Iraqi Elections a sham

[Nickatilynx]

Peter Khalil: Don't ignore Sunni triangle

January 31, 2005
US hopes for a more stable Iraq are riding on the legitimacy of a democratically elected Iraqi government emerging from the fire and blood of last night's election. The Bush administration views elections as the key political element in the campaign against the mainly Sunni insurgency.

Yet the elections will not succeed in calming the violence unless Iraqis themselves perceive the new government as legitimate. And among the requirements of legitimacy, one of the most critical is that the Sunni population must have participated and be represented on an equal footing with all of the other ethnicities in the country.

For this reason, the US is courting danger in leaning too heavily on these Iraqi national elections as a solution to the insurgency. Because the administration, the interim Iraqi government, and key Shia political leaders insisted on holding elections on January 30, only 15 of the 18 Iraqi provinces participated relatively free of intimidation. There was only limited participation in towns and cities in the Sunni triangle such as Fallujah, Ramadi, and Tikrit.

The lack of Sunni Arab participation in adequate numbers is akin to leaving Florida out of the US elections. A small Sunni representation in the new national assembly relative to the fact they make up to 20 per cent of the Iraqi population will only serve to fuel the insurgency and give it a potent new weapon in the propaganda war. The slogan of "disenfranchisement through occupation and sham elections" could solidify some of the more disparate insurgent groups into an insurgency of broader and more credible nationalist appeal, at least among the Sunni population. This is the exact opposite result of the administration's desire to bring disaffected Sunnis into the political process.

If the majority of Sunni Arabs find themselves excluded from this political process, last night's elections may only speed the way to an eventual dismemberment of Iraq. Since ministers in the new Iraqi government do not have to be members of the national assembly, one hopeful sign that civil war may be avoided is the willingness of Shia leaders such as Abdul Aziz al-Hakim to appoint Sunnis to cabinet posts even if Sunni parties only win nominal representation. In addition, assurances that Sunni leaders, clerics and jurists will be part of the constitutional drafting committee is a critical element in averting a dismemberment of Iraq.









Ensuring Sunni Arab participation in the political process over the next 12 months in the hope of weakening the insurgency is also tied to progress in security and economic reconstruction. The US still finds itself in the middle of a tough three-step process on all of these fronts. US and Iraqi forces have already completed most of the initial security tasks of retaking Fallujah, pockets of Ramadi, and about 20 other towns in the Sunni triangle and returning them to Iraqi government control.

The next step, however, is by far the greater challenge. US and Iraqi forces must hold and stabilise those towns and cities, establishing basic law and order, make progress with reconstruction efforts in electricity and water infrastructure, and defeat any insurgents who remain or try to return.

Finally, the majority of Sunnis still remain to be convinced that these elections will have given them genuinely fair and significant representation in the federal government and will therefore serve their interests. Sunni Arabs appointed to key ministries, tackling high unemployment rates in the Sunni triangle with job programs, and public education efforts by the Iraqi Electoral Commission are critical to promoting this belief.

Still, over the next 12 months political developments alone will not defeat the insurgency. Terrorist violence and insurgent activity will likely continue after these elections. The insurgents will do everything they can to derail a political process, which will deal their movement a serious blow if most Sunni Iraqis eventually come to see it as representative, inclusive and therefore legitimate.

If the newly elected Iraqi government can overcome these short-term obstacles with the support of the coalition and pave the way for an inclusive political process, the insurgency will eventually lose steam. Sound economic and social reconstruction efforts, together with continued joint counter-insurgency operations by the US military and the Iraqi army and police, will serve to weaken the insurgency over the following 12-24 months. By early 2007, it should be possible to contain the insurgency to the point where the US administration can begin contemplating a large-scale withdrawal of US troops.

Again, legitimacy will be key to accomplishing this long-term goal. Thus, Washington must resist the temptation to try to control the political process which will be guided by the new Iraqi government. It should focus on maintaining sound structural foundations and underlying principles, and not supporting personalities who may be in or out of favour.

A democratically elected Iraqi government in which Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Turkoman, Christian, Yazidi, communist, capitalist, secularist and Islamist are all represented may not even be a government the US particularly likes – particularly if Sunni ex-Baathists or radical clerics such as Moqtada al-Sadr hold key cabinet posts. But such a government will be legitimate, with the support of an overwhelming Iraqi majority, and will serve to hold the country together to the detriment of the insurgents.

As long as the new Iraqi government does not attempt to erode the important principles that buttress a pluralistic democratic state, the US should not attempt to fiddle with the internal Iraqi political process – even if it does not like who wins.

Peter Khalil, an Australian who is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, was the director of national security policy for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from August 2003 to May 2004.

[JR]

a "sham"

thats a bit narrow given there has never been an election in the area since the dawn of civilization and more voters turned out to vote than the average number of those in the so-called "worlds greatest democracy"

i would call their obvious willingness and desire to participate in democratic elections both encouraging and inspiring.

:)

[Rolo]

The task ahead will not be taken lightly by anyone - no iraqi will benafit from a collapse - incl. sunnis.

So its good news that all important countries have accepted that the election was fair given the special circumstance Iraq is in, which will put even more pressure on those who wish to fight it :)

I would not be surprised, if some of the terrorists and their supports who have baathist background will give up their now hopeless fight in exchange for influence in the new iraq.

[dantheman]

ok kerry, oh I mean kenndy, no wait, nick, it's ok, there'll be other reasons to bash Bush and his folks in the next 4 years :)


I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in the kerry/kenndy camp, you know they were really wishing for some bigtime atacks and deaths to happen, and was thinking their might be a 10% voter count. I have lost what "little" repect I had for kerry over this weekend. I've seen so many accounts from Iraqis thanking US and our armed forces for making this happen. Most thought that a FREE election would NEVER happen in thier life. It did yesterday. Be happy for them, and Hope we can get most of our guys and gals home soon

Semper Fi :salute:

[PornoDoggy]

Dan ... upon what do you base your assumption that " they [Kennedy, Kerry, and I assume, other people who think like me] were really wishing for some bigtime atacks and deaths to happen"?

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 31 2005, 12:02 PM
Dan ... upon what do you base your assumption that " they [Kennedy, Kerry, and I assume, other people who think like me] were really wishing for some bigtime atacks and deaths to happen"?
there is no question that many Democrats in government are desperate for failure and bad news. there is no quote in existence that can show that Ted Kennedy is optimistic, supportive or simply even acknowledging any success in Iraq. I have seen a quite a few democrats that are clear about the fact that arguing about why we went in and the other issues are seperate. i have also seen the exact opposite in many where they have consistently had only negative things to say about any and every aspect of everything going on. one might argue that is not the same as "wishing for big time deaths" but i think it could be argued that there is not exactly a pattern of hope and making the best of the situation either.

i would think its quite obvious at this point that the world was lied to by the Bush Administration. the war was clearly not proven to be justified based on the often incoherent and wandering grounds that were cited. either that, or the worlds only super power has the worlds most ignorant and incompetent intelligence agencies and agents. however, the situation is what it is. an immediate pull out (as many dems constantly chant for) or constantly dwelling on the negatives seeking only to score political points at the expense of all those fighting for a positive change and the chance to improve their lives is borderline treason. it would be nice for once for someone like Ted Kennedy to simply say "Iraqis, i congratulate you"... and maybe mention 1 or 2 of the great successes that people are dying to achieve while he is stumbling around drunk and groping 18 year old bimbos at the family home by the beach.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by JR@Jan 31 2005, 03:17 PM
there is no question that many Democrats in government are desperate for failure and bad news. there is no quote in existence that can show that Ted Kennedy is optimistic, supportive or simply even acknowledging any success in Iraq. I have seen a quite a few democrats that are clear about the fact that arguing about why we went in and the other issues are seperate. i have also seen the exact opposite in many where they have consistently had only negative things to say about any and every aspect of everything going on. one might argue that is not the same as "wishing for big time deaths" but i think it could be argued that there is not exactly a pattern of hope and making the best of the situation either.

i would think its quite obvious at this point that the world was lied to by the Bush Administration. the war was clearly not proven to be justified based on the often incoherent and wandering grounds that were cited. either that, or the worlds only super power has the worlds most ignorant and incompetent intelligence agencies and agents. however, the situation is what it is. an immediate pull out (as many dems constantly chant for) or constantly dwelling on the negatives seeking only to score political points at the expense of all those fighting for a positive change and the chance to improve their lives is borderline treason. it would be nice for once for someone like Ted Kennedy to simply say "Iraqis, i congratulate you"... and maybe mention 1 or 2 of the great successes that people are dying to achieve while he is stumbling around drunk and groping 18 year old bimbos at the family home by the beach.
So .... let me see if I get this straight.

If I warn somebody that dumping a smoldering ashtray into a trashcan could start a fire, I WANT him to burn down his study?

[dantheman]

PD, IMHO they(you know who:) sound like brats that are very sore losers. I agree with JR, why can't kenndy(those like him) just say good job now let's work "togther" and get this done and done right.
IT really seems like they will BASH just to bash, I guess if you dont have a agenda for the next election bashing is all there is :/

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 31 2005, 12:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 31 2005, 12:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JR@Jan 31 2005, 03:17 PM
there is no question that many Democrats in government are desperate for failure and bad news. there is no quote in existence that can show that Ted Kennedy is optimistic, supportive or simply even acknowledging any success in Iraq. I have seen a quite a few democrats that are clear about the fact that arguing about why we went in and the other issues are seperate. i have also seen the exact opposite in many where they have consistently had only negative things to say about any and every aspect of everything going on. one might argue that is not the same as "wishing for big time deaths" but i think it could be argued that there is not exactly a pattern of hope and making the best of the situation either.

i would think its quite obvious at this point that the world was lied to by the Bush Administration. the war was clearly not proven to be justified based on the often incoherent and wandering grounds that were cited. either that, or the worlds only super power has the worlds most ignorant and incompetent intelligence agencies and agents. however, the situation is what it is. an immediate pull out (as many dems constantly chant for) or constantly dwelling on the negatives seeking only to score political points at the expense of all those fighting for a positive change and the chance to improve their lives is borderline treason. it would be nice for once for someone like Ted Kennedy to simply say "Iraqis, i congratulate you"... and maybe mention 1 or 2 of the great successes that people are dying to achieve while he is stumbling around drunk and groping 18 year old bimbos at the family home by the beach.
So .... let me see if I get this straight.

If I warn somebody that dumping a smoldering ashtray into a trashcan could start a fire, I WANT him to burn down his study? [/b][/quote]
i wasn't talking about "you" :)

i was more addressing your remark "and those who think like me" ... assuming that you meant democrats at large since these conversations are usually "us against them" and partisan based. i apologize for any incorrect assumptions.

also, i had just watched Kennedy and a couple other Dem's lash out again trying to underscore that everything has gone wrong and never acknowledging any success. if i was a soldier that was risking my life and heard Kennedy speak, i would probably be inclined to put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger. when his lips are moving and it involves "Iraq", i think he is generally doing everyone including the USA, the Iraqi's and all those who have and are giving their life for change, a great disservice.

if an overweight person goes to a personal trainer to change their life, the last thing they need is to be bombarded with moronic rants about how lazy, stupid and wrong they are. they and everyone around them would be better served if the current realities were addressed as they are and a simple, coherent plan for change was put into action. telling everyone "your sacrifice is offensive, wrong, immoral, illegal blah blah blah..." is just wrong in my opinion. i was very dissapointed to hear him speak, although not overly surprised.

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by dantheman@Jan 31 2005, 04:26 PM
PD, IMHO they(you know who:) sound like brats that are very sore losers. I agree with JR, why can't kenndy(those like him) just say good job now let's work "togther" and get this done and done right.
IT really seems like they will BASH just to bash, I guess if you dont have a agenda for the next election bashing is all there is :/
yeah, but if it was the other way around, the Repubs would be doing the same thing

remember, they got bent out of shape over a presidential blowjob

idiots from both sides will always jump on a negative on the other side...

[PornoDoggy]

The new attitude on negativity that Republicans have is certainly refreshing. Too bad they didn't have that attitude between 1993-2001.

I assume, then, that the loss of American lives in Somolia must have been treated as a gift from [insert diety here] by Gingrich and Lott, right? I guess Republican meetings back in the late 90s were full of hope that lots of Americans would get killed in Kosovo so that it would reflect badly on Clinton, right?

I mean, that's how this thing is done, isn't it?

Bush speaks, the heads bobble in unison. They've offered up more fucking reasons for the war in Iraq than Stalin's communist apologists offered up for the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, and they never miss a bleat - and they lack the common sense to be embarassed by the shifts. "Mission accomplished" was proclaimed by the reserve deserter about 1100 American lives ago, and you hear none of the righteous indigation that a Democrat would have been treated to (after all, it's just dead soldiers, not anything serious like a blow job). The shift from "no nation building" to installing democracy has been a "to the rear, march" movement made with a precision that would be the envy of any crack military drill team.

Gimme a fucking break.

[grimm]

Lets not start sucking eah others dicks just yet. take a lesson from history


U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote : Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite
Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened
today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election
despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered
voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals
threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy
the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary
assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching
here.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by grimm@Jan 31 2005, 10:04 PM
Lets not start sucking eah others dicks just yet. take a lesson from history


U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote : Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite
Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened
today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election
despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered
voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals
threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy
the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary
assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching
here.
Grimm, your a smart man, there's no comparison what so ever. That was a different time, different goals(abit noble) and very different place. But your right, history will have the final say.

[Mike AI]

The biggest threat to this nation is the defeatist liberals. They play right into the hands of our enemies and terrorists. We cannot be defeated militarily in Iraq, yet the liberals will continue to harp everday - giving our enemies hope, and undermining the American spirit and will.

[grimm]

absolutely, just pointing out that this is a tremendous event. However there is a long way to go, and the Iraqi people have to REALLY want it for it to work. In the end, you are correct. History will tell the tale.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jan 31 2005, 08:16 PM
The biggest threat to this nation is the defeatist liberals. They play right into the hands of our enemies and terrorists. We cannot be defeated militarily in Iraq, yet the liberals will continue to harp everday - giving our enemies hope, and undermining the American spirit and will.
Yeah half the citizens of the US should shut up.

There will be no criticism of the Fuhrer...err President.


;-)))

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jan 31 2005, 08:16 PM
The biggest threat to this nation is the defeatist liberals. They play right into the hands of our enemies and terrorists. We cannot be defeated militarily in Iraq, yet the liberals will continue to harp everday - giving our enemies hope, and undermining the American spirit and will.
look who goose-stepped back to new orleans?;)


:D :D :D

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by grimm+Jan 31 2005, 08:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ Jan 31 2005, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Jan 31 2005, 08:16 PM
The biggest threat to this nation is the defeatist liberals. They play right into the hands of our enemies and terrorists. We cannot be defeated militarily in Iraq, yet the liberals will continue to harp everday - giving our enemies hope, and undermining the American spirit and will.
look who goose-stepped back to new orleans?;)


:D :D :D [/b][/quote]
jinx!!!! LOL

[grimm]

whoah, and i quit drinking . lol

[Mike AI]

:zzz:

Need to be a little more original. There was a time in our Nation's history that partisanship ended at the oceans. Vietnam changed all of this....

Fortunately a majority of Americans agree, hence Bush winning re-election.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by grimm@Jan 31 2005, 08:29 PM
whoah, and i quit drinking . lol
first ve vill invade afghanistan unt zen irag unt zen Iran!!!!

Wir mussen den muslims aus rotten!!!!!!!

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jan 31 2005, 08:34 PM
:zzz:

Need to be a little more original. There was a time in our Nation's history that partisanship ended at the oceans. Vietnam changed all of this....

Fortunately a majority of Americans agree, hence Bush winning re-election.
LOL


sorry Mike , I just was rereaeding everyones posts....

Look at our fucking avatars!!!

How can we be taken seriously...


ahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jan 31 2005, 08:34 PM
:zzz:

Need to be a little more original. There was a time in our Nation's history that partisanship ended at the oceans. Vietnam changed all of this....

Fortunately a majority of Americans agree, hence Bush winning re-election.
the point of the article was not to deter from the overwhelming sucess thus far, but as a warning to stick to it, and a perspetive that other elements will make it hard on the Iraqi people... the vietnamese did not want it enough. The Iraqi people will have to stand tall.

And there has to be a way to work the Ba'ath party and Sunnis into this, or we are talking civil war in the next 2 years.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jan 31 2005, 11:16 PM
The biggest threat to this nation is the defeatist liberals. They play right into the hands of our enemies and terrorists. We cannot be defeated militarily in Iraq, yet the liberals will continue to harp everday - giving our enemies hope, and undermining the American spirit and will.
Nothing like a cut and paste right out of the playbook .... :rolleyes:

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jan 31 2005, 08:34 PM
:zzz:

Need to be a little more original. There was a time in our Nation's history that partisanship ended at the oceans. Vietnam changed all of this....

Fortunately a majority of Americans agree, hence Bush winning re-election.
the majority rules thing is fools logic. There are a lot of people that think in many different ways, to not enourage this sort of thinking abroad is to weaken the hances of success.

Ive always kind of thought the idea of the electoral college was crap, and a president winning the popular vote by a little over 1% of those who voted, is not a clear message of a country united.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jan 31 2005, 11:34 PM
:zzz:

Need to be a little more original. There was a time in our Nation's history that partisanship ended at the oceans. Vietnam changed all of this....

Fortunately a majority of Americans agree, hence Bush winning re-election.
After repeating "defeatist liberals" right out of the playbook, you talking about originality demostrates the concept of chutzpah.

[grimm]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 31 2005, 08:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 31 2005, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Jan 31 2005, 11:16 PM
The biggest threat to this nation is the defeatist liberals. They play right into the hands of our enemies and terrorists. We cannot be defeated militarily in Iraq, yet the liberals will continue to harp everday - giving our enemies hope, and undermining the American spirit and will.
Nothing like a cut and paste right out of the playbook .... :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
that one i believe is called skinny post X wheel far right;)

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by grimm+Jan 31 2005, 08:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ Jan 31 2005, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Jan 31 2005, 08:34 PM
:zzz:

Need to be a little more original. There was a time in our Nation's history that partisanship ended at the oceans. Vietnam changed all of this....

Fortunately a majority of Americans agree, hence Bush winning re-election.
the point of the article was not to deter from the overwhelming sucess thus far, but as a warning to stick to it, and a perspetive that other elements will make it hard on the Iraqi people... the vietnamese did not want it enough. The Iraqi people will have to stand tall.

And there has to be a way to work the Ba'ath party and Sunnis into this, or we are talking civil war in the next 2 years. [/b][/quote]
EXACTLY!!!!!!!

Where have I commented in this thread what my views on The Pres are?

I was merely reporting an article LOL

But Dan suddenly compares me to a fucking Kennedy.

I mean..FUCK...

How can you compare me to them!!!

Coming from a privilidged background of Irish descent ,with too much money , surrounded by scandals concerning drinking drugs and women , I mean...............................oh , fuck ,I'll shut up now...

;-)))

[grimm]

hey theres nothing wrong with being a kennedy. Think about it, who else could drunk drive a girl into a body of water and make it back for tee time.

[grimm]

hes just yankin your chain nick... information is not important, reaction is. posting an artile is not social commentary, he just likes to see what kind of reaction he an get.. you know, make the liberal monkey dance;)

[Nickatilynx]

Really??? ;-)))

LOL

[PornoDoggy]

Yeah, that's right. America never argued about foreign wars until Vietnam.

Lincoln, among many others, never criticized the Mexican War from the floor of Congress.

There was no opposition to the Pulitzer, er, Spanish American War.

Everybody in America was gung ho to go to war with the Central Powers ... nobody would dare to criticize Wilson once Americans started dying on the seas. (Of course, Wilson had an attorney general who would have make Ashcroft look like a card-carrying member of the ACLU).

Of course, the Republicans cooperated fully with Roosevelt in making sure America was prepared for the 2nd world war, and nobody every criticized Truman for Korea.

Balderdash and poppycock - just more inane half-truths from the bobbleheads, who probably think we enjoy too much freedom of speech anyway.

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 31 2005, 06:06 PM
The new attitude on negativity that Republicans have is certainly refreshing. Too bad they didn't have that attitude between 1993-2001.

I assume, then, that the loss of American lives in Somolia must have been treated as a gift from [insert diety here] by Gingrich and Lott, right? I guess Republican meetings back in the late 90s were full of hope that lots of Americans would get killed in Kosovo so that it would reflect badly on Clinton, right?

I mean, that's how this thing is done, isn't it?

Bush speaks, the heads bobble in unison. They've offered up more fucking reasons for the war in Iraq than Stalin's communist apologists offered up for the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, and they never miss a bleat - and they lack the common sense to be embarassed by the shifts. "Mission accomplished" was proclaimed by the reserve deserter about 1100 American lives ago, and you hear none of the righteous indigation that a Democrat would have been treated to (after all, it's just dead soldiers, not anything serious like a blow job). The shift from "no nation building" to installing democracy has been a "to the rear, march" movement made with a precision that would be the envy of any crack military drill team.

Gimme a fucking break.
as i recall, there was overwhelming support for Kosovo and i don't recall any Republicans organizing protest rallies against Clinton. i do remember the typical misguided hippies protesting against their own... including those who went to Yugoslavia to run the marathon with bullseyes on their chests to protest the bombing and Hollywoods well timed movie "Wag the Dog".

I agree with you about the inconsistencies. politics is politics. i agree with you that they are and have been wildly inconsistent about the reasons and even necessity of invading Iraq... and obviously, the primary reasons proved to be completely unfounded. i dont think anyone with a brain would dissagree with you after the fact.

like Lewis Black the comedian said in his act .. something like "if the President is going to go through all the trouble to lie to me to get me on board... and if all those lies are eventually found out to be lies... at least have the courtesy to make up some new lies"

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 31 2005, 11:55 PM
Yeah, that's right. America never argued about foreign wars until Vietnam.

Lincoln, among many others, never criticized the Mexican War from the floor of Congress.

There was no opposition to the Pulitzer, er, Spanish American War.

Everybody in America was gung ho to go to war with the Central Powers ... nobody would dare to criticize Wilson once Americans started dying on the seas. (Of course, Wilson had an attorney general who would have make Ashcroft look like a card-carrying member of the ACLU).

Of course, the Republicans cooperated fully with Roosevelt in making sure America was prepared for the 2nd world war, and nobody every criticized Truman for Korea.

Balderdash and poppycock - just more inane half-truths from the bobbleheads, who probably think we enjoy too much freedom of speech anyway.
PD it must be tough being such a deep, sophisticated thinker. What a burden you must bear!!


:lol:

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Feb 1 2005, 12:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Feb 1 2005, 12:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Jan 31 2005, 11:55 PM
Yeah, that's right. America never argued about foreign wars until Vietnam.

Lincoln, among many others, never criticized the Mexican War from the floor of Congress.

There was no opposition to the Pulitzer, er, Spanish American War.

Everybody in America was gung ho to go to war with the Central Powers ... nobody would dare to criticize Wilson once Americans started dying on the seas. (Of course, Wilson had an attorney general who would have make Ashcroft look like a card-carrying member of the ACLU).

Of course, the Republicans cooperated fully with Roosevelt in making sure America was prepared for the 2nd world war, and nobody every criticized Truman for Korea.

Balderdash and poppycock - just more inane half-truths from the bobbleheads, who probably think we enjoy too much freedom of speech anyway.
PD it must be tough being such a deep, sophisticated thinker. What a burden you must bear!!


:lol: [/b][/quote]
I don't claim to be a great thinker, Mikey ... but I've been reading your posts about politics for a couple of years now, and I can understand why you would consider people who actually think to be bearing a great burden.

[imported_Technick]

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator," attributed to Adolf Hitler.

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East"
attributed to George Bush.

[grimm]

heh wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black;)

[grimm]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 31 2005, 09:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 31 2005, 09:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 1 2005, 12:03 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Jan 31 2005, 11:55 PM
Yeah, that's right. America never argued about foreign wars until Vietnam.

Lincoln, among many others, never criticized the Mexican War from the floor of Congress.

There was no opposition to the Pulitzer, er, Spanish American War.

Everybody in America was gung ho to go to war with the Central Powers ... nobody would dare to criticize Wilson once Americans started dying on the seas. (Of course, Wilson had an attorney general who would have make Ashcroft look like a card-carrying member of the ACLU).

Of course, the Republicans cooperated fully with Roosevelt in making sure America was prepared for the 2nd world war, and nobody every criticized Truman for Korea.

Balderdash and poppycock - just more inane half-truths from the bobbleheads, who probably think we enjoy too much freedom of speech anyway.
PD it must be tough being such a deep, sophisticated thinker. What a burden you must bear!!


:lol:
I don't claim to be a great thinker, Mikey ... but I've been reading your posts about politics for a couple of years now, and I can understand why you would consider people who actually think to be bearing a great burden. [/b][/quote]
they are commies, and should be put in camps, don't you realize that?:)

Colin.. im waiting :yowsa:

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Technick@Feb 1 2005, 12:12 AM
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator," attributed to Adolf Hitler.

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East"
attributed to George Bush.
Uhhh ... you got a source for that? WHO attributed that to GW?

[imported_Technick]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 31 2005, 09:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 31 2005, 09:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Technick@Feb 1 2005, 12:12 AM
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator," attributed to Adolf Hitler.

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East"
attributed to George Bush.
Uhhh ... you got a source for that? WHO attributed that to GW? [/b][/quote]
Oh sorry,

reported by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen as told to him by George Bush during a meeting in Aqaba, June 2003.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Technick+Jan 31 2005, 09:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technick @ Jan 31 2005, 09:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 31 2005, 09:20 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Technick@Feb 1 2005, 12:12 AM
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator," attributed to Adolf Hitler.

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East"
attributed to George Bush.
Uhhh ... you got a source for that? WHO attributed that to GW?
Oh sorry,

attributed by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen as told to him by George Bush in Aqaba, June 2003. [/b][/quote]
Would the Pakistani Minister happen to be a bit of a muslim? ;-))

He made it up!!!

George would never say something like that.

It makes him look like a crazy fundamentalist religious zealot just like Bin Laden.

[grimm]

at least bin laden isnt a liberal;)

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by grimm@Jan 31 2005, 09:32 PM
at least bin laden isnt a liberal;)
Allah akbar !!!!

:)

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by grimm@Feb 1 2005, 12:32 AM
at least bin laden isnt a liberal;)
Not so sure about that ...

he's a heathen.

That's kind of a liberal, isn't it?

[Nickatilynx]

Unbelievers!!!!!


http://www.eyetricks.com/jesus.gif

Stare at the four black dots in the center of the image for 30 - 60 seconds.
Then quickly close your eyes and look at something bright .

You should see a white circle with an image inside it.

:)

[PornoDoggy]

It's the Zig-Zag man!!!!!

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Jan 31 2005, 11:44 PM
Coming from a privilidged background of Irish descent ,with too much money , surrounded by scandals concerning drinking drugs and women , I mean...............................oh , fuck ,I'll shut up now...


:groucho: