Can Bush be right after all?

[cgannon64]

34.91% of OT looked at something objectively?

Hah!

 

[BasketCase]

This just in:
(well, actually this in a lot earlier in the day, but what the heck)

Iraq Vote: Final Results

The section that most drew my eye:

"We are heading towards formation of a national reconciliation government," he said. "We are going to spare no time in including all communities: Sunnis, Shia, Arab and Kurds and Turkoman and Kurdo-Assyrians, Assyrians.....This is going to be one of the most inclusive and certainly the most representative government in the history of Iraq."

Whoever those people in OT were, who said Iraq was not ready for Democracy: you may begin apologizing now. The above quote shows that Iraqis have a solid grasp of the idea that a Democracy should include as much of the nation's population as possible. They damn well ARE ready for Democracy.

 

[carlosMM]

This just in:
(well, actually this in a lot earlier in the day, but what the heck)

Iraq Vote: Final Results

The section that most drew my eye:

Whoever those people in OT were, who said Iraq was not ready for Democracy: you may begin apologizing now. The above quote shows that Iraqis have a solid grasp of the idea that a Democracy should include as much of the nation's population as possible. They damn well ARE ready for Democracy.

As usual, when it fits your position you believe any rubbish. Why don't you be polite and wait and see what they REALLY do (would they say anything else with so many US troops in the country?) before starting to bleat around that you demand apologies?

btw, you said it correctly: 'Iraqis have a solid grasp of the idea that a Democracy should include as much of the nation's population as possible'

but who says they WANT a democracy, and WILL stay one once the US is outta there?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

You CAN impose democracy, but always at a very high cost. It's not a cost Americans would have been willing to pay 2 years ago. If you will, it's interesting that the quest to spread democracy was made by a very undemocratic process. Iraquees themselves will not be able to appreciate democracy if it was simply handed down to them instead of having been "earned" after a struggle of some sort.

Wow, if saying dumb things on a forum was fatal, you'd be up for a Darwin Award right about now. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's got to be one of the most abysmically stupid things I've ever read.

What you just said is equivalent to saying that a lottery winner can't appreciate his money because he didn't work for it, or that a person can't enjoy their birthday presents because they didn't go out and buy them themselves.

I think you seriously need to rethink this concept of appreciating gifts. Again, sorry to be so harsh, but I gotta nip this line of idiocy in the bud fast before it sends out creepers into other people's heads and muddles their thinking too.

And, uh, BTW, the American rebels lost every major engagement against the British, and France, flush from its own revolution, sent a fleet to force the Brits to give up the colonies. The US may have fought for its freedom, but it didn't 'earn' it, not by your standards.

 

[carlosMM]

Wow, if saying dumb things on a forum was fatal, you'd be up for a Darwin Award right about now. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's got to be one of the most abysmically stupid things I've ever read.

Sorry, but that compliment goes riht back to you!

Reasons:

What you just said is equivalent to saying that a lottery winner can't appreciate his money because he didn't work for it, or that a person can't enjoy their birthday presents because they didn't go out and buy them themselves.

Who was ever FORCED to win a lottery, FORCED to get a B_Day present?

I think you seriously need to rethink this concept of appreciating gifts. Again, sorry to be so harsh, but I gotta nip this line of idiocy in the bud fast before it sends out creepers into other people's heads and muddles their thinking too.

Yes, let's nip this fast: Democracy is NOT a gift they accept willingly or can simply refuse. Also, it has, as opposed to a birthday present, a HUGE influence on their lives and it is also TOTALLY unexpected. You know it will be your Bday, you KNOW you pplayed the lottery. No Iraqi ever expected the US to march in and 'gift' him democracy.

And, uh, BTW, the American rebels lost every major engagement against the British, and France, flush from its own revolution, sent a fleet to force the Brits to give up the colonies. The US may have fought for its freedom, but it didn't 'earn' it, not by your standards.

Uh, your interpretation of his standards is decidedly off.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Who was ever FORCED to win a lottery, FORCED to get a B_Day present?

Yes, let's nip this fast: Democracy is NOT a gift they accept willingly or can simply refuse. Also, it has, as opposed to a birthday present, a HUGE influence on their lives and it is also TOTALLY unexpected. You know it will be your Bday, you KNOW you pplayed the lottery. No Iraqi ever expected the US to march in and 'gift' him democracy.

58% of the Iraqi people showed up at the polls to vote. That alone is irrefutable proof that a democratic majority wanted democracy. It also proves without a doubt that democracy is a gift that most Iraqis chose to accept.

In light of the facts contradicting you at every turn, would you care to recant?

 

[Jorge]

58% of the Iraqi people showed up at the polls to vote. That alone is irrefutable proof that a democratic majority wanted democracy. It also proves without a doubt that democracy is a gift that most Iraqis chose to accept.

In light of the facts contradicting you at every turn, would you care to recant?

Democracy is a gift, but it had a high cost and the iraqi people didn't have the option to choose. It's like giving a present to someone and at the same time cuting his hand, without asking him wheather he wanted to exchange the present for the hand. Now that the hand is lost, what are they going to do, refuse the present?

 

[carlosMM]

58% of the Iraqi people showed up at the polls to vote. That alone is irrefutable proof that a democratic majority wanted democracy. It also proves without a doubt that democracy is a gift that most Iraqis chose to accept.

uh, where's the logic in that? After all, they had ANTI-democratic parties to vote for, too.

In light of the facts contradicting you at every turn, would you care to recant?

In light of things in iraq being totally hangin in the air, would you care to WAIT and SEE?


btw, you didn't address the important points of my post (as usual): does that mean you admit your interpretation of 'gift' and comparison with lottery and Bday present was indeed wrong?

 

[BasketCase]

And, uh, BTW, the American rebels lost every major engagement against the British, and France, flush from its own revolution, sent a fleet to force the Brits to give up the colonies. The US may have fought for its freedom, but it didn't 'earn' it, not by your standards.

I posted something like that once before, way back in the Dark Ages: that France (and possibly some other nations) meddled in our Revolution to make sure it came out the way they wanted.

No argument from me, I'm happy with the results.

 

[carlosMM]

that France (and possibly some other nations) meddled in our Revolution

Hm, if someone says: PLEASE HELP ME and I do help him, would you call that meddling as well? I personally would chose a different word.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Wow, if saying dumb things on a forum was fatal, you'd be up for a Darwin Award right about now. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's got to be one of the most abysmically stupid things I've ever read.

What you just said is equivalent to saying that a lottery winner can't appreciate his money because he didn't work for it, or that a person can't enjoy their birthday presents because they didn't go out and buy them themselves.

I think you seriously need to rethink this concept of appreciating gifts. Again, sorry to be so harsh, but I gotta nip this line of idiocy in the bud fast before it sends out creepers into other people's heads and muddles their thinking too.

And, uh, BTW, the American rebels lost every major engagement against the British, and France, flush from its own revolution, sent a fleet to force the Brits to give up the colonies. The US may have fought for its freedom, but it didn't 'earn' it, not by your standards.

What, didn't get your fix today and now you're all cranky? Do we need to bring moderators into this?

All in all, even if chocolate tastes delicious, if someone shoves it down your throat you won't eat it (I'm speaking in general, not necessarily you). What do you have to say at the fact that it's not democratic forces that won the scrutiny? Do you feel comfortable with $300 bn. of America's hard earned cash being spent for an islamic fundamentalist party to get a hold on power? How about how democratic forces of surrounding countries (Iran especially) are now united with the fundamentalists against the common enemy that the US has become?

And remember to smoke less, you're turning into your image of the object of your critique.

 

[nonconformist]

still he never said that he wanted to take rights like the 4 Freedoms away. and hardly does he want to take other rights.

"He who would be willing to trade frredoms for temporary safety deserves neither"-Benjamin Franklin.

sorry i meant to say what prevented World War III?

Common sense.

a) yeah Hitler was isolationist because he invaded almost every country in western europe along with some in eastern europe

~How many countries did Hitler support? I can think of one, actively, and one in principle.

b) by the time he had invaded Kuwait we had cut off diplomatic ties with Saddam

America still sanctioned it.

c) yeah and that agenda includes mass killing any group that doesn't support him just like Hitler did.

Lets face it all dicators are alike

First-not all dictators are alike.
Secondly- Saddam had a different agenda somehat to Hitler.

well if these people are the ones that are trying to kill you, then i think its fair not to give them rights.

Trying to kill you? Ha! It's more fear rhetoric beeing spponfed to the American people, to keep them in line.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

The Bush legacy will be remembered for his brutal aims of democratizing the Middle Eastern jungle. If one was to try and make those oppressed people see sense I would be amazed. It’s like going back to the 14 century and telling the kings of Europe that they must give equal rights to there citizens, if you did say that you would be hung from the nearest tree.

Or maybe they have not discovered democracy on the tech tree....must invest in more science

By the way, nonconformist how's Abingdon college??

 

[nonconformist]

By the way, nonconformist how's Abingdon college??

Eh, still b@llbre@k|ngly boring.

 

[Aegis]

Anthrax has a shelf life of four years (At least the grade Saddam had)
after that its useless as a WMD.

Milk has a refrigerated shelf-life of about a week and a half. Farmers continue making it, though, so that when this week's is sold/spoils, there will be another batch to take it's place. I am sure a similar system was in place in biological weapons production facilities.

Okay, let's see what I can dow ith this:

2. Who has trhe most WMDs in the world? I'll give you thre guesses, and one of them ain't France.

That would be the former Soviet Union with it's 20,000+ nuclear arsenal.

3. Crimes against humanity. Wait...doesn't America commit these?

Are you referring to humiliating detainees as a "crime against humanity" ?

 

[carlosMM]

Milk has a refrigerated shelf-life of about a week and a half. Farmers continue making it, though, so that when this week's is sold/spoils, there will be another batch to take it's place. I am sure a similar system was in place in biological weapons production facilities.

funny, but wasn't it 10 years since the US-led coalition removed Saddam's ability to produce fresh anthrax?

 

[nonconformist]

Are you referring to humiliating detainees as a "crime against humanity" ?

No, they're warcrimes. Holding detainees illegaly is a crime against humanity, for example.

 

[Aegis]

funny, but wasn't it 10 years since the US-led coalition removed Saddam's ability to produce fresh anthrax?

What, you think they would be incapable of starting it up again? It would not be that difficult.

No, they're warcrimes. Holding detainees illegaly is a crime against humanity, for example.

Humiliation is a war crime? I can only assume that you are referring to the Geneva Convention, which the detainess clearly do not fit under since they were neither a) Uniformed, nor b) Soldiers in a nation's army.

This reminds me of an Eddie Izzard quote:

"If you commit perjury, I don't care, don't give a ****. I don't think you should because you grade murder. You have murder one, murder two; you realize that there can be a difference in the level of murder, so there must be a difference in the level of perjury. Perjury one is when you're saying there's no Holocaust when 10 million people have died in it, and perjury... nine, is when you said you shagged someone when you didn't."

The same could be said of humiliation vs. physical torture/execution.

 

[nonconformist]

Humiliation is a war crime? How is that? I assume that you are referring to the Geneva Convention, which the detainess clearly do not fit under since they were neither a) Uniformed, nor b) Soldiers in a nation's army.

Humiliation is indeed a warcrime. And the Geneva convention is applicable, as:
a)Afghanistan had no army in anycase, let alon uniforms.
b) The convention expanded to include "franc-tireurs" of which these guys comprise.

 

[Aegis]

Humiliation is indeed a warcrime. And the Geneva convention is applicable, as:
a)Afghanistan had no army in anycase, let alon uniforms.
b) The convention expanded to include "franc-tireurs" of which these guys comprise.

Afghanistan had a military. They may not all have had uniforms, but they certainly had a military. And soldiers not in uniform are considered spies, if I remember correctly.

When did this "Franc-tireurs" expand, how was it included and what does it say, exactly?