OT: reaction to Iraqi elections

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:49:23 +0000, the renowned Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> wrote:

keith wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:30:37 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:


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.


Sure, that's why they're killing their own! You do live in a
drug-induced alter-world!

Ecer heard of 'collaborators'? What do you suppose happens to them?

The official line is that the killings are at 'random'. Please stick
to the script.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[STOP_George]

Try reading John Conyers 100+ page document on voting irregularities in
Ohio sometime.

....more current.

Democracy does not truly exist if the electorate is uninformed of the
truth.

George Orwell would have been inspired by you.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 01:54:27 GMT, richard mullens
<mullensdeletethis@ntlworld.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
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


Starting an illegal war and torture spring to mind.

"Illegal" is meaningless without some controlling law and the ability
to enforce it. And both Congress and the UN passed sort-of-approving
resolutions, when they could have done the opposite.

Agreed, the prisoner abuse was unfortunate and stupid.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:31:05 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote (in
pan.2005.02.01.03.40.20.515049@att.bizzzz&gt about 'OT: reaction to
Iraqi elections', on Mon, 31 Jan 2005:

I'm amazed that the "insurgents" didn't just hole up until we left!
They are *so* fiendishly clever!

But they are mad zealots as well. The two are *not* mutually exclusive.

Polygamy means that old, rich farts get the women and send the young
males out to be suicide bombers. You'd have to be a pretty dumb young
male to accept a deal like that.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On 1 Feb 2005 09:16:52 -0800, "STOP_George" <skiingkow@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Try reading John Conyers 100+ page document on voting irregularities in
Ohio sometime.

OK, if you'll read about the massive fraud in Wisconsin. W probably
won that state.

Democracy does not truly exist if the electorate is uninformed of the
truth.

Democracy means that nobody, including you, gets to define "truth." I
appreciate that you find this unappealing.

John

 

[Fred Bloggs]

some brain-washed imbecile with a widescreen TV wrote:

What I'm seeing on FNC is that _even_ the Sunnis turned out in
substantial numbers, though not as great a percentage as in Shiite and
Kurdish areas.

He is a more learned synopsis of the situation and its background that
stands in stark opposition the corrupt mass media presentation: by Juan Cole

Sunday, January 30, 2005

A Mixed Story

I'm just appalled by the cheerleading tone of US news coverage of the
so-called elections in Iraq on Sunday. I said on television last week
that this event is a "political earthquake" and "a historical first
step" for Iraq. It is an event of the utmost importance, for Iraq, the
Middle East, and the world. All the boosterism has a kernel of truth to
it, of course. Iraqis hadn't been able to choose their leaders at all in
recent decades, even by some strange process where they chose unknown
leaders. But this process is not a model for anything, and would not
willingly be imitated by anyone else in the region. The 1997 elections
in Iran were much more democratic, as were the 2002 elections in Bahrain
and Pakistan.

Moreover, as Swopa rightly reminds us all, the Bush administration
opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were
going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was
going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003,
Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004.
The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and
municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American.
Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this
plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council
resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two
demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing
Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands
of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free
elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything
he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open,
non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US
presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January
2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse
chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the
elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't US UN food ration
cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is
exactly what they did.

So if it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship
under Chalabi, or would have had stage-managed elections with an
electorate consisting of a handful of pro-American notables. It was
Sistani and the major Shiite parties that demanded free and open
elections and a UNSC resolution. They did their job and got what they
wanted. But the Americans have been unable to provide them the requisite
security for truly aboveboard democratic elections.

With all the hoopla, it is easy to forget that this was an extremely
troubling and flawed "election." Iraq is an armed camp. There were
troops and security checkpoints everywhere. Vehicle traffic was banned.
The measures were successful in cutting down on car bombings that could
have done massive damage. But even these Draconian steps did not prevent
widespread attacks, which is not actually good news. There is every
reason to think that when the vehicle traffic starts up again, so will
the guerrilla insurgency.

The Iraqis did not know the names of the candidates for whom they were
supposedly voting. What kind of an election is anonymous! There were
even some angry politicians late last week who found out they had been
included on lists without their permission. (This is the part of the
process that I called a "joke," and I stand by that.)

This thing was more like a referendum than an election. It was a
referendum on which major party list associated with which major leader
would lead parliament.

Many of the voters came out to cast their ballots in the belief that it
was the only way to regain enough sovereignty to get American troops
back out of their country. The new parliament is unlikely to make such a
demand immediately, because its members will be afraid of being killed
by the Baath military. One fears a certain amount of resentment among
the electorate when this reticence becomes clear.

Iraq now faces many key issues that could tear the country apart, from
the issues of Kirkuk and Mosul to that of religious law. James Zogby on
Wolf Blitzer wisely warned the US public against another "Mission
Accomplished" moment. Things may gradually get better, but this flawed
"election" isn't a Mardi Gras for Americans and they'll regret it if
that is the way they treat it

 

[Rolavine]

This election has been a wonderful study on the ten thousand ways to pronounce
Allowi. I suppose if he is accused of leaking secrets to the Iranians he can
find a suitable ch-alabi (groan).

I'm glad the elections went off with so little violence. It's kind of amazing
that we could give them elections even though the electricity has been off for
2 years?

Rocky

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPland
THIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote (in <6lgvv0t4g8jfvtsneuo2hilldvhj3kupi6@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: reaction to Iraqi elections', on Tue, 1 Feb 2005:

Polygamy means that old, rich farts get the women and send the young
males out to be suicide bombers. You'd have to be a pretty dumb young
male to accept a deal like that.

AIUI, there isn't as much overt polygamy as of yore, but no doubt
there's just as much sub rosa as in, for example, USA. (;-)
--
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]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in <tjivv0lj8mlt5jknghk4anf1i6vtu9h4fn@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: reaction to Iraqi elections', on Tue, 1 Feb 2005:

They believe the "72 virgins" bit ;-)

That's three parties from Inverness! (;-)
--
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

 

[Ian]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news$JlptHN+8$BFwFY@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in <tjivv0lj8mlt5jknghk4anf1i6vtu9h4fn@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: reaction to Iraqi elections', on Tue, 1 Feb 2005:

They believe the "72 virgins" bit ;-)

That's three parties from Inverness! (;-)

Those had better be Weegie class walls to withstand any "friendly fire" ;-)

Regards
Ian

 

[richard mullens]

Clarence_A wrote:

snipped stupid remarks

Since we appear to be drifting towards personal abuse with no possible chance at agreement, may I offer the suggestion that if
you would like to be taken seriously you should learn to spell:-

"it's" means "it is" and does not denote the possessive.

A "border" is the boundary of a country. There is no "a" in it.

"loose" is best used in the context of a "screw loose" - you may wish to ponder this in the context of your supposed sanity.
The opposite of to win is to "lose".


Here again is the text that you so egregiously removed:-

One mam's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter - none of these "terrorists" existed before the war was started. No doubt
you feel just as patriotic as the German or Japanese soldier of WW2 - but this does not alter the fact of the illegality of the
invasion. Your illustrious leaders are every bit as liable - and should stand trial in a court of law. Maybe, one day, this
will happen - as may happen for Pinochet. Let us hope so anyway. Evil and stupidity on such a scale should not go unpunished.

 

Clarence_A wrote:

"richard mullens" wrote
John S. Dyson wrote:
richard mullens writes:
John Larkin wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
Too bad there aren't any superpowers to call the Bush regime
to task.
To task for what? > >>>John
Starting an illegal war and torture spring to mind.
There is no evidence of an illegal war, and ABSOLUTELY no
evidence of an abusive torture policy. There is definitely a
policy for interrogation... Alas, I do value American life
more so than terrorists, and you might believe the opposite.

You should open your eyes.

A position of political support for terrorists and criminal
behavior seems to frequently start with this line. Coming from
people who turn a blind eye toward the real world and leaning
toward the support of murder and oppressive governments as a rule.

Clarence, in the real world, you are the one who is turning a blind eye
to the support of torture and murder by an oppressive government - your
own - but because they are not actually oppressing you at the moment,
you are cheering then on while they whittle down the human rights of
others and call it counter-terrorism.

The "coalition" made an unprovoked attack on a country that was
no threat to them whatsoever - what more evidence do you need ?

The Country was in violation of it's own cease fire treaty which
was intended to end a war in which THEY invaded another country on
their border.

They'd been in violation for the previous few years, and were on the
verge of re-admitting the UN inspectors. Ask yourself, why was the
invasion suddenly necessary at that specific moment?
-----------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[keith]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:49:23 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

keith wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:30:37 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:


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.


Sure, that's why they're killing their own! You do live in a
drug-induced alter-world!

Ecer heard of 'collaborators'? What do you suppose happens to them?

Collaborators, my ass. They're simply people caught in the wrong place
when the Saddamites are in their death throes. It seems you're a
Saddamite too.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:13:40 -0800, STOP_George wrote:

I'm not the one who wrote the report. Don't blame the messenger.

The messenger believe this crap and brings it here, so yes I do blame the
idiot messenger.

BTW, I called you a "fucking idiot" because your article had *NOTHING* to
do with anything I said in the articly referenced.

Be happy, you now have Howie Dean to kick around. You'll just *love* his
leadership. ...may he never come back!

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:57:34 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill <hill_a@t_rowland-
dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote (in <cto21t02qu9@drn.newsguy.com&gt
about 'OT: reaction to Iraqi elections', on Tue, 1 Feb 2005:
Fred, where do you find this stuff, anyway?

He's probably kept every newspaper he bought since he was 16.(;-)

He's 16? Really?!

--
Keith

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Larkin wrote:

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

Here is the victory statement of the undisputed winner, the election was
by UN resolution- looks like the US loses- the quislings are out:

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim claimed victory in the Sunday elections for the
United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of religious Shiite parties he
leads. And this is what the winners, if they are winners, think of the US:

' "No one welcomes the foreign troops in Iraq. We believe in the ability
of Iraqis to run their own issues, including the security issue," Mr
Hakim said. "Of course this issue could be brought up by the new
government." '

 

[keith]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:10:41 -0800, STOP_George wrote:

Here are others that believe the "crap":

Fucking moron.

--
Keith

 

[Emanual Kann]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:41:51 -0700, nutjob repukelican, learner wrote:

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%?

Corectomundo. Bush got less than 51%.

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <pan.2005.02.03.05.15.33.279624@nicht.keinspam.de>,
nicht@keinspam.de says...

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:41:51 -0700, nutjob repukelican, learner wrote:

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%?

Corectomundo. Bush got less than 51%.

Not much of an engineer, are you? (BTW, Kerry didn't get 49% either).
Rounded to two significant places (all that was given) the totals were
51% (50.73%) to 48% (48.28%). I suppose now you're going to say that
to one significant place it was 50% to 50%. <shrug>

Of course Bush won 53% of the electoral vote (to 47%). You lost, stop
whining.

--
Keith

 

[Rolavine]

From: Jim Thompson

....

Leftist weenies can't even come up with good stories.

What is the righties good story? A prez that represents moral values by lying
all the time? US spreading freedom when no WMD found? Iraqi election setting up
a theocracy? Running the deficits to the roof? Diplomacy via putting countries
on the Axis of Evil? Creating a Mexican underclass via an open border? Giving
a no dicker medicare drug deal to the drug industry. Justice department not
investigating and prosecuting Enron, World Com, Tyco, Lucent, and a host of
other corporate criminals, or Ignoring the health care problem by only
promoting tort reform that can at best fix 1%.

Rocky