OT: reaction to Iraqi elections

Subject: Re: OT: reaction to Iraqi elections
From: Jim Thompson thegreatone@example.com
Date: 2/7/05 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <jh2f015gp31h8qt8l8hsg3m4mvchpj2tql@4ax.com

On 6 Feb 2005 23:15:40 -0800, "STOP_George" <skiingkow@hotmail.com
wrote:

If you call that democracy, then you're even more naive than I thought.

If there truly was democracy in Iraq, the U.S. occupiers would not be
there.

Today's cynicism is not from the wealthy in America. It is from the
educated. It is from the people who do not take the U.S. mainstream
news at face value.

Cynicism is cheap?

Try telling that to the thousands of people who died because of a lie.

I would argue that a human life is quite costly.

Particularly the 3000+ on 9/11

Yes their deaths have been very costly, about 100 million each and counting,
based on war costs alone. At least 120,000 people have been killed as a result
of these wars.

And the prospects for the future don't look good. Could be millions of deaths
in an Iraqi Civil War.

I'm seeing Bush in costume making a gesture and saying "By Grabthar's Hammer
you will be Avenged".

Rocky
 
Subject: Re: OT: reaction to Iraqi elections
From: "STOP_George" skiingkow@hotmail.com
Date: 2/7/05 8:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <1107795583.566282.125820@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

IRAQ and Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!! (particularly the
Iraqi civilians who have died and continue to die because of this
illegal invasion)

Congratulations in being part of the 62% of Republicans who still
continue believe this.

That's not fair, the Gallop poll a month or so before the election used some
misleading verbage, the actual count of Republicans that believed that Saddam
had significant ties to 9/11 was only 50%. The other sad aspect of this poll
showed that 26% of Democrats believed the same thing.

However, I feel it is pretty damn obvious that Bush got the majority of the
'drooler' vote. How dumb would you have to be to accept lines like '75% of Al
Qaida Leaders have been captured or killed'. What is more interesting to me is
what kind of a rightie media would we have to have for them not to comment
about this oft repeated Bush line with a statement like "Anyone that could make
such an absurd statement is not fit to manage a Burger King let alone be
President".

Rocky
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Rolavine <rolavine@aol.com> wrote
(in <20050207140208.04358.00000420@mb-m12.aol.com>) about 'OT: reaction
to Iraqi elections', on Mon, 7 Feb 2005:

How dumb would you have to be to accept lines like
'75% of Al Qaida Leaders have been captured or killed'.
What is an 'al Qaida leader'? A general? A captain? A top sergeant?
How many people are detained in Guantanamo? How many of them are
'leaders'?
--
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
 
What's so illogical?

An overwhelming number of Iraqis want the U.S. out of Iraq.
 
Do you have the actual question used by Gallup / USA Today for that
October 2004 poll, perchance. I can't find it anywhere.

Here's the report about it:


According to Editor & Publisher:

....Rumsfeld's comments came as a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found
that 42% of those surveyed thought the former Iraqi leader was involved
in the attacks on New York City and Washington.

In response to another question, 32% said they thought Saddam had
personally planned them.

The same poll in June showed that 56% of all Republicans said they
thought Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the latest poll
that number actually climbs, to 62%. ..

from:
http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000653667
 
On 7 Feb 2005 12:04:02 -0800, "STOP_George" <skiingkow@hotmail.com>
wrote:

So what's behind this facade? "Freedom for the Iraqi people and a
safer America?"
Exactly.

BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAA!!!!
Now we know what makes you laugh.

John
 
Yes. The sheer absurdity of that idea.

and you called me naive?!!!!
 
On 7 Feb 2005 13:01:24 -0800, "STOP_George" <skiingkow@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Yes. The sheer absurdity of that idea.
Why not? It worked in Germany, Japan, Austria, Italy.

and you called me naive?!!!!
No, I call you mean.

John
 
The absurdity (lost on you) is that "Freedom & Democracy" is now touted
as being the reason for having invaded Iraq illegally.

Whether Iraq ever becomes democratic after this mess is cleaned up is
another story.

We'll see how much the U.S. likes Iran-friendly Sistani in a couple of
years when he becomes president. That is, if the U.S. allows him.
 
On 7 Feb 2005 12:09:56 -0800, "STOP_George" <skiingkow@hotmail.com>
wrote:


An overwhelming number of Iraqis want the U.S. out of Iraq.
That's sensible. As soon as they can form a stable, humane government,
we *can* get out.

John
 
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:25:17 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rolavine <rolavine@aol.com> wrote
(in <20050207140208.04358.00000420@mb-m12.aol.com>) about 'OT: reaction
to Iraqi elections', on Mon, 7 Feb 2005:

How dumb would you have to be to accept lines like
'75% of Al Qaida Leaders have been captured or killed'.

What is an 'al Qaida leader'? A general? A captain? A top sergeant?
How many people are detained in Guantanamo? How many of them are
'leaders'?
He'll never answer a qustion like that. It's too closed. He can't escape
by saying it's a lie! (whatever "it" is)

--
Keith
 
The only explanation for our war in Iraq that satisfies Occam's Razor is a Bush
Personal Jihad. That makes shortest sense of the rush to war, the coalition of
the billing, the quick march through the UN, the BS WMD, the cia report that
was based on not one shread of credible evidence (made to order), the lack of
after war planning (who cares about Iraqis?), the offical meeting notes that
Paul O'Neil brought out showing Bush wanting to go to war with Iraq before
9/11, and Richard Clarke's statments about Bush pressing for a tie between
Saddam and 9/11 right after the attack.

No other explanation fits as well. Where does it not fit?

Rocky
 
I would just like to know what the actual question was.

Seems like it was clear that 62% of Republicans still believed that
Saddam "was directly involved" in 9/11 from the reports that I've read.

Your right, though. What difference does it make. It's clear that
many people voted for King George because they believed this lie.
 
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:01:22 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:07:22 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:17:04 -0800, STOP_George wrote:

[snip]

King George decided to rush to war.

There you go. Your tired rhetoric speaks volumes. I hope you
Democrats are happy with Howie Dean as your leader. We sure are!

I'm becoming convinced that being a Democrat is a genetic defect...
fiction for brains ;-)
Nah, fiction is good for the imagination and soul. Fiction cannot explain
their lack of mental capacity. Li'l Howie Dean?!! Yikes! Maroons all!

--
Keith
 
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:26:23 -0800, STOP_George wrote:

Despite what you say, in reality-land, there certainly was a rush to
war.
The only rush is after hou take your hourly hit off your bong.

As stated by Hans Blix and the head of the UN nuclear inspection team,
progress was being made. To say that it wasn't is a lie.
Oh, he's a fine one to quote! What a great job he did in getting to the
bottom of things.

King George decided to pull them out.
There you go again... You cannot refrain from getting your tounge in your
twat.

--
Keith
 
Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:00:46 +0000, Pooh Bear
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

If he feels that way - maybe he should invade Zimbabwe before trying on a
couple of fiercely nationalist arab nations that would make the Iraq fiasco
look like a tea party !


Graham


Oh ye of great ignorance... the young adults of Iran are pro-US, and
are only kept in place by the religious thugs.
And will be waving US flags in the streets when the US invades...
I think I've heard that one before somewhere.


--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:18:20 +0100, "R. Eia" <eiaro.spam@eei.no>
wrote:

The problem at these times is the lack of power balance. If US wanted to
invade any country in the world, there is no-one to stop you.

And why is that? Extra marks for including a historical perspective;
you may start at, say, 1938.

John
 
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:26:12 GMT, richard mullens
<mullensdeletethis@ntlworld.com> wrote:



The view of the arab street may in fact be that it was the USA that was sponsoring terrorism in Palestine.
I wasn't aware of any terrorism in Palestine, much less US sponsored.
Of course, you can define any bahavior you don't like as "terrorism"
and perhaps you will.

John
 
Rock wrote:

< snip >

Today N. Korea makes it offical, they have nukes. The informed knew
they had them and prob. so did the US govt. But what is interesting is
the statement that the Kim is making, that they need these nukes to
protect them from the Bush Administration and that they will not do any
more talks about them.
And it looks like Iran plans to go that route too now.

Now - if they didn't feel threatened by the US...............


Graham
 
John Woodgate wrote:
Curiously, it does indeed just happen that very nearly 50% of people are
more pessimistic than the average.
But are 50% of people less generous than the mean? Or less fashionable
than the mode? Or more given to changing their laws than the Median?

Paul Burke
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top