Tweet
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you do, and Iraq collapses, then you're a bunch of good for nothing pussies.
If you do, and Iraq collapses, then you're a bunch of good for nothing pussies.
-
Part of the problem is that they're not pussified enough to make decent peacekeepers. -
-
Even if we accept such a notion it doesn't explain why it would be necessary to overthrow the government after the invaders withdraw. Iraqis could simply vote the sitting government out in the next election instead of enaging in a bloody anarchist terrorist insurrection that may or may not implement a democratic process after the government is overthrown.Originally posted by techumseh
Imran: Aside from the links, which any site seeking credibility would require, the content of the actual site is highly baised in favor of the American occupation and it's supporters.
But never mind the site, which is a side issue. Why do you dismiss as "stupid" the argument that an election process imposed by an occupying foriegn power is illegitimate?
Do you think for example that Saddams sunni minority government was more legitimate than the elected government will be after the invaders leave? That would be patently absurd.
By similer logic, the Canadian government must be illigitimate and must be violently overthrown in that the country was occupied by a foreign invader that setup a government in the area and then cut it loose. There was never a violent overthrow of that invader installed government so apparently the current Canadian government and all of it's democratic elections must be illegitimate tools of the former occupier.Last edited by Geronimo; February 19, 2006, 05:38.Comment
-
What if we dont leave and Iraq erupts into civil war when it would have settled down had we left?If you do, and Iraq collapses, then you're a bunch of good for nothing pussies.Comment
-
-
but US will never withdraw, because withdrawal would mean no US army bases in Iraq thus no bases in ME apart from Afghanistan (which was most likely not good enough in the first place) so what will happen is probable reduction in number of troops until they reach the desired numbers which are an acceptable expense and the level of "securty or influence" stays at the desired levels. Quite simple really, otherwise US would have moved out of ME decades ago.Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"Comment
-
Yet recently there have been a large number of attacks by sunni insurgents on shia holy sites - including the congregations worshipping at those sites. If the coalition forces leave and the insurgents start grabbing for power al-Sadr won't be able to ignore attacks on the shia by the sunni. The sunni will not concede that they live in a nation in which they are not the majority, so they will never concede to a shia dominated government. Civil war will be inevitable. OTOH that might not be such a bad thing. The shia have lived under sunni domination for 50 years, but they have a right to equal representation. If they won't accept having it handed to them by the coalition, then I suppose they'll juust have to fight for it. It really is up to them.Originally posted by techumseh
Did YOU take the time to look? Almost all the "links" are actually biased descriptions written by the authors (CIA) of the site. Few links to the actual web sites of the parties exist or work.
Here's an example:
"Firebrand", "mouthpiece" - these are the words of a propagandist. His father was "gunned down".... "presumably by Saddam Hussien's men." That explains why he's allied with the Baathists, I guess. Your site, sir, is a crock!"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!Comment
-
As an objective matter, I wonder whether the pussies part hasn't already been proven.Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you do, and Iraq collapses, then you're a bunch of good for nothing pussies.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
WRT the election. I have not been following Iraqi actuality very closely, but somehow I doubt that there weren't massive irregularities in it. Just look at the news coming from the country everyday. Who seriously believes that a place this ****ed up, where political murder is commonplace, had a fair election?In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
Except that the US will do everything it can to arm it's client state and support it militarily through lower risk actions, such as airpower. The example of South Vietnam springs to mind.Originally posted by Geronimo
Even if we accept such a notion it doesn't explain why it would be necessary to overthrow the government after the invaders withdraw. Iraqis could simply vote the sitting government out in the next election instead of enaging in a bloody anarchist terrorist insurrection that may or may not implement a democratic process after the government is overthrown.
Second, those who have collaborated with the US may have much to fear from the opposition and so will fight desperately if they can't catch the last helicopter out of the American embassy.
And finally, it's a foriegn system imposed by a hated invader. Certain groups were excluded from participating in the elections, eg. the B'aath Party. The Iraqi elections were not free and fair.
The point is not which was more "legitimate". If the US was really interested in the democratic wishes of the people of Iraq, they would leave immediately.Do you think for example that Saddams sunni minority government was more legitimate than the elected government will be after the invaders leave? That would be patently absurd.
You mean Britain?By similer logic, the Canadian government must be illigitimate and must be violently overthrown in that the country was occupied by a foreign invader that setup a government in the area and then cut it loose. There was never a violent overthrow of that invader installed government so apparently the current Canadian government and all of it's democratic elections must be illegitimate tools of the former occupier.
Well, we hung on to that connection far longer than we should have, for fear of invasion from the same people now attempting to bring "democracy" to Iraq.
Comment
-
Do you remember the two Brits that were captured by the Shiites in Basra a few months ago that the British rescued by armed force? If you paid attention at the time, the Shiites alleged that they were masquerading as Arabs and were planning to place bombs. Their pictures in prison were released by the Shiites.Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Yet recently there have been a large number of attacks by sunni insurgents on shia holy sites - including the congregations worshipping at those sites. If the coalition forces leave and the insurgents start grabbing for power al-Sadr won't be able to ignore attacks on the shia by the sunni. The sunni will not concede that they live in a nation in which they are not the majority, so they will never concede to a shia dominated government. Civil war will be inevitable. OTOH that might not be such a bad thing. The shia have lived under sunni domination for 50 years, but they have a right to equal representation. If they won't accept having it handed to them by the coalition, then I suppose they'll juust have to fight for it. It really is up to them.
The story disappeared faster than snow in the Saharra. Western media ran the photos with the men's faces blurred, then dropped the story.
So perhaps there is more bombing going on than can be accounted for by al Queda and the rest of the resistance and perhaps it's INTENDED to split the opposition to the occupation by fomenting civil war. And maybe the Iraqi's are smart enough to figure it out.Comment
-
I do.Who seriously believes that a place this ****ed up, where political murder is commonplace, had a fair election?I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
You see this is the new and quite cunning CIA, that has puppets like Hugo Chavez and so forth.Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A CIA recruiting site would have links to anti-occupation websites?
Comment
-
Apparently that super pro US organization called the UN agrees with you.Originally posted by DanS
I do.
U.N. calls Iraq vote Credible
Of course, I guess we should believe techumseh as opposed to the rest of the world.
This is such a good example of how far the anti-U.S. crowd will go to say anything the U.S. is involved in is "rigged" or "exploitive" or "evil".
What a myopic point of view."I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003Comment
-
The Washington Post has an interesting take on the Iraqi elections. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan22.html
I can't seem to get rid of the popups on that MSN site, so I can't read the whole article. Is this an official report on the election by the UN or just one official who was interviewed by NBC?Comment
Comment