OT: reaction to Iraqi elections

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:17:03 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

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


Here's just *some* of what your kind has done:
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

"Click here to get the plugin?"

No thanks.

John

 

[richard mullens]

Clarence_A wrote:

"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.

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?

So Bush the butcher is preferable ?

 

[richard mullens]

Clarence_A wrote:

"richard mullens" <mullensdeletethis@ntlworld.com> wrote in
message news:1FfLd.927$p76.619@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...

Clarence_A wrote:

"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.

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?

So Bush the butcher is preferable ?


Absolutely! He has no designs on the country other than leaving
it free of terrorists and with it no longer a threat to
anyone.....

No doubt it is the purpose of the president to serve the interests of the American people - but one wonders if the interests of
the American people are actually being served by the bozo and neocons you have elected.

 

[Clarence_A]

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" wrote

Clarence_A wrote:
"richard mullens" wrote
John Woodgate wrote:
richard mullens wrote
John Woodgate wrote:
richard mullens wrote

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.

Actually, the problem was the violation of the terms of the
truce!
Not one violation, but many!

Except, of course, that Saddam was complying when the US
invaded.
It was the US that forced out the UN inspectors because they
weren't finding WMDs.

Not so as anyone noticed, except the French, and they were on the
take!

But would you have preferred Sadam the butcher remain in
power?

I don't particularly care one way or another.
I do care that we have fucked up the whole thing, bred a new
generation of
terrorists, inflamed the Islamic world and acted as OBL's
biggest recruiting
agent. Not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars pissed
away along with > tens (possibly hundreds - "we don't do body

counts"-Rumsfeld) of thousands of lives.

I suspected you were a terrorist supporter.
But your admission of guilt is something of a surprise!
Clearly you do not understand what actually happened, or your so
full of hatred that you simply do not care.

 

[Clarence_A]

"richard mullens" <mullens@ntlworld.com> wrote

Clarence_A wrote:
"richard mullens" <mullens@ntlworld.com> wrote
Clarence_A wrote:
"richard mullens" <mullens@ntlworld.com> wrote
snip

Absolutely! He has no designs on the country other than
leaving
it free of terrorists and with it no longer a threat to
anyone.....

No doubt it is the purpose of the president to serve the
interests of the American people - but one wonders if the

interests of

the American people are actually being served by the bozo and
neocons you have elected.

Clearly this IS the case. The outcome of the elections is one
indication of progress toward a free and independent people. The
name calling shows me that you are not in tune with the goal of
freeing the people of Iraq. I wonder how you can sleep at night
knowing you would leave these people in the mess under Sadam.

Less support for the terrorist and less brutality toward the
people of the country. Laudable goals.

 

[Pooh Bear]

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?

Way surely John. I'm sure they can make enough of that milk product.

Actually, I was half expecting you to suggest that the US ( in view of the
51/49 % share of vote ) ought to power share between the Republicans and
Democrats !

One rule for foreigners.....


Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

Fred Bloggs wrote:

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


Here's just *some* of what your kind has done:
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Judging from your posting IP address the *your kind* includes you Fred !


Graham

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelati
ons@hotmail.com> wrote (in <41FDE6F6.6A9C9699@hotmail.com&gt about 'OT:
reaction to Iraqi elections', on Mon, 31 Jan 2005:

Actually, I was half expecting you to suggest that the US ( in view of
the 51/49 % share of vote ) ought to power share between the Republicans
and Democrats !

AIUI, the US system allows for that. The Senate and Congress can have
different parties in the majority, and the President can be from just
one of them (or, in theory, from a third).
--
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

 

[richard mullens]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.cont
raspam.yuk> wrote (in <ozwv67JrwT$BFwxu@jmwa.demon.co.uk&gt about 'OT:
reaction to Iraqi elections', on Sun, 30 Jan 2005:

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?


Oh, dear! I hoped (against hope) that posting the above just MIGHT have
resulted in a more intelligent debate than of yore. Clearly, all it has
done is to poke a stick through the bars at the animals.

I apologise for provoking the resulting affliction on the newsgroup.

I think that its case of "the end doesn't justify the means" - and that is only if you believe that democracy for the Shiites
was the original purpose (which of course we all know it wasn't).

No doubt the Iraqis will be only too pleased when (if) they rid themselves of the cursed coalition invader and of all the chaos
he has created.

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <1FfLd.927$p76.619@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>,
mullensdeletethis@ntlworld.com says...

Clarence_A wrote:
"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.

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?



So Bush the butcher is preferable ?

Sure. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so either.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/39526.htm

--
Keith

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <ubgqv09a7kf0da7nsgcvif4ncr3n5iqm51@4ax.com>,
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX says...

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:57:31 +0000, John Woodgate


Will the Kurds get their own whey?

Cheeze! What a terrible pun.

You too can be punished.

--
Keith

 

In <41FDE6F6.6A9C9699@hotmail.com>, on 01/31/05
at 08:06 AM, Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said:

Actually, I was half expecting you to suggest that the US ( in view of
the 51/49 % share of vote ) ought to power share between the Republicans
and Democrats !

Where do you live where the vote was 51% to 49%?

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Pooh Bear wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:


Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

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.


For some reason the Turks are deathly afraid of an independent Kurdistan
and will invade.


They'll have to weigh up the 'advantages' of that course of action versus their
long standing desire / application to join the EU. They know the EU wouldn't so
much as give them the time of day if they went down that route.


Graham

In their view, there won't be a Turkey to give the time of day to-
something about Turkish Kurd separatists rising up and creating havoc.
Then they also have a lot of concern over the Kirkuk oil field region
falling under Kurd control. This is not too different from the present
and everlasting worries of the US and the UK, having created mortal
ethnic and religious enemies to the point of now having to monitor every
ounce of every material everywhere in the world for all eternity that
could conceivably be used as WMD- yeah, that's brilliant

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:57:31 +0000, 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?

Well, I did hear that the three factions will be represented in the
assembly, and that each will have veto power; this sounds not terrible.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:21:00 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote:

What I've never seen adequately explained is just who these *insurgents*
actually are or what agenda they're pursuing.

Iraqi freedom fighters, resisting the invasion.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich The Newsgropup Wacko]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:41:44 -0500, Keith Williams wrote:

In article <ubgqv09a7kf0da7nsgcvif4ncr3n5iqm51@4ax.com>,
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX says...
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:57:31 +0000, John Woodgate


Will the Kurds get their own whey?

Cheeze! What a terrible pun.

You too can be punished.

A pun is the lowest form of human.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:30:15 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

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.

Well, they've got priests, or the equivalent. People will always find
somebody to follow.

In general, people don't really want freedom - they want Mommy.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:04:09 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

You are what is called an accident of birth- you are an unscrupulous
p.o.s. who if alive in 1938 Germany would have been a very good Nazi
Party member-

No, sorry, I dislike almost all forms of collective activity. I'm not
the member of any party.

You seem to get angry at people who are happy and optimistic. That's
sad.

The so-called elections
are a farce, hoax, and meaningless milestone originally opposed in the
populist form by the Bush administration. It is all a Shiite plan to run
the US out of Iraq.

Right. Installing a freely elected representative government is indeed
a fiendishly clever way to get the US to pull out. Those rascals!

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:28:42 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

Too bad there aren't any superpowers to call the Bush regime to task.

To task for what?

John

 

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:04:09 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:

You are what is called an accident of birth- you are an unscrupulous

p.o.s. who if alive in 1938 Germany would have been a very good Nazi

Party member-

No, sorry, I dislike almost all forms of collective activity. I'm not
the member of any party.

You seem to get angry at people who are happy and optimistic. That's
sad.

Actually he is continuously angry; he only waits for someone to be
angry at. Must be a pretty miserable existence.


Tom