Congratulaions to the USA
Posted by: Mick P on 20 January 2005
Chaps
May I, on behalf of the British people, congratulate you all on the innaurgaration of President Bush.
Thank you for you common sense. We have a lot to thank you for. You beat the liberal pinkos.
Regards
Mick
May I, on behalf of the British people, congratulate you all on the innaurgaration of President Bush.
Thank you for you common sense. We have a lot to thank you for. You beat the liberal pinkos.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
... Naturally we will make a few discrete vieled threats about the security of oil supplies, but other than that, there is little reason to stay.
Mick,
Goodness knows I do my best to usurp your role as the top forum right-winger and wind-up merchant but I have to admit I'm not in your class.
I'm not worthy.
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by Mick P
Steve
It is not a question of being right wing, more a case of protecting our sovereign interests.
Regards
Mick
It is not a question of being right wing, more a case of protecting our sovereign interests.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by Nime
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
It is not a question of being right wing, more a case of protecting our sovereign interests.
Mick
Our what?
Palmerstone would have been proud.
What goes around comes around.
Sometimes the paranoid are their own worst enemies. Bush is a classic example. A small fraction of his war-chest would feed billions and give free health care to his largely uncared-for, increasingly-unemployed population.
But there is no smoke without mirrors. Thanks to careful selection of his "advisors" Bush no longer has any mirrors in the White House or the UN. The president walks naked in the Oval Room.
Nime
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by John K R
Steve,
Just to clarify my point. I am not pushing the Bush=Hitler doctrine. I brought up the Nazi position to show the lack of reason in Mick’s 4174 post that implies that anyone elected democratically “has a clear mandate, and he will do it” whatever “it” is.
Mick,
Of course there are many unspoken reasons why we are in Iraq from settling old scores or Bush erroneously blaming 9/11 on Iraq to various oil issues, but the reason you quote was not the reason we were given for going to war. In fact if it was the reason given there would be no doubt to the illegality of the action, and in the UK at least the anti war protests would have been even stronger. This version of the justification has been invented when all other reasons have failed.
Regards John.
quote:
I don't believe in the 'Bush = Hitler' doctrine that seems to be so widely (and hysterically) pushed.
Just to clarify my point. I am not pushing the Bush=Hitler doctrine. I brought up the Nazi position to show the lack of reason in Mick’s 4174 post that implies that anyone elected democratically “has a clear mandate, and he will do it” whatever “it” is.
Mick,
quote:
Our job was to depose Saddam and democratise their nation and it appears that it will be successfully achieved.
Of course there are many unspoken reasons why we are in Iraq from settling old scores or Bush erroneously blaming 9/11 on Iraq to various oil issues, but the reason you quote was not the reason we were given for going to war. In fact if it was the reason given there would be no doubt to the illegality of the action, and in the UK at least the anti war protests would have been even stronger. This version of the justification has been invented when all other reasons have failed.
Regards John.
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by Mick P
John
If I was of your puersation I would stop worrying about Iraq, because it has already happened.
I would start worrying about Iran because it's even money they are next on the list.
Regards
Mick
If I was of your puersation I would stop worrying about Iraq, because it has already happened.
I would start worrying about Iran because it's even money they are next on the list.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by John K R
Mick,
you could well be right, but I cannot se any cause for congratulations or thanks for common sense as I do not believe electing GWB for a second term a sensible act. In fact I still find the US election hard to believe.
You wish him good luck, I think it may be others who need the luck, I hope I am wrong,
John.
you could well be right, but I cannot se any cause for congratulations or thanks for common sense as I do not believe electing GWB for a second term a sensible act. In fact I still find the US election hard to believe.
You wish him good luck, I think it may be others who need the luck, I hope I am wrong,
John.
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by John K R:
Just to clarify my point. I am not pushing the Bush=Hitler doctrine. I brought up the Nazi position to show the lack of reason in Mick’s 4174 post that implies that anyone elected democratically “has a clear mandate, and he will do it” whatever “it” is.
John K R,
No I didn't interpret your post to think that you were pushing the 'Bush = Hitler' thing. I responded to:
it is if you are ignoring all the questions of who should be giving thanks and what for
To be honest, I was coming round to the idea of posting something anyway and your line above gave me an 'in'.
For the record, I think your posts are well thought out and presented (and please don't think I'm being patronising). We don't agree on many aspects but that's what makes for debate. I wouldn't accuse you of the kind of 'false equivalences' that drive me crazy.
Regards
Steve
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
If I was of your puersation I would stop worrying about Iraq, because it has already happened.
I will continue to worry until Iraq's free and our troops are withdrawn.
quote:
I would start worrying about Iran because it's even money they are next on the list.
I hope it doesn't come to military intervention. Surely the hope has got to be that Europe plays 'good cop' to America's 'bad cop' and Iran backs down in a major way.
If you think back to the US hostage crisis in the days of Jimmy Carter, Iran backed down and released the hostages immediately that Reagan was elected president because they were convinced that he would act.
I still go for the (much mocked) 'Domino democracy' scenario.
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 23 January 2005 by JonR
Steve,
Earlier you said this:-
"However, the vast majority of Iraqis wish for a successful democratic procss, starting with the elections at the end of the month. The elections will certainly not be perfect but, despite the threats of death and violence, I would not be surprised to see a very high turnout. Nor will the elections lead immediately to the cessation of violence. However, it will be far more difficult for insurgents to justify attacks against a democratically elected government than against a US imposed one so the situation will hopefully improve. International trade bodies are (believe it or not) starting to predict that a democratic Iraq could become the economic driver for the entire region."
I am curious to know where you get this inside track from on what the "vast majority of Iraquis" think. To my knowledge the "vast majority of Iraqis" have never known what it's like to live in a democracy - unless the regime usurped by Saddam was democratically elected?
I rather suspect the Iraqis just want to be able to go about their daily business without the fear of being arrested/imprisoned/tortured/killed that Saddam Hussein engendered. I also suspect they'd quite like enough food to feed themselves everyday, and their infrastructure to be restored to a semblance of workability. I'd also suspect they won't particularly appreciate the US syphoning off their oil reserves as recompense for deposing Saddam.
In any case, I doubt the insurgents give a toss who's in power - any regime propped up by the US military is ripe for attack, and for any civillians that happen to be in the firing line, well bad luck chaps. This is what Iraq'a got to look forward to over the next few years, thanks to GWB.
IMHO, of course.
JR
Earlier you said this:-
"However, the vast majority of Iraqis wish for a successful democratic procss, starting with the elections at the end of the month. The elections will certainly not be perfect but, despite the threats of death and violence, I would not be surprised to see a very high turnout. Nor will the elections lead immediately to the cessation of violence. However, it will be far more difficult for insurgents to justify attacks against a democratically elected government than against a US imposed one so the situation will hopefully improve. International trade bodies are (believe it or not) starting to predict that a democratic Iraq could become the economic driver for the entire region."
I am curious to know where you get this inside track from on what the "vast majority of Iraquis" think. To my knowledge the "vast majority of Iraqis" have never known what it's like to live in a democracy - unless the regime usurped by Saddam was democratically elected?
I rather suspect the Iraqis just want to be able to go about their daily business without the fear of being arrested/imprisoned/tortured/killed that Saddam Hussein engendered. I also suspect they'd quite like enough food to feed themselves everyday, and their infrastructure to be restored to a semblance of workability. I'd also suspect they won't particularly appreciate the US syphoning off their oil reserves as recompense for deposing Saddam.
In any case, I doubt the insurgents give a toss who's in power - any regime propped up by the US military is ripe for attack, and for any civillians that happen to be in the firing line, well bad luck chaps. This is what Iraq'a got to look forward to over the next few years, thanks to GWB.
IMHO, of course.
JR
Posted on: 23 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by JonR:
I am curious to know where you get this inside track from on what the "vast majority of Iraquis" think. To my knowledge the "vast majority of Iraqis" have never known what it's like to live in a democracy - unless the regime usurped by Saddam was democratically elected?
There have been many opinion polls taken recently in Iraq.
The latest is:
"Al Mada" Poll
(a small poll involving 300 people). There are many others, including:
Most Iraqis Remain Committed to Elections, Poll Finds
Typing "iraq election opinion poll" into Google will bring out several more. The results invariably reflect the same trends.
My use of the term 'vast majority' is, perhaps, overstated. However it should also be borne in mind that it is far more dangerous for Iraqis to say that they are in favour of democracy than against and this undoubtedly skews results in favour of the 'anti' camp.
To state that the "vast majority" of Iraqis have never known what it's like to live in a democracy, in a way that implies that they are not therefore capable of deciding whether they want democracy or not, is extremely condescending. In fact, to a people who have suffered over 25 years of the tyranny of Saddam's Hussein's dictatorship, it's more than condescending it's insulting.
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 23 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by JonR:
I rather suspect the Iraqis just want to be able to go about their daily business without the fear of being arrested/imprisoned/tortured/killed that Saddam Hussein engendered. I also suspect they'd quite like enough food to feed themselves everyday, and their infrastructure to be restored to a semblance of workability. I'd also suspect they won't particularly appreciate the US syphoning off their oil reserves as recompense for deposing Saddam.
In any case, I doubt the insurgents give a toss who's in power - any regime propped up by the US military is ripe for attack, and for any civillians that happen to be in the firing line, well bad luck chaps. This is what Iraq'a got to look forward to over the next few years, thanks to GWB.
IMHO, of course.
JonR,
Adding "IMHO, of course" to the end of a post should not be an excuse for making misleading or inaccurate comments merely because you "rather suspect" them to be true.
Do you have any evidence that the US is currently or plans to syphon off Iraqi oil reserves in any manner other than by normal trade at the current market price?
You state that the insurgents don't give a toss who's in power (as long as it's not a regime propped up by the US military). In the case of the foreigners who have entered Iraq to fight Americans and attempt to destroy the prospects for democracy, that is probably true.
However, there is a sizeable Sunni Muslim contingent amongst the insurgents. The Sunnis are a minority who have nevertheless held the positions of authority and power in Iraq for many years. Contrasting the Sunni insurgents with the Shiite pro-election stance (their religious leader has dictated that its a religious duty for Shiites to vote) makes it quite clear that this is about Islamic politics and that, in this respect, the US involvement is an irrelevance.
Regards
Steve
Posted on: 23 January 2005 by JonR
Steve,
It was not my intention to imply that Iraqis were incapable of deciding for themselves what type of government they want, though it obviously suits your case to draw such an implication.
I merely suggesting that since most Iraqis have not, to my knowledge, known what's like to live in a democracy, how could they really know what to expect from this version of it as imposed on them by the US. In fact, 'imposed' is more accurate - it's not really a choice at all is it?
JR
It was not my intention to imply that Iraqis were incapable of deciding for themselves what type of government they want, though it obviously suits your case to draw such an implication.
I merely suggesting that since most Iraqis have not, to my knowledge, known what's like to live in a democracy, how could they really know what to expect from this version of it as imposed on them by the US. In fact, 'imposed' is more accurate - it's not really a choice at all is it?
JR
Posted on: 23 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by JonR:
Steve,
It was not my intention to imply that Iraqis were incapable of deciding for themselves what type of government they want, though it obviously suits your case to draw such an implication.
I merely suggesting that since most Iraqis have not, to my knowledge, known what's like to live in a democracy, how could they really know what to expect from this version of it as imposed on them by the US. In fact, 'imposed' is more accurate - it's not really a choice at all is it?
Jon,
I believe that you were being a little careless with your wording, is all. It doesn't 'suit my case' to imply that you were being less than generous to the Iraqis.
I don't have a case, I was just giving my views on the situation out there. The thing that prompts me to post is that I don't believe that the 'majority view' on Iraq (as displayed on this forum and elsewhere) is as well thought out as it should be. In fact, I believe it to be heavily coloured by a kind of anti-Bush hysteria.
As for the choice 'imposed' by these elections, it's a lot more than the 'choice' they had under Saddam Hussein. But let's wait and look at the turnout percentages. In view of the high level of murder threats and serious intimidation, a turnout of above, say, 40%-50% would be making one heck of a statement. After all, the Americans can lead the Iraqis to the elections but they can't make them vote. That is indeed a matter of choice.
Steve M
Posted on: 23 January 2005 by matthewr
On one level of course just about everyone is in favour of Democracy rather in the way they are in favour of lovely puppies or being nice to old ladies.
However, talk of majorities being in favour of the election are missing the point rather spectacularly. The majority of Iraqis are of course Shia Muslims (and Kurds) who have for years been brutally oppressed by the minority Sunni population (or more correctly the Ba'athist minority of the Shunni minority). So if you ask the Shia population if they are in favour of a system that almost guarantees they will be in charge for once you are bound to get an overwhlemingly positive repsonse.
The point, however, is that an election that does not engage the Sunni population and marginalises them under a governement dominated by the Shias and Kurds then it is probably doomed to failure. Or at least lots more violence and probably some kind of civil war. All of this was of course widely predicted before the war.
To state that the "vast majority" of Iraqis have never known [..] democracy, in a way that implies that they are not therefore capable of deciding whether they want democracy or not, is extremely condescending
Again, I think you miss the point. Democracy is not a hard concept to understand and people are almost universally in favour of it so asking the question "Are you in favour of democracy?" is likely to elicit the arabic equivalent of "Er, like D'uh!" and the idea is moot.
However, Democracy is most definitely a function of stable, wealthy mature societies not ones with gangs of armed nutters running around and an impoversihed people hiding in their homes too scared to go outside. Even beyond the basics of physicalk security, Democracy requires things such as a solid education system, a stable middle class, a strong government and a trust by the people in the system of politics and government itself, etc. There seems little prospect for this in Iraq at present.
This contrasts strongly with the two oft-cited examples of Democracy being successfully installed in a post-war scenario in German and Japan after WWII. In both cases the economy was in ruins and the country was under occupation but the society itself was stable and mature enough to support Democracy and the process was a success.
Hence, Deomcracy follows from this societal base and it doesn't seem likely to work the other way around. This false assumption by the Bush Administration of the miraculous powers of simply holding elections and declaring everyone free has always seemed to be the flaw at the heart of the whole Iraq idea even before one starts to think about the global political issues and the moral question of starting wars.
"In view of the high level of murder threats and serious intimidation, a turnout of above, say, 40%-50% would be making one heck of a statement"
The Shia will provide a massive turnout all by themselves as they are not (by and large) being threatened and they have a strong vested interest in the results. Much more important will be the Sunni turnout which seems likely to be very low and which, as outlined above, threatens to undermines the whole process.
Matthew
However, talk of majorities being in favour of the election are missing the point rather spectacularly. The majority of Iraqis are of course Shia Muslims (and Kurds) who have for years been brutally oppressed by the minority Sunni population (or more correctly the Ba'athist minority of the Shunni minority). So if you ask the Shia population if they are in favour of a system that almost guarantees they will be in charge for once you are bound to get an overwhlemingly positive repsonse.
The point, however, is that an election that does not engage the Sunni population and marginalises them under a governement dominated by the Shias and Kurds then it is probably doomed to failure. Or at least lots more violence and probably some kind of civil war. All of this was of course widely predicted before the war.
To state that the "vast majority" of Iraqis have never known [..] democracy, in a way that implies that they are not therefore capable of deciding whether they want democracy or not, is extremely condescending
Again, I think you miss the point. Democracy is not a hard concept to understand and people are almost universally in favour of it so asking the question "Are you in favour of democracy?" is likely to elicit the arabic equivalent of "Er, like D'uh!" and the idea is moot.
However, Democracy is most definitely a function of stable, wealthy mature societies not ones with gangs of armed nutters running around and an impoversihed people hiding in their homes too scared to go outside. Even beyond the basics of physicalk security, Democracy requires things such as a solid education system, a stable middle class, a strong government and a trust by the people in the system of politics and government itself, etc. There seems little prospect for this in Iraq at present.
This contrasts strongly with the two oft-cited examples of Democracy being successfully installed in a post-war scenario in German and Japan after WWII. In both cases the economy was in ruins and the country was under occupation but the society itself was stable and mature enough to support Democracy and the process was a success.
Hence, Deomcracy follows from this societal base and it doesn't seem likely to work the other way around. This false assumption by the Bush Administration of the miraculous powers of simply holding elections and declaring everyone free has always seemed to be the flaw at the heart of the whole Iraq idea even before one starts to think about the global political issues and the moral question of starting wars.
"In view of the high level of murder threats and serious intimidation, a turnout of above, say, 40%-50% would be making one heck of a statement"
The Shia will provide a massive turnout all by themselves as they are not (by and large) being threatened and they have a strong vested interest in the results. Much more important will be the Sunni turnout which seems likely to be very low and which, as outlined above, threatens to undermines the whole process.
Matthew
Posted on: 23 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
The point, however, is that an election that does not engage the Sunni population and marginalises them under a governement dominated by the Shias and Kurds then it is probably doomed to failure. Or at least lots more violence and probably some kind of civil war. All of this was of course widely predicted before the war.
Those who stand to be in power are fully aware of the dangers regarding Sunni non-participation and are likely to take steps to ensure that the Sunnis are not disenfranchised. Again, why should we assume that those elected are incapable of seeing possible pitfalls, particularly when those pitfalls are widely trumpeted throughout the rest of the world?
Is democracy "most definitely a function of stable, wealthy mature societies" or is it a requirement for such societies? It's a point of debate but, at the very least, the term 'most definitely' is inappropriate there. Your point about post-war Japan is interesting but you neglect to say that at the time many people thought that there was no chance of democracy succeeding in Japan, as it had no history of it. They were wrong.
We should not jump to conclusions now but wait and see what happens. We should also bear in mind that democracy and freedom is not achieved in a single election.
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 23 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
"In view of the high level of murder threats and serious intimidation, a turnout of above, say, 40%-50% would be making one heck of a statement"
The Shia will provide a massive turnout all by themselves as they are not (by and large) being threatened and they have a strong vested interest in the results. Much more important will be the Sunni turnout which seems likely to be very low and which, as outlined above, threatens to undermines the whole process.
Matthew,
ALL those voting are under very real and serious threat, whether they are Shia or Sunni.
It seems to me that you're expecting a successful election and re-drawing your battle lines so that you can, nevertheless, paint it as a failure.
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 23 January 2005 by matthewr
Steve,
I am saying that an election that results in a marginalised Sunni population and conseuqent ongoing violence if not outright civil war then it would be, if not a failure, then not remotely a solution to the current problems facing Iraq.
If the election leads to a strong, effective and legitiamte independent Iraqi government that gets on with building an inclusive and successful nation then it will have been a success.
Personally I think the former is far more likely than the latter.
Matthew
I am saying that an election that results in a marginalised Sunni population and conseuqent ongoing violence if not outright civil war then it would be, if not a failure, then not remotely a solution to the current problems facing Iraq.
If the election leads to a strong, effective and legitiamte independent Iraqi government that gets on with building an inclusive and successful nation then it will have been a success.
Personally I think the former is far more likely than the latter.
Matthew
Posted on: 23 January 2005 by Tim Danaher
Posted on: 23 January 2005 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
However, Democracy is most definitely a function of stable, wealthy mature societies not ones with gangs of armed nutters running around and an impoversihed people hiding in their homes too scared to go outside. Even beyond the basics of physicalk security, Democracy requires things such as a solid education system, a stable middle class, a strong government and a trust by the people in the system of politics and government itself, etc. There seems little prospect for this in Iraq at present.
Matthew
To Matthew's list of requirements for a democracy I would add that an independant judiciary and an expeditious and trusted court system are vital. The people must have access to a means of settling disputes and bringing criminals to account and must also be able to see that the government itself is subject to the rule of law which can be enforced on the executive by the courts.
The idea of the rule of law applying to everybody is basic to a functioning democracy. Although I have not personally witnessed the scene in Iraq I doubt that a legal system that has evolved over many hundreds of years in the West can suddenly be inserted into the Iraqi infrastructure.
The election will fail the people of Iraq in every conceivable way and when it does the cynicism that is engendered in the population as a result will do even more harm than the bombs.
Deane
Posted on: 23 January 2005 by 7V
Deane,
You have to start somewhere and the drawing up of an Iraqi Constitution is a good first step.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the January 2005 elections, the current Iraqi Interim Government will surrender power to a new Iraq Transitional Government.
The electoral process and the Iraqi Transitional Government’s structure and powers are now defined explicitly in a temporary constitution (Transitional Administrative Law). A single-district proportional representation system will be used in the elections, which will lead to selection of an Iraqi legislature. The legislature, in turn, will select the executive branch of the government, including the preeminent leader in Iraq’s next government, the prime minister.
The primary function of the transitional government will be to write a permanent constitution that paves the way for a permanent government to be elected in late 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is from the Executive Summary of Iraq: Outlook for National Elections and Governance by Gregory Hooker. I believe that this is the definitive document on the 'democratization' process.
In fact the Iraqis are being asked to go to the polls not once but three times in the next year, in what seems to be a complex but well considered process.
As I said, you've got to start somewhere.
Well, no one thinks it's going to be easy but I have considerably more faith in the Iraqi people than you do, judging by this statement.
Do you have a better suggestion for where they should go from here?
Regards
Steve M
You have to start somewhere and the drawing up of an Iraqi Constitution is a good first step.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the January 2005 elections, the current Iraqi Interim Government will surrender power to a new Iraq Transitional Government.
The electoral process and the Iraqi Transitional Government’s structure and powers are now defined explicitly in a temporary constitution (Transitional Administrative Law). A single-district proportional representation system will be used in the elections, which will lead to selection of an Iraqi legislature. The legislature, in turn, will select the executive branch of the government, including the preeminent leader in Iraq’s next government, the prime minister.
The primary function of the transitional government will be to write a permanent constitution that paves the way for a permanent government to be elected in late 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is from the Executive Summary of Iraq: Outlook for National Elections and Governance by Gregory Hooker. I believe that this is the definitive document on the 'democratization' process.
In fact the Iraqis are being asked to go to the polls not once but three times in the next year, in what seems to be a complex but well considered process.
As I said, you've got to start somewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
The election will fail the people of Iraq in every conceivable way and when it does the cynicism that is engendered in the population as a result will do even more harm than the bombs.
Well, no one thinks it's going to be easy but I have considerably more faith in the Iraqi people than you do, judging by this statement.
Do you have a better suggestion for where they should go from here?
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 23 January 2005 by Deane F
Steve
I do not think it is fair to infer from my statement that I have little faith in the Iraqi people. They have been subject to oppression for a long time which brings its own problems. I believe a constitution is not the kind of infrastructure that's needed. What use is it when people can't get clean water or electricity or might need to pay bribes to officials to get from day to day.
"The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded..." Judge Learned Hand from the compilation of letters and addresses edited by Irving Dilliard.
If the US had any inclination to understand the people in Iraq the same kind of understanding would have been shown to the Saudi people following the World Trade Centre attacks.
Deane
I do not think it is fair to infer from my statement that I have little faith in the Iraqi people. They have been subject to oppression for a long time which brings its own problems. I believe a constitution is not the kind of infrastructure that's needed. What use is it when people can't get clean water or electricity or might need to pay bribes to officials to get from day to day.
"The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded..." Judge Learned Hand from the compilation of letters and addresses edited by Irving Dilliard.
If the US had any inclination to understand the people in Iraq the same kind of understanding would have been shown to the Saudi people following the World Trade Centre attacks.
Deane
Posted on: 24 January 2005 by 7V
Deane,
Of course you have a valid viewpoint. As a matter of fact, I regret that I asked "Do you have a better suggestion for where they should go from here?" because I realize that just because you don't think that the process they're planning will work doesn't mean you should have an alternative.
I just hope for the positive, is all.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the US should have as soon invaded Saudi as Iraq?
Regards
Steve M
Of course you have a valid viewpoint. As a matter of fact, I regret that I asked "Do you have a better suggestion for where they should go from here?" because I realize that just because you don't think that the process they're planning will work doesn't mean you should have an alternative.
I just hope for the positive, is all.
quote:
If the US had any inclination to understand the people in Iraq the same kind of understanding would have been shown to the Saudi people following the World Trade Centre attacks.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the US should have as soon invaded Saudi as Iraq?
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 24 January 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Great to see Yankee troops getting caught on film putting up Political election posters in Iraq, "Who's Fucking Kidding Who Boys & Girls ?" Explain yourselves out of that one !
Fritz Von Orders sir wunnit
Fritz Von Orders sir wunnit
Posted on: 24 January 2005 by 7V
Has anyone seen the article by William Shawcross in today's edition of the ultra-conservative The Guardian?
Why aren't more democrats backing these elections?
Regards
Steve M
Why aren't more democrats backing these elections?
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 24 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
Great to see Yankee troops getting caught on film putting up Political election posters in Iraq, _"Who's Fucking Kidding Who Boys & Girls ?"_ Explain yourselves out of that one !
quote:
From "Free Iraqi" - blog from Ali in Iraq:
This horror, fear, hate and loss of trust is gone now but not entirely. We still feel it and they still remind us with it every day with every beheading and every murder they commit against those who actively try to change things in Iraq for the better. We feel it with various degrees, and for some of us it's turned into an additional motive to fight these thugs and to refuse a life like that even if the only other option is death. I don't want to live like that again, NEVER, and for that reason I'm going to vote and for the same reason I know that so many Iraqis are going to vote and let the terrorists show us the best they can do, as it won't stop us.
Yes, must be great Fritz. Whatever you say.
Regards
Steve M
Free Iraqi