BA>
>> Dick Morris is as solid a Republican as their is and detests Hillary, to
>> boot. Nevertheless, he observes, correctly I think, that the Klein book
>> attacking Hillary is so over-the-top that it is counterproductive for
>> Republicans. I agree. Politicians launch attacks because they can be
>> productive but attacks that lack credibility always backfire.
>>

> dick morris was the one who told slick willy to deny the monica affair and
> then he went on all those sunday morning talk shows attacking clinton, this
> after he destroyed his own marriage with an affair. he is right up there in
> the most disgusting personalities in politics today.
> and being a sold republican didn't stop him from working for the dems.

His character notwithstanding, Morris is a savvy political operator who

aelthric

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 5:42:25 AM6/22/05

to

hippo wrote:
> "martin reboul" wrote in message
>
>
>>"hippo" wrote in message

> Make no mistake US politics can be a dirty business, but

> that sort of thing has no place in an open forum intended to exchange ideas.

Indeed it has no place in alt.history.british nor in soc.history.medieval.

Cross posting to inappropriate newsgroups is not only bad manners but
shows very little intelligence.

Cross posting as prolifically as D.Spencer Hines does to inappropriate
newsgroups can only be construed as a SPAM attack on those Newsgroups.

Dad

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 10:31:05 AM6/22/05

to

"aelthric" <jo...@doe.com> wrote in message
news:d9bbl1$i01$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...

> Cross posting as prolifically as D.Spencer Hines does to inappropriate
> newsgroups can only be construed as a SPAM attack on those Newsgroups.

Say what?

D. Spencer Hines

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 4:07:02 PM6/22/05

to

Indeed.

But the Left still won't admit to those simple facts of History.

Look at Pogue Gans's continuing rampant, simpering denials on these
issues.

They live inside a carefully self-constructed mantle of self-deceit.

DSH

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11bjdmo...@corp.supernews.com...

| 2) The VietNam debacle was NOT caused by the US military.
| It was caused by politicians who were too venal to stand up to the
| leftist anti-war propaganda.
| Until the US pulled out of VietNam, the NVA was losing.
| The US pullout caused the deaths of millions of people in VietNam,
| Cambodia, and the other nearby nations.
| It made possible the killing fields under Pol Pot.

SaPeIsMa

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 3:04:31 PM6/22/05

to

"ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4YidneqWt_7...@comcast.com...

1) The only problem with your position is simply that a war against
Jihadist Islamo-facists will ONLY end when there are no more of them left.
Because the Jihadists have clearly stated that they want to convert
the world into a Caliphate.
2) The VietNam deblacle was NOT caused by the US military.

It was caused by politicians who were too venal to stand up to the
leftist anti-war propaganda.
Until the US pulled out of VietNam, the NVA was losing.
The US pullout caused the deaths of millions of people in VietNam,
Cambodia, and the other nearby nations.

It made possiblethe killing fields under Pol Pot.

ray o'hara

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 7:25:02 PM6/22/05

to

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11bjdmo...@corp.supernews.com...
>

the problems in iraq aren't the army's fault and we didn't lose in viet nam
because of"leftist" propaganda , we lost because after ten years people
began to notice we weren't getting anywhere. what would you suggest they
army could have done and not start ww 3?

> Until the US pulled out of VietNam, the NVA was losing.
> The US pullout caused the deaths of millions of people in VietNam,
> Cambodia, and the other nearby nations.
> It made possiblethe killing fields under Pol Pot.

you could say that about the american revolution too. the brits won 90% of
the battles and still lost.
our invasion and then pull back maybe cambodia a concern, but seeing as we
couldn't pacify viet nam what makes you think expanding the war would be
successful?

you make all the usual mindless charges and excuses, you have no idea what
you are talking about but figure if you use words like leftist and liberal
you are on to something.
keep listening to rush the junkie.

ray o'hara

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 7:27:37 PM6/22/05

to

"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:M5jue.22$aH...@eagle.america.net...

> Indeed.
>
> But the Left still won't admit to those simple facts of History.
>
> Look at Pogue Gans's continuing rampant, simpering denials on these
> issues.
>
> They live inside a carefully self-constructed mantle of self-deceit.
>
> DSH

no it is idiot right wingnuts that keep clinging to the myth that we could
have won in viet nam "if only" well if only what? you wingnuts always leave
that part out.
william westmoreland was the most incompetant american general since
mcclellen.

As...@tds.com

unread,

Jun 22, 2005, 10:30:03 PM6/22/05

to

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:27:37 -0400, "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net>
wrote:

I think you are being unfair to McClellen.

Grey Satterfield

unread,

South VietNam, with the erosion of the military capacity of North VietNam
would have ended up like South Korea, had the politicians prevailed.
The fact that the US media and inteligentsia was and has been (for far too
long) left-leaning did not help matters.
And South Korea is CLEARLY a VICTORY against the communist Dictatorial
spread of North Korea.

SaPeIsMa

unread,

Jun 23, 2005, 7:13:31 PM6/23/05

to

"ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:yOadnd_nEIn...@comcast.com...

Doing anything more aggressive in VietNam would NOT have started WWIII as
you implicit
That has got to be the most ignorant claim from you yet.

>
>
>> Until the US pulled out of VietNam, the NVA was losing.
>> The US pullout caused the deaths of millions of people in
>> VietNam,
>> Cambodia, and the other nearby nations.
>> It made possiblethe killing fields under Pol Pot.
>
> you could say that about the american revolution too. the brits won 90% of
> the battles and still lost.
> our invasion and then pull back maybe cambodia a concern, but seeing as we
> couldn't pacify viet nam what makes you think expanding the war would be
> successful?
>

Sout VietNam was pretty well pacified, which is why the battle went
elsewhere.
Reember Cambodia ?
The US didn't have to "expand the war"
They just had to do a war of attrition which was already well on it's way.
That is the reason why the North Vietnamese went to Paris and played games
there.
The stupid leftists in the US, and the includes the Governement didn't have
enough intelligence to realize that the game was the same but the rules and
the board had been changed.

The same thing is true in Iraq today.
And the same process is being started with the anti-war crowd.
And why not, if worked for VietNam, so why shouldn't it work with Iraq.

> you make all the usual mindless charges and excuses, you have no idea what
> you are talking about but figure if you use words like leftist and liberal
> you are on to something.
> keep listening to rush the junkie.
>

The above is actually a 100% accurate description of you.
Don't project your bad habits on me.

William Black

unread,

Jun 24, 2005, 1:26:29 PM6/24/05

to

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:11bmg41...@corp.supernews.com...

> Agreed about Wesmoreland. But we have to note that the politicians got
into
> the game and did not let him be the general in charge.
> Too bad we didn't have a crew equal to those in Desert Storm, Afghanistan
> and the cleanup of Iraq.

That's rather the point.

Get into an unpopular war and highly competent and effective soldiers go and
look elsewhere for employment.

It seems to be happening again with Iraq as the intelligent and motivated
start to go elsewhere for employment, nobody with a brain wants to be
associated with a war that sucks.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

amin...@netdoor.com

unread,

Jun 24, 2005, 2:41:42 PM6/24/05

to

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:53:33 -0400, Vince Brannigan <ne...@firelaw.us>
wrote:

You really have no expertise in the area of military strategy and
tactics. Remember when you were saying that the US and UK did not have
sufficient forces in theater to reach Bhagdad?? Of course the fact
that you have never done anything to support the US Armed Forces and
think that the US Government is a great na** conspiracy tend to
minimize any credibility that you may have had in snm

Al Minyard

Guns don't kill people.
Husbands that come home early kill people !!

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 24, 2005, 3:26:11 PM6/24/05

to

Better cite what you claim I said.

Of course the fact
> that you have never done anything to support the US Armed Forces and
> think that the US Government is a great na** conspiracy tend to
> minimize any credibility that you may have had in snm
>

This simply a matter of the study of history You cannot defeat an
insurgency with the tactics as described. they read like a harkkonen
fantasy from "dune"

look at this core claim

>>>That would mean, establishing secure areas for our troops as bases, to
>>>minimize our casualties, expanding those secure areas as resources are
>>>available, and using them to launch attacks on the terrorists when
>>>opportunities present themselves, always with the aim of minimizing our
>>>own casualties while maximizing the pain the enemy suffers.

how do you do it? How do you know where they are?

Vince

Since Pogue Brannigan is an "expert" on fires this should be a most
interesting "problem" for him.

When he smells his own arse-cheeks burning he will know what he is up
against.

Tally Ho!

Get out the hog spits lads, the long ones!
--------------------------------------

Grey Satterfield

unread,

Jun 25, 2005, 8:01:40 AM6/25/05

to

On 6/24/05 9:53 PM, in article zG3ve.90332$tt5.65012@edtnps90, "La N"
<nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Vince is like everyone else who opposed the war from the beginning. They
said we couldn't defeat Saddam's army and then we did. They said there
could never be successful elections in Iraq and then there were. When Vince
and others of his ilk complain about any aspect of Iraq policy it's vital to
consider the source. They are just as wrong now as they before we won the
war.

Grey Satterfield

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 25, 2005, 9:10:57 AM6/25/05

to

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> "Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:i_mdnVU7VbP...@comcast.com...
>
> | IMHO Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone
> |
> | jus' my opinion
> |
> | Vince
>
> ------------------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------
>

I note you snipped the context where I am explaining the use of the term
"IMHO" its my opinion on the Usenet term.

Abuse noted but snipped.

Vince

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 25, 2005, 10:01:42 AM6/25/05

to

cite?

please stick to real evidence

"To topple Saddam Hussein wills cost "X" lives and "Y " billion
dollars. All kinds of folks make assumptions that we can somehow use
Iraqi oil wealth to pay for the financial costs but , as a practical
matter I don't think we can."

Aug 13 2002,

They said there
> could never be successful elections in Iraq and then there were.

this one is still open

When Vince
> and others of his ilk complain about any aspect of Iraq policy it's vital to
> consider the source. They are just as wrong now as they before we won the
> war.
>
> Grey Satterfield
>

lets see what I said

Aug 18 2003, Vince Brannigan
I was not the one who claimed that this occupation would be a cinch
"David Loewe, Jr." wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2003 04:27:43 GMT, Vince Brannigan
> <vze2t...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >Its a country the size of california. how many americans do you
think it will take to garrison a hostile country the size of california?
> >How many cansualties do we take?
>
> How many GIs died in the occupation of Japan, Vince?

Japan showed no signs of hostility once the government and emperor
surrendered. Japan is a homogenous and cohesive country.
Iraq is neither.

Vince

Quote for March 21 2003
I stated
"It's a political war, for political ends. They had better be able to
carry out political not merely military goals." The last ultimatum we
gave SH was to go into exile. that's a political demand we are
enforcing a political demand using military force. ....
We are in a war. we have political war aims. e.g. what do we do with
the Kurds Its critical that our military understand and carry out these
political aims. My peronal belief is that was is a very por way to
accomplish these aims.
Since when did believing in peace become "anti american?
Sheesh
Vince

Apr 20 2003,
Local: Sun,Apr 20 2003 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: Curioser and Curioser
what I said is on the rcord
"If the Iraqis decide to fight ( and that's a big if) everything we have
done so far will have no effect on that battle."
March 24th 2003

Vince Brannigan Mar 27 2004, 9:55 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
From: Vince Brannigan <fire...@pressroom.com> - Find messages by this
authorDate: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 02:55:21 GMT

Oh I've been wrong many times, I'll admit it.
I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on WMDs in Iraq. .
I confess error.

Vince

Soren Larsen

unread,

Jun 25, 2005, 10:47:38 AM6/25/05

to

Grey Satterfield wrote:
> On 6/24/05 9:53 PM, in article zG3ve.90332$tt5.65012@edtnps90, "La N"
> <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Vince is like everyone else who opposed the war from the beginning.

I did.

> They said we couldn't defeat Saddam's army and then we did.

I never said anything of the kind...

I guess that makes you a liar, but being a bushevich you likely
dont care.

> They
> said there could never be successful elections in Iraq and then there
> were.

You are wrong twice here Greg.

I never said anything about elections at that time.

There has not been held successful elections in Iraq with participation
all voters.

Elections without the voters are hardly succesful.

>When Vince and others of his ilk complain about any aspect of
> Iraq policy it's vital to consider the source. They are just as
> wrong now as they before we won the war.

Let's see

No surrender from the enemy has been achieved.

No peace deal has been made with the enemy

US troops are still being killed daily by the enemy.

A good thing you didn't loose, I guess.

I hear that Comical Ali was contacted regarding a
position as spokesman for the Bush administration,
but that he declined on moral grounds.

Grey might be a good second choice.

Soren Larsen

HawkCW4

unread,

Jun 25, 2005, 1:37:11 PM6/25/05

to

Soren Larsen wrote:
> Grey Satterfield wrote:
>
>>On 6/24/05 9:53 PM, in article zG3ve.90332$tt5.65012@edtnps90, "La N"
>><nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Vince is like everyone else who opposed the war from the beginning.
>
>
> I did.
>
>
>>They said we couldn't defeat Saddam's army and then we did.
>
>
> I never said anything of the kind...
>
> I guess that makes you a liar, but being a bushevich you likely
> dont care.
>
>
>>They
>>said there could never be successful elections in Iraq and then there
>>were.
>
>
> You are wrong twice here Greg.
>
> I never said anything about elections at that time.
>
> There has not been held successful elections in Iraq with participation
> all voters.

Well there you have it. In this country (USA) we have managed to
survive for some 200+ years while enjoying UN-successful elections. Not
once have we had participation of all voters.

Ed
USA Ret

Soren Larsen

unread,

Jun 25, 2005, 6:11:40 PM6/25/05

to

HawkCW4 wrote:
> Soren Larsen wrote:
>> Grey Satterfield wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/24/05 9:53 PM, in article zG3ve.90332$tt5.65012@edtnps90, "La
>>> N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Vince is like everyone else who opposed the war from the beginning.
>>
>>
>> I did.
>>
>>
>>> They said we couldn't defeat Saddam's army and then we did.
>>
>>
>> I never said anything of the kind...
>>
>> I guess that makes you a liar, but being a bushevich you likely
>> dont care.
>>
>>
>>> They
>>> said there could never be successful elections in Iraq and then
>>> there were.
>>
>>
>> You are wrong twice here Greg.
>>
>> I never said anything about elections at that time.
>>
>> There has not been held successful elections in Iraq with
>> participation all voters.
>
> Well there you have it. In this country (USA) we have managed to
> survive for some 200+ years while enjoying UN-successful elections.
> Not once have we had participation of all voters.

I would say your system had a glitch when the confederates decided
not to participate.

To have successful elections in Iraq you need the Sunnis to participate.
Otherwise they wont be bound by the result.

Soren Larsen

HawkCW4

unread,

Jun 25, 2005, 8:43:27 PM6/25/05

to

Are you saying they were excluded from any election results or entrys?

I recall being in deep Mexico during one election, where mail is not
even part of the vocabulary and therefore absentee voting was out of the
question. Seems an election was held without me. But believe it or
not, those guys still counted it.

Ed
USA Ret

Mark Test

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 12:30:19 AM6/26/05

to

"Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
news:42bdd798$0$63668$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...

> I would say your system had a glitch when the confederates decided
> not to participate.
>
> To have successful elections in Iraq you need the Sunnis to participate.
> Otherwise they wont be bound by the result.
>
> Soren Larsen

Soren, that's not how it works. You get a chance to vote, you choose not to
vote it's your business. As was mentioned earlier, in the states we've
never
and will never have everyone vote. If the Sunin's want a say, they vote, if
not,
they'll have no say. The choice is their's, no one elses.

Mark

LawsonE

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 12:39:53 AM6/26/05

to

"Mark Test" <MAR...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:vbqve.11730$pa3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

In an ideal world, that may be the case. However, in the practical world,
shutting the Sunnis out of the entire political process because they didn't
vote in enough numbers would be disasterous.

Think: the black American vs white American conflict, but where the blacks
traditionally held most of the power and money and prestige (and weapons!)
until after the American civil war when suddenly they were treated like
blacks actually were treated after the Civil War. You think the Watts and
Harlem and L.A. riots were bad...

Soren Larsen

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 4:50:51 AM6/26/05

to

Let me make it billboard bright and clear to you.

It is not about individuals.

If the US were occupied by foreign invaders who wanted you to
adopt a new constitution and a number of states boycotted the
election preferring to fight it out.

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 12:52:24 PM6/26/05

to

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 04:30:19 GMT, "Mark Test" <MAR...@peoplepc.com>
wrote:

>Soren, that's not how it works. You get a chance to vote, you choose not to
>vote it's your business. As was mentioned earlier, in the states we've
>never
>and will never have everyone vote. If the Sunin's want a say, they vote, if
>not,
>they'll have no say. The choice is their's, no one elses.

And what Soren is ignorant of is the fact that Sunnis have been given
a say (and representation) in the Iraqi government. He ignores the
fact that the terrorists do not speak for the majority of the Iraqi
Sunni people.

Soren Larsen

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 1:05:07 PM6/26/05

to

Colin Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:11:40 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> wrote:
>
>
>> To have successful elections in Iraq you need the Sunnis to
>> participate. Otherwise they wont be bound by the result.
>
> They were bound by the result.

Of course not.

You cant be bound by an election you didn't participate in
unless you are somehow previously obligated to respect it.

>And in fact they are now working
> within the political process.

Of course. It is all politics.

They are however not bound by the election and
can legitimately choce to fight.

> Remember that many Sunnis did vote.

The point is that the vast majority didn't

>
> Face it - the election was successful and produced a government seen
> as legitimate by the vast majority Iraqi people. And they are the
> only ones whose opinions count.

Indeed.

And the Sunni can rightfully claim that the government doesnt represent them
and legitimately ignore it.

Soren Larsen

Colin Campbell

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 1:46:37 PM6/26/05

to

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:05:07 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
wrote:

>Colin Campbell wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:11:40 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> To have successful elections in Iraq you need the Sunnis to
>>> participate. Otherwise they wont be bound by the result.
>>
>> They were bound by the result.
>
>Of course not.
>
>You cant be bound by an election you didn't participate in
>unless you are somehow previously obligated to respect it.

Really? They were offered the chance to vote and chose not to (mostly
out of fear of being murdered if they voted).

Even after this they were given a role in the government.

>
>
>>And in fact they are now working
>> within the political process.
>
>Of course. It is all politics.
>
>They are however not bound by the election and
>can legitimately choce to fight.

BS. You are saying at a small percentage of the Iraqi Sunni
population should be allowed to use terrorism to dictate to everybody
else?

>> Remember that many Sunnis did vote.
>
>The point is that the vast majority didn't

And are you aware of the reasons they did not vote? I was there at
the time - I saw the death threats being made against anybody who
voted.

Interesting how you support the people who are using violence to deny
the Iraqi people the chance to choose their own future.

>
>>
>> Face it - the election was successful and produced a government seen
>> as legitimate by the vast majority Iraqi people. And they are the
>> only ones whose opinions count.
>
>Indeed.
>
>And the Sunni can rightfully claim that the government doesnt represent them
>and legitimately ignore it.

Since there is proportional representation of Sunni interests in the
government - this claims is false.

I take it you have not been following Iraqi politics?

The Iraqi people have made their choice. Why should we allow thugs
and terrorists to deny them this?

La N

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 1:49:42 PM6/26/05

to

"Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message

news:42bee123$0$63701$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...

Listen, Soren, I don't get your logic. I live in Canada, and a helluvalot
of
people unfortunately don't turn out to vote. And then they whine when
their candidate didn't get it. They will say their government doesn't
represent them. Does it give them the right to take up arms and fight
the MPs and/or MLAs?

Same with the U.S.

I'm just guessing you hate the U.S. so much you can't think logically.

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 2:31:07 PM6/26/05

to

La N wrote:

>
>
> Listen, Soren, I don't get your logic. I live in Canada, and a helluvalot
> of
> people unfortunately don't turn out to vote. And then they whine when
> their candidate didn't get it. They will say their government doesn't
> represent them. Does it give them the right to take up arms and fight
> the MPs and/or MLAs?
>
> Same with the U.S.
>
> I'm just guessing you hate the U.S. so much you can't think logically.
>

let me demonstrate

1) I personally pick the candidates You may vote for my brother George
or my brother bill

2) Its the south after the civil war , all candidates who fought for the
confederacy and all their relatives are ineligible.

3) its the south after the civil war all candidates mus have
Grandfathers who voted

4) its northern Ireland every constituency is gerry mandered so that its
2/3 Protestant and 1/3 catholic as a result no catholic ever gets elected.

5Its Canada no candidate will be permitted who is not 100 percent fluent
in English and speaks without a French accent

Etc.

there are many reason why a mere election does not confer legitimacy

Vince

Soren Larsen

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 2:40:34 PM6/26/05

to

You guys are bound by constitution and laws to respect your elections.
I am bound by the constitution and laws of Denmark to respect our elections.

The Sunnis however are not bound by laws set up by other people unless
they either agree or are forced.

This means that you need either a deal or a surrender from those resisting.
(Them simply stop fighting would of course also do)

Would you feel bound by elections that foreign forces imposed on Canada
unless you had agreed and participated?

Soren Larsen

Colin Campbell

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 3:03:10 PM6/26/05

to

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:40:34 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
wrote:

>The Sunnis however are not bound by laws set up by other people unless
>they either agree or are forced.

Which Sunnis are you talking about? The majority of Iraqi Sunnis
support the government.

You keep acting as if all (or even a majority) of the Iraqi Sunnis are
among the Bathist terrorists.

Soren Larsen

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 3:19:45 PM6/26/05

to

Colin Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:40:34 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> wrote:
>
>
>> The Sunnis however are not bound by laws set up by other people
>> unless they either agree or are forced.
>
> Which Sunnis are you talking about? The majority of Iraqi Sunnis
> support the government.
>

If true we would have seen more than token Sunni participation in
the election.

When the Shia got an acceptable deal they turned out despite
threaths.

So would the Sunni.

If true the resistence wouldn't be able to operate, and we would
not see bits and pieces of you guys fly through the air all the time.

You should have won by now if the population was on your side.

You have not.

Soren Larsen

La N

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 3:42:26 PM6/26/05

to

"Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message

news:n5ednXRBRq_...@comcast.com...

And, so the ideal thing would be for us to form little militias and
try to take down the government. Great.

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 3:46:25 PM6/26/05

to

La N wrote:
> "Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:n5ednXRBRq_...@comcast.com...

>>

>>there are many reason why a mere election does not confer legitimacy
>>
>
>
> And, so the ideal thing would be for us to form little militias and
> try to take down the government. Great.
>
>

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.......

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that
mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security.

Etc

Vince

La N

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 3:50:26 PM6/26/05

to

"Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message

news:bOudnWCfs-e...@comcast.com...

Well, I don't see what this has to do with the other poster's claim
that the insurgency in Iraq have a right to fight against the government
because of what he sees as its "illegitimacy".

Are you also for the insurgency in Iraq? Or is this an apples
and oranges thing.

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 3:56:10 PM6/26/05

to

La N wrote:
> "Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message

> news:bOudnWCfs-e...@comcast.com...

>>Etc
>>
>
>
> Well, I don't see what this has to do with the other poster's claim
> that the insurgency in Iraq have a right to fight against the government
> because of what he sees as its "illegitimacy".
>
> Are you also for the insurgency in Iraq? Or is this an apples
> and oranges thing.
>
>

the colonists had elections. they simply did not think the elections
gave legitimacy to the government. Elections are a necessary but not
sufficient support for democracy

Vince

D. Spencer Hines

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 4:51:01 PM6/26/05

to

Pogue Brannigan is so stupid he thinks we all need a tutorial in the
American Declaration of Independence and the Political Philosophy of
John Locke.

Hilarious!

Only an Academic could be this stupid.

DSH

"Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message

news:bOudnWCfs-e...@comcast.com...

Colin Campbell

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 3:59:09 PM6/26/05

to

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:19:45 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
wrote:

>Colin Campbell wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:40:34 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The Sunnis however are not bound by laws set up by other people
>>> unless they either agree or are forced.
>>
>> Which Sunnis are you talking about? The majority of Iraqi Sunnis
>> support the government.
>>
>
>
>If true we would have seen more than token Sunni participation in
>the election.

You forget the fear factor. The people in the Sunni areas were
terrorized into staying away from the polls.

>
>When the Shia got an acceptable deal they turned out despite
>threaths.

Because the threats were not as enforceable. 72 hours before the
elections all roads were closed - thus keeping the Bathist/Whabbi
terrorists trapped in Sunni areas.

Unfortunately this had the effect of increasing the intimidation
factor in Sunni areas. (Something you seem to be deliberately
ignoring.)

I have a question - would you vote if people who have demonstrated
their willingness to kill entire families told you that they were
watching you - and would kill your entire family if you voted? This
is the sort of thing that the majority of the Sunni population in Iraq
is dealing with.

But then again, you appear to want the Bathist/Whabbi thugs to rule
Iraq.

>
>So would the Sunni.
>
>If true the resistence wouldn't be able to operate, and we would
>not see bits and pieces of you guys fly through the air all the time.

You need to learn more about what percentage of the population is
required to support an insurgency.

>
>You should have won by now if the population was on your side.

And what qualifies you to make this claim?

So far you have demonstrated an ignorance of military operations,
Iraqi politics, who the enemy is and what the enemy is fighting for.
Yet, you make these grandiose pronouncements.

D. Spencer Hines

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 4:56:41 PM6/26/05

to

Pogue Brannigan is just a shyster lawyer -- who likes to argue all sides
of an argument.

For Fun & Games....

DSH

"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6GDve.92237$tt5.1114@edtnps90...

| Are you [Pogue Brannigan] also for the insurgency

La N

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 4:04:51 PM6/26/05

to

"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:7p1ub1dnlictq024p...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:19:45 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> wrote:
>
>>Colin Campbell wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:40:34 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Sunnis however are not bound by laws set up by other people
>>>> unless they either agree or are forced.
>>>
>>> Which Sunnis are you talking about? The majority of Iraqi Sunnis
>>> support the government.
>>>
>>
>>
>>If true we would have seen more than token Sunni participation in
>>the election.
>
> You forget the fear factor. The people in the Sunni areas were
> terrorized into staying away from the polls.

I saw a news report that detailed that of the few that showed up in a
particularly dangerous constituency, some of the voters actually
spat on the bodies of dead suicide bombers - who actually blew themselves
up prematurely thus missing their intended targets - on their way to
casting their votes. Thus sending a clear message that these few Iraqi
voters
were not to be intimidated by thugs.

.

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 4:35:30 PM6/26/05

to

A few people do need to be reminded of it on a regular basis.

The rest can merely be comforted by the thoughts

Vince

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 4:36:14 PM6/26/05

to

note the lack of content.
sticks and stones

Vince

Grey Satterfield

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 4:56:06 PM6/26/05

to

On 6/26/05 11:50 AM, in article lqmtb19mbleb22o6p...@4ax.com,

The toweringly foolish notion that the Iraq elections were somehow
illegitimate because not enough Sunnis voted is simply the Angry Left's
excuse de jure. They will use any reason, no matter how silly, to decry the
results. After all, something must be wrong with the results because they
resulted from the actions of "that stupid cowboy, George W. Bush." In
short, it makes more sense to me to simply consider the source than to
trouble to answer preposterous malarkey such as this.

Grey Satterfield

Soren Larsen

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 4:55:47 PM6/26/05

to

Colin Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:19:45 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> wrote:
>
>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:40:34 +0200, "Soren Larsen"
>>> <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Sunnis however are not bound by laws set up by other people
>>>> unless they either agree or are forced.
>>>
>>> Which Sunnis are you talking about? The majority of Iraqi Sunnis
>>> support the government.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If true we would have seen more than token Sunni participation in
>> the election.
>
> You forget the fear factor. The people in the Sunni areas were
> terrorized into staying away from the polls.

The problem with this claim is that voters in mixed areas totally backed
Shia and Kurd lists, meaning that the Shia and Kurds in these areas
turned up while the Sunni boycotted the election.

Exit fear factor, enter boycott.

>
>
>>
>> When the Shia got an acceptable deal they turned out despite
>> threaths.
>
> Because the threats were not as enforceable. 72 hours before the
> elections all roads were closed - thus keeping the Bathist/Whabbi
> terrorists trapped in Sunni areas.
>
> Unfortunately this had the effect of increasing the intimidation
> factor in Sunni areas. (Something you seem to be deliberately
> ignoring.)

Which is demonstrably untrue since the Sunni stayed home also
in the mixed areas while other groups turned out.

>
> I have a question - would you vote if people who have demonstrated
> their willingness to kill entire families told you that they were
> watching you - and would kill your entire family if you voted? This
> is the sort of thing that the majority of the Sunni population in Iraq
> is dealing with.

If I knew that they where an insignificant minority I would.

I would of course notify the relevant authorities about the threath.

If I abhorred the invasion and knew my neighbourghs had the
same feelings I wouldn't show up to begin with.

>
> But then again, you appear to want the Bathist/Whabbi thugs to rule
> Iraq.

Not really.

But then it doesn't matter what you, I, or Bush want for Iraq.

I hope for a stable Iraq better of than with Saddam, but I dont
believe it will happen while you guys are there.

You are the magnet that attract the Al-qaida types.
You are the guys whos presence is unacceptable for the nationalists.

You will have to do a peace deal that include the Sunni but
excludes Al-qaida.

>
>>
>> So would the Sunni.
>>
>> If true the resistence wouldn't be able to operate, and we would
>> not see bits and pieces of you guys fly through the air all the time.
>
> You need to learn more about what percentage of the population is
> required to support an insurgency.

Direct support, moral suport, or acceptance of its existence?

>
>>
>> You should have won by now if the population was on your side.
>
> And what qualifies you to make this claim?

The very simple fact that they would be reported to you, the police or
whichever relevant authority if there was no popular support.

This is how society works if there is forces around capable of dealing
those breaking the peace.

>
> So far you have demonstrated an ignorance of military operations,
> Iraqi politics, who the enemy is and what the enemy is fighting for.
> Yet, you make these grandiose pronouncements.

You are simply too blinded by your own fantasies to even glimpse
reality.

Soren Larsen

wag...@yahoo.dk

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 5:05:22 PM6/26/05

to

Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 10:50:51 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Let me make it billboard bright and clear to you.
> >
> >It is not about individuals.
> >
> >If the US were occupied by foreign invaders who wanted you to
> >adopt a new constitution and a number of states boycotted the
> >election preferring to fight it out.
> >
> > Then the elections could hardly be desctribed as succesful
> >no matter how much spin the invaders piled on.
>
> Of course this is not the situation in Iraq.
>
> Even the Council Of Islamic Scholars have accepted the election
> results. (You do recognize why this is so significant - right?)

To secular Sunnis?

>
> Apparently you have this weird idea that there is some sort of
> monolithic Iraqi Sunni bloc that only has the best interests of the
> Iraqi people in mind.

I have this very real idea that the Sunni as a block hasn't
accepted what is going on in Iraq.

Deal with it by either defeating or dealing with them.

>
> You forgive them their goal of terrorizing the other 80% of the
> population into allowing them to rule. You ignore the fact that they
> attempted to cut a deal with the US to end the insurgency if they were
> allowed to create a dictatorship.

So what? They wont get it.

Other people beside your government are allowed pipedreams.

>You ignore their atrocities against
> the Iraqi people. It seems that you will support them merely because
> they are killing Americans.

In that case I would support Al-qaida. I dont.

Soren Larsen

wag...@yahoo.dk

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 5:08:37 PM6/26/05

to

You shouldn't post if you dont understand the subject.

Of course the election was legitimate - It just wasn't succesful.

Try reading the previous posts again.

Soren Larsen

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 5:31:53 PM6/26/05

to

Grey Satterfield wrote:

>
>
> The toweringly foolish notion that the Iraq elections were somehow
> illegitimate because not enough Sunnis voted is simply the Angry Left's
> excuse de jure. They will use any reason, no matter how silly, to decry the
> results. After all, something must be wrong with the results because they
> resulted from the actions of "that stupid cowboy, George W. Bush." In
> short, it makes more sense to me to simply consider the source than to
> trouble to answer preposterous malarkey such as this.
>

I guess it all depends on whether you like who wins

Rumsfeld slams Iran's 'mock' elections
Israeli foreign minister calls vote a sign of 'radicalism'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday
called Iran's presidential election invalid and the winner "no friend of
democracy." Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rumsfeld said the Iranian
government had paved the way for ultra-conservative Tehran mayor Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad to win the post. The Iranian president does not run the
country; supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameinei has the final word in
matters of state in the Islamic theocracy. But the United States and
others hoped the victor in the election would be someone they deemed
more committed to democratic reforms.

"I think leaving the American people with the impression that it was an
election that was valid -- there were over 1,000 candidates that were
disqualified, that weren't even allowed to run," Rumsfeld said. "So the
fact that they had a mock election and elected a hard-liner ought not
come to any surprise to anybody because all the other people were told
they couldn't run." Iran's Guardian Council did disqualify more than
1,000 candidates, including all the women who wanted to run. President
Bush and others in his administration have also slammed Iran's elections.

But seven candidates -- with differences among them -- did receive
substantial numbers of votes. Many election observers had predicted
defeat for Ahmadinejad. Iran's Islamic theocratic regime supported a
different candidate, while two-term former President Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani -- who has taken softer stances on certain key issues -- was
expected to win. Rafsanjani won the most votes in the general national
elections, but Ahmadinejad took Friday's runoff with almost 62 percent
of the vote.

So is this the "angry right" ?

vince

William Black

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 5:37:05 PM6/26/05

to

"Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message

news:n5ednXRBRq_...@comcast.com...

> 4) its northern Ireland every constituency is gerry mandered so that its
> 2/3 Protestant and 1/3 catholic as a result no catholic ever gets elected.

That'll come as a hell of a shock to Jerry Adams.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 5:36:57 PM6/26/05

to

William Black wrote:
> "Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:n5ednXRBRq_...@comcast.com...
>
>
>>4) its northern Ireland every constituency is gerry mandered so that its
>>2/3 Protestant and 1/3 catholic as a result no catholic ever gets elected.
>
>
> That'll come as a hell of a shock to Jerry Adams.
>

It's a hypothetical

Vince

D. Spencer Hines

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 6:33:05 PM6/26/05

to

| The toweringly foolish notion that the Iraq elections were somehow
| illegitimate because not enough Sunnis voted is simply the Angry
| Left's excuse de jure. They will use any reason, no matter how
| silly, to decry the results. After all, something must be wrong with
| the results because they resulted from the actions of "that stupid
| cowboy, George W. Bush." In short, it makes more sense to me
| to simply consider the source than to trouble to answer
| preposterous malarkey such as this.
|
| Grey Satterfield

----------------------------------

Bingo!

Pogue Scatterbrain finally gets one RIGHT.

Even a blind and crippled boar occasionally roots up an acorn.

The Angry Left can NEVER admit that President Bush's policy WORKED --
because they have already decided he is a dangerous, ignorant "cowboy"
who must be defeated at all costs -- even if it means losing in Iraq.
They think if that were to happen the Democrats could claw their way
back into power in the White House and Congress.

CONSIDER THE SOURCE and DISCREDIT it, CONDEMN it, EXCORIATE it and
RIDICULE it -- that's precisely what I do with Pogue Gans, our
radical-chic, Left-Wing, Bush-Hating chemist at NYU. And I have been
successful beyond my wildest dreams. Even Pogue Gans says "Hines has
won." Deeelightful!

Perfectly Legitimate Tactics....

Hell, Saul Alinsky taught Hillary Rodham to use them -- tactics she
learned VERY WELL and practices every day.
----------------------------------

"RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense.
It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point
to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh?
They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it
without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and
will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no
different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities,
but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to
keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach,
hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from
all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest,
regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go
after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
(This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and
ridicule works.)"

Saul Alinsky ---- Icon & Saint of the Hard-Left. Hillary Rodham's
Political Mentor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Hippo" -- au contraire -- simply doesn't understand these Practical
Rules of Politics in 2005.

Because he's naive, rather "passive" ---- and not "confrontational".

Fat people, males, often are not . They want people to LOVE them and
ACCEPT them ---- call it the Jolly Friar Tuck Syndrome.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 5:54:49 PM6/26/05

to

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=649761&host=3&dir=65

Revealed: our friends the Romans did not invade Britain after all
Astonishing new archaeological finds reveal they were already our
countrymen 50 years before Claudius spun his way into the history books.

Steve Bloomfield reports
26 June 2005

The history of Britain will have to be rewritten. The AD43 Roman
invasion never happened - and was simply a piece of sophisticated
political spin by a weak Emperor Claudius.

A series of astonishing archaeological findings of Roman military
equipment, to be revealed this week, will prove that the Romans had
already arrived decades earlier - and that they had been welcomed with
open arms by ancient Britons.

The discovery of swords, helmets and armour in Chichester, Sussex, dates
back to a period between the late first century BC and the early first
century AD- almost 50 years before the supposed invasion. Archaeologists
who have studied the finds believe it will turn conventional Roman
history taught in schools on its head. "It is like discovering that the
Second World War started in 1938," said Dr David Rudkin, a Roman expert
leading the work.

The discoveries in Sussex will be revealed on Saturday during a Time
Team special on Channel 4 analysing the Roman invasion. Tony Robinson,
presenter of Time Team, said: "One of the frustrating things with
history is that things become set in stone. We all believe it to be
true. It is great to challenge some of the most commonly accepted pieces
of our history."

Dr Francis Pryor, president of the Council for British Archaeology, said
it would prove controversial. "It turns the conventional view taught in
all the textbooks on its head," he said. "It is going to cause lively
debate among Roman specialists."

The AD43 Roman invasion is one of the best-known events in British
history. More than 40,000 Roman soldiers are believed to have landed in
Richborough, Kent, before carving their way through the English countryside.

The evidence unearthed in Sussex overturns this theory. Archaeologists
now believe that the Romans arrived up to 50 years earlier in
Chichester. They were welcomed as liberators, overthrowing a series of
tyrannical tribal kings who had been terrorising clans across southern
England.

Sussex and Hampshire became part of the Roman Empire 50 years before the
invasion that historians have always believed was the birth of Roman
Britain.

The findings and their implications will be published by Dr Rudkin later
this year. The discoveries have centred on Fishbourne Roman Palace in
Sussex. Artefacts found there in a V-shaped ditch include part of a
copper alloy sword scabbard fitting that archaeologists have dated to
the period between the late first century BC and early first century AD.

Dr Miles Russell, a senior archaeologist at Bournemouth University who
has studied the evidence, said: "All this talk of the Romans arriving in
AD43 is just wrong. We get so fixated on the idea of a single invasion.
It is far more piecemeal. In Sussex and Hampshire they were in togas and
speaking Latin five decades before everyone else."

According to Dr Russell, it was in Emperor Claudius's interest to "spin"
the invasion of AD43 as a great triumph against strong opposition.
Claudius had become emperor two years earlier but his position following
the death of Caligula was tenuous. A bold military adventure to expand
the empire would tighten Claudius's grip in Rome and prove his
credentials as a strong leader.

"Every period of history has its own spin doctors, and Claudius spun the
invasion to look strong," Dr Russell said. "But Britain was Roman before
Claudius got here."

Julius Caesar first tried to conquer Britain during the Iron Age in
55BC, but storms on the journey from Boulogne, in France, to Dover
caused Caesar's two legions to turn back. A force of five legions tried
again in May 54BC and landed in Dover before marching towards London,
defeating Cassivellaunus the King of Catuvellauni in Hertfordshire. News
of an impending rebellion in Gaul caused Caesar to retreat, but not
before he had made his mark.

Britain at this stage in history was not one unified country, rather
some 25 tribes often at war with each other. Not all tribes joined the
coalition to fight Caesar. For example, the Trinovantes appealed to
Caesar to protect them from Cassivellaunus who had run a series of raids
into their territory.

Dr Francis Pryor said that the findings in Sussex prove that
relationships between tribes in southern England and the Romans
continued after Caesar's attempted invasion. "The suggestion that they
arrived in Chichester makes plenty of sense. We were a pretty fierce
force but the Romans had a relatively easy run. This would have been a
liberation of a friendly tribe - not an invasion."

Oxford historian Dr Martin Henig, a Roman art specialist, said that the
whole of southern England could have been a Roman protectorate for
nearly 50 years prior to the AD43 invasion. "There is a possibility that
there were actually Roman soldiers based in Britain during the whole
period from the end of the first century BC," he said.

Time Team will unveil their findings in a live two-hour special on
Saturday evening on Channel 4. It will form part of the biggest ever
archaeological examination of Roman Britain running over eight days and
involving hundreds of archaeologists at sites across Britain. The series
will investigate every aspect of the Romans' rule of Britain, from the
supposed invasion to their departure 400 years later.

D. Spencer Hines

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 7:07:17 PM6/26/05

to

Hilarious!

There's our:

SHYSTER LAWYER.

BRANNIGAN = SHYSTER LAWYER

Playing With Tricks....

DSH

"Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message

news:v7idndaDM71...@comcast.com...

Trypt

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 6:17:50 PM6/26/05

to

So I guess if the U.S. says an election is fair, its fair (Iraq), even
though there is an outpouring of protest within the country.

So I guess if the U.S. says an election is unfair, its unfair (Iran),
even though there is no outpouring of protest and people (and the
opposition) accept it?

Fucking trolls.

--
Regards from Trypt!
trypt2000@(remove)yahoo.com

Colin Campbell

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 6:35:22 PM6/26/05

to

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:55:47 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
wrote:

>The problem with this claim is that voters in mixed areas totally backed
>Shia and Kurd lists, meaning that the Shia and Kurds in these areas
>turned up while the Sunni boycotted the election.

Please provide example of this.

>> Unfortunately this had the effect of increasing the intimidation
>> factor in Sunni areas. (Something you seem to be deliberately
>> ignoring.)
>
>Which is demonstrably untrue since the Sunni stayed home also
>in the mixed areas while other groups turned out.

Did they?

>
>
>>
>> I have a question - would you vote if people who have demonstrated
>> their willingness to kill entire families told you that they were
>> watching you - and would kill your entire family if you voted? This
>> is the sort of thing that the majority of the Sunni population in Iraq
>> is dealing with.
>
>If I knew that they where an insignificant minority I would.

If you do not know this then this can only be the result of your not
learning anything about what you are talking about.

>
>I would of course notify the relevant authorities about the threath.
>
>If I abhorred the invasion and knew my neighbourghs had the
>same feelings I wouldn't show up to begin with.

So you claim to know what they think?

>> But then again, you appear to want the Bathist/Whabbi thugs to rule
>> Iraq.
>
>Not really.

You seem to be supporting them. You are making excuses for them. You
are claiming that since they choose to boycott an election that will
produce a government that actually represents the people because they
feel that the should rule - they are legitimately allowed to use
violence in a bid to secure power.

>
>But then it doesn't matter what you, I, or Bush want for Iraq.
>
>I hope for a stable Iraq better of than with Saddam, but I dont
>believe it will happen while you guys are there.
>
>You are the magnet that attract the Al-qaida types.
>You are the guys whos presence is unacceptable for the nationalists.

Which nationalists? The nationalists who ran for office in the
elections? The nationalists who are working to control the thugs and
maintain order? The nationalists who voted in the elections?

Sounds to me like you have no idea what a nationalist even is.

>
>You will have to do a peace deal that include the Sunni but
>excludes Al-qaida.

And you are yet again displaying your idiocy by thinking that the
Sunni are a monolithic political block.

In fact your refusal to look at Iraqi politics and learn what the
Sunni political factions are demonstrates your determination to refuse
to allow facts to alter your beliefs.

>> You need to learn more about what percentage of the population is
>> required to support an insurgency.
>
>
>Direct support, moral suport, or acceptance of its existence?

Yes to all three. (All of which you are unaware of.)

>>> You should have won by now if the population was on your side.
>>
>> And what qualifies you to make this claim?
>
>
>The very simple fact that they would be reported to you, the police or
>whichever relevant authority if there was no popular support.

So you are not aware that this is exactly what is happening?

>
>This is how society works if there is forces around capable of dealing
>those breaking the peace.
>
>>
>> So far you have demonstrated an ignorance of military operations,
>> Iraqi politics, who the enemy is and what the enemy is fighting for.
>> Yet, you make these grandiose pronouncements.
>
>You are simply too blinded by your own fantasies to even glimpse
>reality.

Wrong. I spent a year in Iraq working at the brigade headquarters
level in the middle of the Sunni triangle. I know more about the
local politics and local attitudes that you ever will.

All you have to base things on are your political opinions. I have
personal experience backed up by a lot of expert analysis.

Colin Campbell

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 6:36:43 PM6/26/05

to

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:50:26 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Well, I don't see what this has to do with the other poster's claim
>that the insurgency in Iraq have a right to fight against the government
>because of what he sees as its "illegitimacy".

The enemy will see any government in Iraq as 'illegitimate that is not
a dictatorship controlled by themselves.

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 6:39:09 PM6/26/05

to

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Hilarious!
>
> There's our:
>
> SHYSTER LAWYER.
>
> BRANNIGAN = SHYSTER LAWYER
>
> Playing With Tricks....
>
> DSH

I suppose to some people a hypothetical is a "trick"
It does require reading the thread and understanding it.
That is a trick for some folks
But here is how it works
You go back up the thread and look at the "context"
I Wrote

let me demonstrate

1) I personally pick the candidates You may vote for my brother George
or my brother bill

2) Its the south after the civil war , all candidates who fought for the
confederacy and all their relatives are ineligible.

3) its the south after the civil war all candidates mus have
Grandfathers who voted

4) its northern Ireland every constituency is gerry mandered so that its

2/3 Protestant and 1/3 catholic as a result no catholic ever gets elected.

5Its Canada no candidate will be permitted who is not 100 percent fluent

in English and speaks without a French accent

Etc.

there are many reason why a mere election does not confer legitimacy

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 9:49:42 PM6/26/05

to

Soren Larsen wrote:
> HawkCW4 wrote:
>
>>Soren Larsen wrote:
>>
>>>HawkCW4 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Soren Larsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 6/24/05 9:53 PM, in article zG3ve.90332$tt5.65012@edtnps90, "La
>>>>>>N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Vince is like everyone else who opposed the war from the
>>>>>>beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I did.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>They said we couldn't defeat Saddam's army and then we did.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I never said anything of the kind...
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess that makes you a liar, but being a bushevich you likely
>>>>>dont care.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>They
>>>>>>said there could never be successful elections in Iraq and then
>>>>>>there were.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You are wrong twice here Greg.
>>>>>
>>>>>I never said anything about elections at that time.
>>>>>
>>>>>There has not been held successful elections in Iraq with
>>>>>participation all voters.
>>>>
>>>>Well there you have it. In this country (USA) we have managed to
>>>>survive for some 200+ years while enjoying UN-successful elections.
>>>>Not once have we had participation of all voters.
>>>
>>>
>>>I would say your system had a glitch when the confederates decided
>>>not to participate.
>>>
>>>To have successful elections in Iraq you need the Sunnis to
>>>participate. Otherwise they wont be bound by the result.
>>>
>>>Soren Larsen
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Are you saying they were excluded from any election results or entrys?
>>
>>I recall being in deep Mexico during one election, where mail is not
>>even part of the vocabulary and therefore absentee voting was out of
>>the question. Seems an election was held without me. But believe it
>>or not, those guys still counted it.

>
>
> Let me make it billboard bright and clear to you.
>
> It is not about individuals.
>

> If the US were occupied by foreign invaders who wanted you to
> adopt a new constitution and a number of states boycotted the
> election preferring to fight it out.
>
> Then the elections could hardly be desctribed as succesful
> no matter how much spin the invaders piled on.
>
>

> Soren Larsen
>
> Got it?
>
>
Not really. If those states wished to go it alone, so be it. How long
before they are swallowed up by the rest? Only fools would leave the
fight and move 100yds left or right and then anounce they will take on
the winner or whomever.

Ed
USA Ret

HawkCW4

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 9:53:13 PM6/26/05

to

Vince Brannigan wrote:
> Mark Test wrote:
>
>> "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
>> news:42bdd798$0$63668$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...

>>
>>> I would say your system had a glitch when the confederates decided
>>> not to participate.
>>>
>>> To have successful elections in Iraq you need the Sunnis to participate.
>>> Otherwise they wont be bound by the result.
>>>
>>> Soren Larsen
>>
>>
>>

>> Soren, that's not how it works. You get a chance to vote, you choose
>> not to
>> vote it's your business. As was mentioned earlier, in the states we've
>> never
>> and will never have everyone vote. If the Sunin's want a say, they
>> vote, if
>> not,
>> they'll have no say. The choice is their's, no one elses.
>>
>> Mark
>
>
> I disagree. Boycotting rigged or otherwise unfair elections is a
> traditional means of demonstrating lack of legitimacy .
>
> Vince
>

So who really gives a rats if someone presumes to demonstrate a
percieved lack of legitimacy. Many Americans boycott elections because
they don't like the names on the ballots. Who do you think really cares
one way or the other. The election still takes place and marks are
counted and someone is declared the winner.

Ed
USA Ret

HawkCW4

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 9:57:43 PM6/26/05

to

Soren Larsen wrote:
> Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:11:40 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>

>>>To have successful elections in Iraq you need the Sunnis to
>>>participate. Otherwise they wont be bound by the result.
>>

>>They were bound by the result.
>
>
> Of course not.
>
> You cant be bound by an election you didn't participate in
> unless you are somehow previously obligated to respect it.
>
>
>
>>And in fact they are now working
>>within the political process.
>
>
> Of course. It is all politics.
>
> They are however not bound by the election and
> can legitimately choce to fight.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Remember that many Sunnis did vote.
>
>
> The point is that the vast majority didn't
>
>
>>Face it - the election was successful and produced a government seen
>>as legitimate by the vast majority Iraqi people. And they are the
>>only ones whose opinions count.
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> And the Sunni can rightfully claim that the government doesnt represent them
> and legitimately ignore it.
>
> Soren Larsen
>
>
>
And then they will be at war with that government. I don't see them
being that stupid do you? So far, except for the expected few
dissenters it is going pretty good it seems.

Ed
USA Ret

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 10:39:45 PM6/26/05

to

Becsue legitimacy is about more tha n winning. it about winning
honesntly in a set of fair rules. or did you accept communist elections
as legitimate?

or iran?

Vince

LawsonE

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 10:43:47 PM6/26/05

to

"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in

message news:37ntb15smpjjujbpc...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 04:30:19 GMT, "Mark Test" <MAR...@peoplepc.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Soren, that's not how it works. You get a chance to vote, you choose not
>>to
>>vote it's your business. As was mentioned earlier, in the states we've
>>never
>>and will never have everyone vote. If the Sunin's want a say, they vote,
>>if
>>not,
>>they'll have no say. The choice is their's, no one elses.
>

> And what Soren is ignorant of is the fact that Sunnis have been given
> a say (and representation) in the Iraqi government. He ignores the
> fact that the terrorists do not speak for the majority of the Iraqi
> Sunni people.

And yet, are all the insurgents terrorists?

LawsonE

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 10:44:24 PM6/26/05

to

"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in

message news:ijmtb1d8cg2oie0f4...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:11:40 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> wrote:
>
>

>>To have successful elections in Iraq you need the Sunnis to participate.
>>Otherwise they wont be bound by the result.
>

> They were bound by the result. And in fact they are now working
> within the political process.
>

> Remember that many Sunnis did vote.
>

> Face it - the election was successful and produced a government seen
> as legitimate by the vast majority Iraqi people. And they are the
> only ones whose opinions count.
>

I haven't seen the poll results. How big is the "vast majority?"

LawsonE

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 10:46:48 PM6/26/05

to

"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in

message news:1ebub15g0dmdgrdbs...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:50:26 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I don't see what this has to do with the other poster's claim
>>that the insurgency in Iraq have a right to fight against the government
>>because of what he sees as its "illegitimacy".
>
> The enemy will see any government in Iraq as 'illegitimate that is not
> a dictatorship controlled by themselves.
>

At least you didn't capitalize "The Enemy." I rather suspect there's more
than one motivating force involved.

LawsonE

unread,

Jun 26, 2005, 10:52:05 PM6/26/05

to

"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in

message news:7p1ub1dnlictq024p...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:19:45 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> wrote:
>
>>Colin Campbell wrote:

>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:40:34 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Sunnis however are not bound by laws set up by other people
>>>> unless they either agree or are forced.
>>>
>>> Which Sunnis are you talking about? The majority of Iraqi Sunnis
>>> support the government.
>>>
>>
>>
>>If true we would have seen more than token Sunni participation in
>>the election.
>
> You forget the fear factor. The people in the Sunni areas were
> terrorized into staying away from the polls.
>
>
>>

>>When the Shia got an acceptable deal they turned out despite
>>threaths.
>
> Because the threats were not as enforceable. 72 hours before the
> elections all roads were closed - thus keeping the Bathist/Whabbi
> terrorists trapped in Sunni areas.
>

> Unfortunately this had the effect of increasing the intimidation
> factor in Sunni areas. (Something you seem to be deliberately
> ignoring.)

That's interesting. I hadn't realized that. HOWEVER, it does give the
appearance of favoring the Shiite over the Sunni in the election since such
an action could be predicted to make the Sunnis less able to vote.

HawkCW4

unread,

Jun 27, 2005, 12:22:11 AM6/27/05

to

Vince ol buddy, I have been accepting elections as legitimate for years
in the US. Does anyone believe those Chicago years and the Dayleys were
for real? But we took what they gave us and went on. I was given proof
of illegals voting in Cal to unseat the Republican but the election was
allowed to stand.. We accept that and go on.

In this case, a group determined not to show up, so be it. However, it
seems they are, never-the-less, included in current Iraqi government
solutions. Is there any real reason we should continue to poo poo the
current status in Iraq as being 'ilegitimate' or not to your liking or
what? I really want to know what, other than it happened on Bush's
watch, causes you and others so much pain here.

Ed
USA Ret

Vince Brannigan

unread,

Jun 27, 2005, 9:22:57 AM6/27/05

to

Im not debating the facts of this iraqi election I only have what the
offical propaganda machine gives us. My point is simply that elections
as such are not self authenticating.

Vince

HawkCW4

unread,

Jun 27, 2005, 11:53:49 AM6/27/05

to

And as such, are exactly as elections have been for as long as they have
been used to determin leadership. Once more the question is, why choose
this one to poo poo?

Ed
USA Ret

Soren Larsen

unread,

Jun 27, 2005, 12:15:27 PM6/27/05

to

Because this election was called outside of the existing Iraqi constitution

This is technically in breach of Geneva convention which forbids
tampering with the type of government of occupied areas, but since
this was an democratic election it could be argued that the
Iraqis themselves would provide legitimacy by _participating_.

The Sunni boycotted the election and can reasonably argue that
the they are still under occupation fighting a guerilla war against
you and a buch of collaborators.

Soren Larsen