CaptainFatass:

I'm not sure why everyone is coming down on EnormousJuan. After all, whenever anyone brings up troop deaths, the Republicans' knee-jerk defensive reaction is, "Hey, they signed up, they knew what they were getting themselves into." Somehow, that's more symapthetic to the troops?

They signed for many reasons, some to protect this country, some to pay for college, some to get out of a shiatty life. They knew what they were getting themselves into and they knew they might not come back.

So what does that have to do with EnormousJuan happiness that the troops that die probably voted for Bush? Nothing. So why are you trying to link the two?

CaptainFatass: I'm not sure why everyone is coming down on EnormousJuan.

Because he's said some things that anybody, regardless of political stripe, would find offensive.

HeartBurnKid

If by complete and total agreement you mean that 1 Sunni Vote should equal 1 Kurd Vote irregardless of voter turnout then yes, yes we are.

As for South Africa's transition from apatheid I'd say that the elections themselves have been successes while the country itself has been a failure. Democracy doesn't magically fill bank accounts, as South Africa proved. Curiously, their economy did much better under apatheid and their currency was much stronger even when their were supposedly international sanctions on the country. Social instabiliy is bad for profits.

Perhaps if global bodies and governments made dictatorships and oligarchies bad for business we'd see more change without having to invade countries *cough-BURMA*

BBanzai:

If you are unable to follow the thread, go to sleep and wait for the short, yellow bus with the handicapped doors comes to take you to school tomorrow.

I'm sure there's a seat reserved for you on the short bus, bonzo.

Some Sunnis voted. It wasn't a complete bust ...

I've been wondering how a two-system government would work in such a circumstance - allow the democratic majority to elect their officials, and allow the totalitarian minority to butcher and bribe their own representatives who then report to the democratic majority. Give them relative autonomy (like the Kurds), and make a provision wherein, should they ever change their minds, they can vote themselves back into the democratic process.

Just because a minority chooses not to vote doesn't mean everyone else should be allowed to move on with their lives.

mcflizzy:

Just because a minority chooses not to vote doesn't mean everyone else should be allowed to move on with their lives.

I'm sure you meant "shouldn't be allowed", right?

http://www.drury.edu/nltimage/churchill.jpg

this guy cancels out any rightwing nutjobs.

Hats off to the brave voters of Iraq. Their courage is also a tribute to the troops who began their liberation.

farkdog, you've been trying to get someone's attention for the last 9 posts, so here it is.

Now please stop waving your arms and bouncing up and down. The grown-ups have recognized your presence.

If anyone is creating a pool, I'll put my $10 on the 5th day. Which of course is how long the elected president will live for before being executed.

faethe:

Libertarians (me included) are for smaller goverment, as in, that which takes place outside our borders only gets addressed when its absolutley necessary to the continuity of our own system. War for profit, or War to respond to an ally is a big topic of debate. I support that 100%. That being said, SOMETHING had to be done about people doing crazy shiat like flying buildings into planes, and making serious threats to our allies and their interests/protectorates. The problem is so enormous that its possible that this really will be seen as the first stage of a global effort to rid itself of extremism - I have no idea. I think its too goddamn expensive, but I also have no idea what other choice there was. Over the past few decades we have tried everything from Begging to bribery to threats and it has made NO difference. TBH - I dont think anyone knows how to address this as its a completely bizzare problem to begin with, so I'm more tolerant of Bush's agenda than I would be if this were simply 'the Domino theory' rehashed.

I'm sorry, but I think you've been fooled.

* Iraq had nothing to do with playing flying into our buildings.
* If we're waging a war on religious extremism, why would we go after the only secular state in the region? It'd make more sense to start with Afghanistan, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia... OK, so we did go after Afghanistan, and I did support that, but the effort there got shafted for the Iraq affair (and everything turned out OK in spite of that, except that we let Osama get away).

Bah, I meant to say "1 Shiite Vote should equal 1 Kurd Vote", bloody hell. But you get my drift, just because an ethnic group decides to boycott an election out of their free will should not take away the legimacy of it (not saying that other factors in this election haven't though).

VIDEO VADER
"Kerry's grudging response to these elections reminds me of Howard Dean's grudging response to the capture of Saddam Hussein. It's like they're afraid to celebrate a genuine victory for the country just because it also helps a political opponent. Just because it isn't a final victory yet doesn't mean you can't celebrate it."

Welcome to politics.

GIngrich and Dole were just as gay when good things happened under Clinton.


2005-01-30 06:23:20 PM CreepyConservative
Well, here's the test: Now that you've had almost 20 years to think back on it, what are your opinions of Ronald Reagan's time in office? Was it as bad as the Democrats at the time were claiming?

Well, as i was a child when he was in power back in the 80s (was 14 in 1989 when the Wall fell) and wasnt very politically aware at the time, i cant really say. History certainly seems to judge the man diffrently depending on where you are, though.

Here in the US he's remembered fondly, i think partly because he just died and partly because the US is quite right wing at the moment, so his triumphs are sung loudly. However, this is not the universal perception abroad; the germans remember his presidency as a very scary time (pershing missiles being stationed on german soil) and being very afraid of the bomb and saw him as a sabre rattler, whihc is imo rather unfair because his part in reunifying germany was significant (although hardly as significant as the US right like to claim)

My personal perception of the Reagan era is that his foreign policy was sound, his economic policy was decent, and his domestic social policy sucked (war on drugs, ignoring AIDS/crack/gang proliferation).

Who knows how bush will be remembered, he's got 4 more years to go!

See, I don't really enjoy seeing the troops die...but here is the condensed version for you slow people:

1) Bush is the sole cause of this war.
2) voting for Bush shows support for the war
3) conversely, voting against Bush shows non-support.
4) troops voted mostly for Bush
5) aid workers voted mostly for Kerry
6) Under most codes of law, the more involved a person is with a crime, the greater their punishment.
7) If someone had to die, I hope it's a soldier and not an aid worker.
7a) Still not sure if the death of an aid worker would balance against the pain felt by the Bush-voting father of that aid worker.

But the other way of telling it was much more entertaining.

Lang Spoon

I couldnt have said it better myself. I woke up this morning, took a bong hit, then put on Cnn. For the first time since 9/11 i reacted with awe to what i saw on the television. It gave me farking spine chills.

farkdog, indeed. I appreciate the correction :)

Father_Jack:
prost ihr saecke!

farkdog:

I agree. But many of us feel that Iraq wasn't the right place to start. It wasn't really an immediate threat and it has, at best, tenous links to Al-Queda and 9/11.



I dont think it has any links to 9/11 whatsoever, other than cheerleading Al-Queda, and perhaps allowing them safe passage through thier country. I don't believe in Al-Queda either - they only started using that name after we gave to to them. They are the Pan Arabic fundementalists who are anti-goverment, anti-independence and pro-one Muslim world, and there are a lot of them all over the place starting shiat. They go after weak countries who are unable (or unwilling) to police themselves - thats EXACTLY why the Taliban got popular in Afghanistan. They had guns and enough people like them to make life shiatty for everybody. The problem with Iraq is that it is strategically significant. We get booted out of Saudi with thier nonsense - fine, we set up in Iraq so we can watch Iran AND Russia and Pakistan. Why do we even bother? Oil and commodities. If we backed out, Russia would roll into the mess under the guise of protecting its 'contracts' or whatever it could come up with. And yeah it sucks and yeah we need alternative fuels but this is the way things are. The other problem is as these people gain popularity (the panislamics) more people feel they have no choice but to throw in with them or be murdered. I mean, look at thier news agencies and shiat - its like a goddamn kindergarden with a big strong bully (insert bully ofthe day here) and humble righteous god fearing people being oppressed. Their shiat is all over the place and thats cool - its a big world, we can find other sources of oil, but they started LEAVING the desert and doing wierd shiat in other peoples nations.

Its a big farking mess.

My personal perception of the Reagan era is that his foreign policy was sound, his economic policy was decent, and his domestic social policy sucked (war on drugs, ignoring AIDS/crack/gang proliferation)

How about that silly little Central America thing?

Demon of the Fall:

If by complete and total agreement you mean that 1 Sunni Vote should equal 1 Kurd Vote irregardless of voter turnout then yes, yes we are.

That is exactly what I am saying. To do otherwise would only cause resentment in the other direction, and set us onto a similar chain of events. 1 vote = 1 vote = 1 vote, no matter where it comes from.

What I AM saying is that we should have done more to win the "hearts and minds", to get the Sunnis to get out and vote. THAT is our failing. We could have started by not disqualifying every single Sunni leader from the election.

Regardless of whether the low Sunni turnout is their fault or not, we will be blamed for their disenfranchisement. C'mon, you should know by now these people love to blame America for all their ills. We should have done more to get them involved.

So, what can be done now? Nothing. It's too late. We'll be seeing troops come home in boxes for the next Iraqi election cycle, at the very least, probably longer, since all the killing will likely only serve to increase hostility between the factions.

Demon of the Fall - "How about that silly little Central America thing?"

You mean Reagan's support of the anti-communist rebels?

HeartBurnKid:

* If we're waging a war on religious extremism, why would we go after the only secular state in the region? It'd make more sense to start with Afghanistan, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia... OK, so we did go after Afghanistan, and I did support that, but the effort there got shafted for the Iraq affair (and everything turned out OK in spite of that, except that we let Osama get away).

Its a little more complicated than that which is exactly why everyone is pissed about it. Its not something you can sum up with one liners or political extremism. To be really simple - no one liked Iraq because thier goverment was stacked with unpopular assholes so they were easy to take out. You take out Saudi, you are also attacking Mecca, and THAT will piss off every muslim on earth, moderate or fanatic, overnight.

I think it is funny that almost 75% of Iraqi's voted today. Compared to What less than 45% here in the USA. Yet, most of you will still whine and complain about it.

robolobo:

They signed for many reasons, some to protect this country, some to pay for college, some to get out of a shiatty life.

Some of us just like the cool toys.

People still don't seem to accept the fact that Democracy will not work in the middle east right now. Every single country around Iraq does not want democracy, a very large portion of Iraq will not want what democracy gives them, and more violence will occur.

Its a region that has been ruled by different forms of monarchy and dictatorships since the begining of time, the only way any sort of democracy will appear to work for a few days is going to be the US standing there with war planes and bigger guns then the citizens have.

The vast differences between religious and ethnic groups will result in violence from the minority and acceptance of the "new" government will only occur due to US forces saying its happening.

The country is not ready/will not be for a very long time. Why the hell can't the people in charge get this idea in their stubborn heads?

Father_Jack:

My personal perception of the Reagan era is that his foreign policy was sound, his economic policy was decent, and his domestic social policy sucked (war on drugs, ignoring AIDS/crack/gang proliferation).

He had a huge deficit which he blamed on the congress at the time, and his foreign policy was a disaster. Unless you're the kind of person who believes Reagan ended the Soviet Union, in which case you're too far gone already.

EnormousJuan:

you give one the impression that you don't have many friends in the outside world. i wish i could feel sorry for you, but i don't. your social isolation seems to be self inflicted.

Lets play a guessing game, "Who said this?"


A lot went right with the just-completed first free elections in Iraq in half a century.

The fact that the election was held at all is a major accomplishment.

Overall, Iraqis were brave and determined, and turned out to vote in large, heartening numbers.

Conservative estimates placed turnout at 50 to 60 percent of the 14 to 15 million Iraqis who were eligible.

Whatever the final percentage of eligible voters who actually cast ballots turns out to be, it will be high, especially considering that it came about in the teeth of a ferocious guerrilla warfare effort to stifle turnout.

The Iraqis interim government, the U.S. military, and American diplomats had a good plan and carried it out well.

More than 5,000 polling places in all parts of the country were well organized and well protected. Voting mostly went off quickly and smoothly for citizens.

The much maligned, newly trained Iraqi security forces put in charge of basic polling place protection performed far beyond general expectations.


/Any takers? Anyone?

RESOUNDING SUCCESS??????

"Two dozen killed and scores injured..."

Hardly a resounding success. Picture for a moment,
an election in the US where 24 citizens are killed
while voting. Christ! ...we'd all be wearing purple
ribbons with pink stripes for the next three farking
years as a reminder of the "resounding success"!

Iraq... the 51st state!

Hey EnormousJuan, thanks for the condensed version.

You're still an asshat.



Here's some candy, now STFU!!

EnormousJuan:

1) Bush is the sole cause of this war.

With support from Kerry.

2) voting for Bush shows support for the war
3) conversely, voting against Bush shows non-support.

No and no. That might have been the only issue for you, but not for everyone else. Also, Kerry supported the war and the troops would still be there even if he was elected.

4) troops voted mostly for Bush
5) aid workers voted mostly for Kerry

Do you have data sources (besides from out of your ass)?

6) Under most codes of law, the more involved a person is with a crime, the greater their punishment.

If they had intent. What if someone joined the military without the intent of going to Iraq?

7) If someone had to die, I hope it's a soldier and not an aid worker.
7a) Still not sure if the death of an aid worker would balance against the pain felt by the Bush-voting father of that aid worker.

Why? Are the soldiers not "aid workers?" Are the soldiers there for personal gain or some other selfish reason?

In summary, your logic, supporting evidence, and conclusion are all incorrect. You have proven that you are incapable of having an intelligent discussion, so proceed to STFU.

/and where is my soda pop?

Red Donkey:

/Any takers? Anyone?

EnormousJuan? Ted Kennedy? Usama Bin Laden?

Ski8um:

I think it is funny that almost 75% of Iraqi's voted today. Compared to What less than 45% here in the USA. Yet, most of you will still whine and complain about it.


Whine and complain about what?

The point is, people like you are making this election out to be a huge success, but the fact is, Iraq will still be a huge mess and this new "democracy" will not materialize. The only success today, was that there were less deaths than some had predicted.

2005-01-30 06:29:46 PM BBanzai

If you are unable to follow the thread, go to sleep and wait for the short, yellow bus with the handicapped doors comes to take you to school tomorrow.

2005-01-30 06:33:55 PM BBanzai

Now please stop waving your arms and bouncing up and down. The grown-ups have recognized your presence.

BBanzai arguing technique:

1. Troll with statements of general asshattery.

2. Ignore responses when people call me on my bullshiat.

3. If people continue to call me on my bullshiat switch to plan 'B'

Plan B: Resort to personal attacks.

nerfball

Boooooooooo! You're not even trying.

Ski8um:

I think it is funny that almost 75% of Iraqi's voted today. Compared to What less than 45% here in the USA. Yet, most of you will still whine and complain about it.

You say that as if 45% turnout is a good thing. It's not, as our most recent election showed.

And I'd like to know where you got this 75% figure; BBC puts it at closer to 60%.

Those of you who are congratulating Reagan on his Central America policies would do well to take some sort of history course on the subject...

I think most Democrats went out and bought a box of tissues today because they won't be able to celebrate a poor outcome to the Iraqi election. 1....2.....3......Ahhhhhh!!

Red Donkey:

Boooooooooo! You're not even trying.

lol

nerfball - In our great free nation of the USA if I were to express those opinions in public, I would likely be assaulted. Not that I am afraid of a scrap, but the point is that my assalant would likely get no punishment for stopping my unpopular speech. I find internet forums cathartic...one may spew exactly what one feels with no worry of interruption or censure. My opinions on the war and related issues are obviously unpopular...do not be fooled into thinking that my opinions on other matters are so off-center.

2005-01-30 06:41:53 PM Another Fortunate Son
He had a huge deficit which he blamed on the congress at the time, and his foreign policy was a disaster.

His latin american foreign policy was, sure. His relationship with europe was scary at the time, but hardly a "disaster". . . . DUbya i would classify as a disaster, reagan was just conservative.

Unless you're the kind of person who believes Reagan ended the Soviet Union, in which case you're too far gone already.

No, but it did end on his watch, and rightly or wrongly he'll be remembered as such because of it.

The USSR was destined to crack and splinter since it was based on an unsustainable economic model and relied on terror to keep it in place. Reagan had nothing to do with that, but i'm open to the argument that he helped give the USSR a push over the edge with the arms race and helping turn afghanistan into a vietnam and costing the Soviets billions they couldnt spare. But i would personally argue it was more ended by Gorbachev and Lech Walesa than by Reagan.

HeartBurnKid
Ya that's more or less my stance to, just thought a little clarification was needed.

BBanzai
Yeah, I also mean:

- The mining of a Nicuragua's major harbour without a declaration of war (completely illegal as far as international law goes)
- Assisting in destablizing a democratically elected government (the Sandistas), whom were making great efforts in education and healthcare.
- The funding of known terrorist groups to achieve these ends (the Contras, whom were documented to have executed the entire male population of villages and the rape the women as a message to surrounding communities).

So yeah that whole shi-bang.

farkdog, et al: Learn to farking read. EnormousJuan specifically said, "I don't want anyone to die." (Go look it up if you don't believe me; I'll wait for you to catch up.) However, he said that, if people do have to die, he prefers that it's people who chose to take up this conflict, not aid workers.

Sounds pretty sensible to me; and the douchebag right-wing hypocrites can shove it, because they've said the same damn thing innumerable times when confrotned with troop deaths. Except, in EnormousJuan's case, he's speaking his true conviction, while you're just trying to cover your asses and assuage whatever's left of your consciences.

HeartBurnKid: And I'd like to know where you got this 75% figure; BBC puts it at closer to 60%.

Saechsiche Zeitung, the local paper here, has it at 72%.
http://www.sz-online.de/

Gore conceded, get over it.

This is not the political conflict you're looking for, free people can go about their business, move along.

I for one hope that their new Government works well and is stable. Hopefuly the country can be settled down and a new era of peace can begin...

as side note:

GIS for WMD



Seems rather scary that the first thing that pops up is America, (well actually its the positions of response units but still funny!).

hillbillypharmacist

With a name like that, I'm guessing that you probably have about 3 teeth and the ability to read at a fourth grade level. would you like me to explain how to remove the chads??