OT: reaction to Iraqi elections

J

John Woodgate

Guest
Does the simple euphoria of Iraqis at actually being allowed to vote put
the recent bickering over US politics and the Presidential election in a
different light?

There will need to be some sort of 'power-sharing' arrangement with the
law-abiding Sunni parties that were unable to participate due to
insurgent 'influence.'

Will the Kurds get their own whey?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
John Woodgate wrote:
Does the simple euphoria of Iraqis at actually being allowed to vote put
the recent bickering over US politics and the Presidential election in a
different light?

There will need to be some sort of 'power-sharing' arrangement with the
law-abiding Sunni parties that were unable to participate due to
insurgent 'influence.'

Will the Kurds get their own whey?
Click to expand...
Nice pun. But I wonder what the folks (if there are any) in Falluja think.
 
John Woodgate wrote:

Does the simple euphoria of Iraqis at actually being allowed to vote put
the recent bickering over US politics and the Presidential election in a
different light?

There will need to be some sort of 'power-sharing' arrangement with the
law-abiding Sunni parties that were unable to participate due to
insurgent 'influence.'
Click to expand...
It will solve nothing because Iraq is not a viable state without a dictator.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:eek:zwv67JrwT$BFwxu@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
Does the simple euphoria of Iraqis at actually being allowed to vote put
the recent bickering over US politics and the Presidential election in a
different light?

There will need to be some sort of 'power-sharing' arrangement with the
law-abiding Sunni parties that were unable to participate due to
insurgent 'influence.'

Will the Kurds get their own whey?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
Click to expand...
Depends on what the word from the 'Man from Del Monti' is?

DNA
 
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:364ueiF4u2kg0U1@individual.net...
John Woodgate wrote:

Does the simple euphoria of Iraqis at actually being allowed to vote put
the recent bickering over US politics and the Presidential election in a
different light?

There will need to be some sort of 'power-sharing' arrangement with the
law-abiding Sunni parties that were unable to participate due to
insurgent 'influence.'

It will solve nothing because Iraq is not a viable state without a
dictator.

--
Dirk
Click to expand...
Cough,

Now...... if you are clever then the rest should follow.

DNA
 
John Woodgate wrote:
Does the simple euphoria of Iraqis at actually being allowed to vote
put the recent bickering over US politics and the Presidential
election in a different light?
Click to expand...
"EUPHORIA"? You're a damned limey nazi and war hawk! Where is the
euphoria- there was 0% turnout in Samarra and damned little in other
Sunni controlled areas. Try to restrict your political spin to morons
who can't read.

There will need to be some sort of 'power-sharing' arrangement with
the law-abiding Sunni parties that were unable to participate due to
insurgent 'influence.'

You're just not paying attention! Iraq is not an island- all the
Click to expand...
surrounding petro-monarchies are Sunni and will not tolerate a Shiite
dominated Iraq with token Sunni representation. You're dumber than Bush
actually- with a more dressy mouth.
 
Genome wrote:

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:364ueiF4u2kg0U1@individual.net...

John Woodgate wrote:


Does the simple euphoria of Iraqis at actually being allowed to vote put
the recent bickering over US politics and the Presidential election in a
different light?

There will need to be some sort of 'power-sharing' arrangement with the
law-abiding Sunni parties that were unable to participate due to
insurgent 'influence.'

It will solve nothing because Iraq is not a viable state without a

dictator.

--
Dirk



Cough,

Now...... if you are clever then the rest should follow.
Click to expand...
As I've said before, the viable answer is to break Iraq into three.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that richard mullens <mullensdeletethis
@ntlworld.com> wrote (in <7ibLd.762$dg.633@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>) about
'OT: reaction to Iraqi elections', on Sun, 30 Jan 2005:

But I wonder what the folks (if there are any) in Falluja
think.
Click to expand...
The BBC reports that a small number of people voted there, but few are
living there anyway.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> wrote (in <364ueiF4u2kg0U1@individual.net>) about 'OT:
reaction to Iraqi elections', on Sun, 30 Jan 2005:

It will solve nothing because Iraq is not a viable state without a
dictator.
Click to expand...
Was it not viable before Saddam?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:364vhbF4u7cauU1@individual.net...
Genome wrote:

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:364ueiF4u2kg0U1@individual.net...

John Woodgate wrote:


Does the simple euphoria of Iraqis at actually being allowed to vote
put
the recent bickering over US politics and the Presidential election in
a
different light?

There will need to be some sort of 'power-sharing' arrangement with the
law-abiding Sunni parties that were unable to participate due to
insurgent 'influence.'

It will solve nothing because Iraq is not a viable state without a

dictator.

--
Dirk



Cough,

Now...... if you are clever then the rest should follow.

As I've said before, the viable answer is to break Iraq into three.

--
Dirk
Click to expand...
Oh, so you're not 'sophisticated'.

"Iraq is not a viable state without a dictator."


Try,

Iraq is not a Country without a Viable Dictator.

DNA
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> wrote (in <3651d0F4si9pkU1@individual.net>) about 'OT:
reaction to Iraqi elections', on Sun, 30 Jan 2005:

Iraq is not a country. It's a collection of almost random straight lines
on a colonial map.
Click to expand...
It's been a country since 1921 or so, which makes it older than most UN
member states! But, yes, it was put together out of fragments, mainly by
Britain, after WW1, as a buffer against any USSR designs on access to
the Gulf.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:39:07 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

You're just not paying attention! Iraq is not an island- all the
surrounding petro-monarchies are Sunni and will not tolerate a Shiite
dominated Iraq with token Sunni representation. You're dumber than Bush
actually- with a more dressy mouth.
Click to expand...
What's wrong, Fred? Caps Lock broken?

John
 
John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that richard mullens <mullensdeletethis
@ntlworld.com> wrote (in <7ibLd.762$dg.633@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>) about
'OT: reaction to Iraqi elections', on Sun, 30 Jan 2005:


But I wonder what the folks (if there are any) in Falluja
think.


The BBC reports that a small number of people voted there, but few are
living there anyway.
Click to expand...
Because they were heavily bombed by the US airforce ?
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that richard mullens <mullensdeletethis
@ntlworld.com> wrote (in <%bdLd.1246$q22.423@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>)
about 'OT: reaction to Iraqi elections', on Sun, 30 Jan 2005:
John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that richard mullens <mullensdeletethis
@ntlworld.com> wrote (in <7ibLd.762$dg.633@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>) about
'OT: reaction to Iraqi elections', on Sun, 30 Jan 2005:


But I wonder what the folks (if there are any) in Falluja
think.


The BBC reports that a small number of people voted there, but few are
living there anyway.

Because they were heavily bombed by the US airforce ?
Click to expand...
I don't know about bombing so much; there was one hell of a house-to-
house fight. I suspect that if there had not been, NO-ONE would have
dared to vote in Fallujah, and possibly anywhere else, since that's
where many of the insurgents' atrocities were planned and set in motion.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <dqmqv0dco1ceot980vk7umtf20105l9g88@
4ax.com>) about 'OT: reaction to Iraqi elections', on Sun, 30 Jan 2005:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:39:07 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:

You're just not paying attention! Iraq is not an island- all the
surrounding petro-monarchies are Sunni and will not tolerate a Shiite
dominated Iraq with token Sunni representation. You're dumber than Bush
actually- with a more dressy mouth.

What's wrong, Fred? Caps Lock broken?

Iran is largely Shiite, isn't it? But it's not a monarchy. It is,
Click to expand...
however, big and powerful, which counts for a lot in the Middle East.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote (in <3651d0F4si9pkU1@individual.net>) about 'OT:
reaction to Iraqi elections', on Sun, 30 Jan 2005:


Iraq is not a country. It's a collection of almost random straight lines
on a colonial map.


It's been a country since 1921 or so, which makes it older than most UN
member states! But, yes, it was put together out of fragments, mainly by
Britain, after WW1, as a buffer against any USSR designs on access to
the Gulf.
Click to expand...
It's what is referred to euphemistically as 'a vibrant multicultural society'.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:3651d0F4si9pkU1@individual.net...
Genome wrote:

Oh, so you're not 'sophisticated'.

"Iraq is not a viable state without a dictator."


Try,

Iraq is not a Country without a Viable Dictator.

We can simplify even further. Iraq is not a country.
It's a collection of almost random straight lines on a
colonial map.

"As I've said before, the viable answer is to break Iraq into > three."

--
Dirk
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, I can't think. Therefore, what I said.

DNA
 
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:39:07 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:


You're just not paying attention! Iraq is not an island- all the
surrounding petro-monarchies are Sunni and will not tolerate a Shiite
dominated Iraq with token Sunni representation. You're dumber than Bush
actually- with a more dressy mouth.


What's wrong, Fred? Caps Lock broken?

John
Click to expand...
Here's just *some* of what your kind has done:
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html
 
"richard mullens" <mullens@ntlworld.com> wrote
John Woodgate wrote:
richard mullens <mullens@ntlworld.com> wrote
John Woodgate wrote:
richard mullens <mullens@ntlworld.com> wrote
'OT: reaction to Iraqi elections', on Sun, 30 Jan 2005:

But I wonder what the folks (if there are any) in Falluja
think.

The BBC reports that a small number of people voted there,
but few are
living there anyway.

Because they were heavily bombed by the US airforce ?

I don't know about bombing so much; there was one hell of a
house-to-
house fight. I suspect that if there had not been, NO-ONE
would have
dared to vote in Fallujah, and possibly anywhere else, since
that's
where many of the insurgents' atrocities were planned and set
in motion.

Yes, the opposition to the coalition invasion did regroup
there - one would not expect such an invasion to go unopposed.
There can be no doubt that many innocents have died as a
result - like 15 Brits today in this war against WMDs.
Click to expand...

Actually, the problem was the violation of the terms of the truce!
Not one violation, but many!
But would you have preferred Sadam the butcher remain in power?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top