I'd like to know: Where were the human shields? Why weren't they there to protect the polling places? Their website said: "human shield volunteers would place themselves at strategic sites critical to the well-being of Iraqi civilians." Did the polling places not qualify, or are they only interested in stopping coalition forces?

Yes, I know, hell, first class.

Doesn't this look a little like the afghan girl you posted Bruce Dickinson?

Their website said: "human shield volunteers would place themselves at strategic sites critical to the well-being of Iraqi civilians." Did the polling places not qualify, or are they only interested in stopping coalition forces?

= transparent lib logic

I can it see it now, dyed purple fingers are gonna become all the rage. They will probably replace the WWJD line of solidarity wear.

But what is really "in" that indelible purple ink....hmmmmmm?

CreepyConservative:

2005-01-30 11:43:49 PM CreepyConservative

I don't think we'd be okay with it, but I think we'd let it happen. If they ask us to leave, we'll go. They'd be criminally insane to ask us to go, but if they did... sure, we're gone.

You are aware that they won't have a full government until at least a year from April, right?

Criminally insane from who's point of view? The Shia are happy with Iran protectig them.

As for the government not being in power unitl 1 year from now, why so long? Why cant they start sooner?

Wouldnt be because the US is very nervous about what may happen with a government where all the people in it got elected on the promise that they would ask the US to leave immediately....

Action Replay Nick:

I'd never claim to be "right" over anyone. I don't sleep at night because of what we are doing, and I hope more than anything that Iraqis have a fair and honest election.

However, I am not blind to the fact that we have altered our reasons for war on more than one occassion, and that bothers me a lot. I just hope that, despite all the malice I feel has been shown toward the average Iraqi, they can take something meaningful from it at this point and our troops can get the hell home and stop "nation building".

I agree with you 100%. I should have made my post more clear and not used your quote before I stated my opinion. My bad.

/Respect Knuckles

Questions for anyone still reading this thread:

1. What the hell did the Iraqis vote on?

2. Who was doing the voting/polling/collecting of votes/vote counting?

3. Will the United States back any decision brought by this popular vote?

shipud: So, um, you think Bush should remain in office until 2050?

And what kind of random branseizure caused you to think that we'd be in Iraq untill 2050? Please, enlighten me.

Found this blog entry from an Iraqi who happens to be Sunni, and his thoughts on the vote.

Ooh.. Haizum, that's a mighty big brushstroke you got there.

Libs' hate freedom! Libs don't support the troops! Libs blindly follow the party line!

/Pot, this is Kettle
//Blackness achieved in 3...2...
///Still a member of the 82nd Chairborne, I see...

St. Apatheism:

I'm frankly sick of these vocal anti-american morons, it's getting old and loosing its charm.

See, that's the problem. You want to label people who don't subscribe to your particular point of view as anti-american.

Frankly, that's very short sighted and it it's own way very
unamerican.

Who needs terrorists when 49% of the population thinks its smart to change presidents when we're at war?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly. The war in Iraq is an isolated campaign that would have easily survived a
leadership change here.

And while we're at it, let's not be too myopic. Iraq is not
the only challenge facing the U.S. The mounting deficit, loss of jobs, etc, etc, are all serious issues that need
to be addressed. A change in leadership may have put different emphasis on these issues.

We're in Iraq and despite that fact that I think it was farked up to go there, we need to stay there until Iraq
stabilizes.

QuesoDelicioso

I'd like to know: Where were the human shields? Why weren't they there to protect the polling places? Their website said: "human shield volunteers would place themselves at strategic sites critical to the well-being of Iraqi civilians." Did the polling places not qualify, or are they only interested in stopping coalition forces?

Most of the "shields" bailed out, a few of them got a taste of reality when Saddam immediately took them over and told THEM what they were going to shield. Some of them switched sides, the rest just disappeared. I guess they were surprised about getting robbed and ripped off all along the way driving across the Middle East in broken-down buses, led by a guy with a messianic complex.

Hippies and losers. Totally predictable outcome, actually.

Doesn't Summer Phoenix look a bit like the Afghan girl you posted, BruceDickinson?

Haizum:

You feel exactly the way I predicted one would if they "hate" the president. What are you asking?

Oh shiat I forgot the the key word "not".

Lemme try that again.

I have no love for Bush, the president or the pubic hair, and I think they are not stupid or have been deceived. Care to explain why you think that is?

/doh

1. What the hell did the Iraqis vote on?
Party representation in the interim gov't which will draw up the new Iraqi constitution.

2. Who was doing the voting/polling/collecting of votes/vote counting?
I believe the UN sent election workers/officials, but most of the grunt work was done by the Iraqis themselves.

3. Will the United States back any decision brought by this popular vote?
I think we'll pretty much have to.

ThrobblefootSpectre:

I hope it will go well also. You gotta love Fark Flame wars for their polarisation powers......

Personally, im more of a pessimist than an optimist, which is probably where we clashed.

No hard feelings.....

GodsRightHandGimp

I knew what you meant, I was just clarifying my own post lest anyone take an "Oh you hate freedom" approach, since my original statement was open to such a criticism by those who are deranged.

Now that we've found the WM... er.. umm.. no, hmm...

Oh, I've got it!

Now that we've liberated the Iraqi people, and it's "Mission accomplished", can we go home now?

St. Apatheism:

And what kind of random branseizure caused you to think that we'd be in Iraq untill 2050? Please, enlighten me.

How do you know we won't?

There is no guarantee that Iraq will ever stabilize in a way that the U.S. finds acceptable.

Obviously, it's ridiculous to really assert that we'll still be there in 2050, but in reality we don't know how long we'll be there. It seems entirely possible that we could be there another 4 years. And then, there will HAVE to be a change in the U.S. leadership.

GodsRightHandGimp
Ah, ok.

Yea, I was preemting any erroneous statements about the Iraqi people being stupid or deceived simply because someone doesn't like the president, and nothing else.

Halfmast: Yes, quite predictable. But they could really have lived up to their mission statement, and shown the world that they weren't just partisan twits, by lending their services at the polling centers. I suppose it might have galled more than a few of them to be on the same side as the Americans, though.

Things are much calmer now that I've put bbcrackmonkey into my ignore list. Behold the power of totalfark.

Heads up, I owe an apology to some of the people here.

I have been biatching about how the true liberals on Fark, the ones who have some sense and see these elections as A Good Thing (tm) but still don't like our current administration, do not castigate or condemn their whackjob, nutbag, asshat, moonbat brethren. Most notably, the freaks over at Democrat Underground.

Democrats with a lick of sense or a twinge of conscience should be over there raising hell with the ultra-moonbat crowd who can't bear to believe that something is going right for a change in a Iraq. Well, I just popped over there and there are a few Democrats with sense fighting the good fight.

My hats off to you, brave defenders of the decent side of your party. My apologies to those here on Fark whom I did not see defending their party from the asshats within.

Gotta love all the bitter-enders that keep harping on the WMD thing. As if there could just be one and only one reason why we went to Iraq. And they say the President is a simpleton...

CreepyConservative:

With luck and hard work, Iraq will be the only place where the US Military has to go blow crap up.

I agree.

You're ok for an apparent rightie, CC. ;-)

Guelph35:

Now that we've liberated the Iraqi people, and it's "Mission accomplished", can we go home now?

Nah, we have to train and equip them with a new military to protect themselves.

Of course, a NATO-trained and equipped army could be a destabilizing force in the region, but foresight and considering the ramifications of our actions isn't exactly a strong suit these days.

Things are much calmer now that I've put bbcrackmonkey into my ignore list. Behold the power of totalfark.

I thought liberals embraced freedom of expression and multiple viewpoints.

/sees the faint outline of a box labeled "farkdog"

CashForChaos:

2005-01-30 11:53:18 PM CashForChaos [TotalFark]

Wow, the look in the Afgahni girls eyes is striking.....

I dont think I have seen "fear" so well depicted before in my life.... She looks absolutely terrified. Poor girl......

St. Apatheism:

And what kind of random branseizure caused you to think that we'd be in Iraq untill 2050? Please, enlighten me.


It's called "Donald Rumsfeld"

Look it up. He compared the War on Terror (henceforth w00t) to the Cold War, which lasted 40 years. However, he did give credit to the perseverance of different adinistration in fighting the cold war. IIRC, you are suggesting suspending all adiministration change until the war, which may lsat a few decades by admission of the administration who got into it, is over.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. had the insight way back when to see that this country is heading down a foolish and albeit reckless path and ultimately we will reap what we sow:

Don't let anyone make you think that God chose America as his divine messianic force, to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgement, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America 'You are too arrogant! If you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power! And I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I am God." -- Martin Luther King, 4 April 1967

CashForChaos:

Doesn't Summer Phoenix look a bit like the Afghan girl you posted, BruceDickinson?

Oh how I love Summer Phoenix. She was great in the movie "The Believer". Awesome flick and the fact she showed her boobies made it even more the better.

QuesoDelicioso
Halfmast: Yes, quite predictable. But they could really have lived up to their mission statement, and shown the world that they weren't just partisan twits

I just have to say that the statement "I will try to protect you from being bombed by a country with vastly devastating weapons that you have no defense against" is NOT the same as "I will try to protect your polling stations that have been instituted by the country with vastly devastating weapons that you have no defense against that set up said polling stations".

Still I wish them luck.

That Afghan girl's expression is truly haunting. I can only imagine what you've got to go through to get eyes like that.
<shudder>

CashForChaos

Progressives don't belive in God. Apparently it's just not trendy anymore and there aren't any matching accesories to be bought at H&M.

I thought liberals embraced freedom of expression and multiple viewpoints.
Oh, they do. There is room in their circle for those who think Bush is Hitler reincarnated, and those who merely think him a puppet of evil, and all points in between.

Haizum: I thought liberals embraced freedom of expression and multiple viewpoints.

I do, but people I view as blatant trolls get the old heave-ho. Makes it a lot easier to sort through the rest
of the bullshiat.

There are plenty of people I disagree with, sometimes quite
vociferously. But many of those people I also respect for
being willing to be articulate and clear about why they hold
the views they do.

Besides there are plenty of people expressing all sorts of viewpoints here.

farkdog

I think that based on the notion that we couldn't be in Iraq until then because by then all the insurgents will be dead. By then, of course, terrorism will be a thing of the past. Actually, now that these elections took place, I feel a lot safer here in the U.S. George was right, since they had elections, the world is a safer place.

QuesoDelicioso

Oh right, I see. Gosh, I'm such a close-minded moderate!

farkdog:

See, that's the problem. You want to label people who don't subscribe to your particular point of view as anti-american.

Frankly, that's very short sighted and it it's own way very
unamerican.

So, calling a fish a fish is now an un-american thing to do? What should I call people who don't support their country because they've been brainwashed by the super zelots in the laughably liberal media?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly. The war in Iraq is an isolated campaign that would have easily survived a
leadership change here.

And while we're at it, let's not be too myopic. Iraq is not
the only challenge facing the U.S. The mounting deficit, loss of jobs, etc, etc, are all serious issues that need
to be addressed. A change in leadership may have put different emphasis on these issues.

We're in Iraq and despite that fact that I think it was farked up to go there, we need to stay there until Iraq
stabilizes.

One, its not a minor incursion. We're entering into a place that HATES the ideals of the modern free world. Because people thought that Vietnam was a "minor incursion" we ended up getting waxed and kicked out with our tail between our legs. I guess you think its wise and responsable to consider any millitary action that involves invasion as "minor?" That being said, Bush is smart enough to use the War on Terror to get his way without really buying in to the BS that you can fight terror. Kerry wanted to beef up national security and invade supremely hostile countrys without even establishing a secure foot-hold in that area of the world. Iraq is too tactically valuable to just leave in the hands of anyone who is willing to undermine our future incursions in that end of the world.

Also, if you think its smart to establish a secure foot hold and then just leave it be. Well, we're going to have to agree to dissagree. I happen to think that kind of action would be so foolish as to single-handedly undermine America in many different areas. Even to the point of being so costly that none of us are willing to pay that price.

QuesoDelicioso

Gotta love all the bitter-enders that keep harping on the WMD thing. As if there could just be one and only one reason why we went to Iraq. And they say the President is a simpleton...


Yeah... after it turned out that the WMD thing was all a lie, McFlightsuit needed another reason to overextend the military. So, we did it to remove a tyrannical dictator from power, to put Freedom on the March! Hooray! Good thing that was the last dictator in the world, and everybody's living in a democracy now! Otherwise, the U.S. has a whole lot of world to occupy to get rid of every last one of those meanie tyrants!


Oh.... wait...

Nah, we have to train and equip them with a new military to protect themselves.

Wasn't that what they sent Bernard Kerik over there for?

farkdog

Gotcha, I'm just have TF envy.

On the Afghan girl:

I saw bit on National Geographic Channel about the Afghan girl pic, which was taken like 25 years ago in a refugee camp when she was 17 or something.

The picture is like Picture of the Century for National Geographic and photog who took it.

So they do this one hour documentary to go and find her. Which after paying some guides and drivers and bodyguards and such, they do. And they take picture number 2.

Here's where I find the whole exercise frustrating: The pic of this girl... a survivor of horrendous conditions, the loss of her family, and of course abject poverty. Some guy takes a picture of her, and by accident of lighting, film emulsion, and her haunting eyes, everyone who looks at the picture projects their hopes on her... You want to believe that this picture shows some inner strength and independence that we hope this woman could be ... oh, I don't know, Afghanistan's version of Aung San Suu Kyii, for example. Some leader for oppressed women everywhere.

But when they find her, you know what? She's a good Afghan muslim woman. Married, 3 kids, cooks, cleans, and is not even allowed to see or talk to men who are not her husband without her husband's permission. She has no idea of the fact that the first picture has become an icon... probably lacks any capability of understanding what that means. In the end, she and her husband agree to the second picture, no doubt in exchange for some money.

So it's a great picture... but resist the temptation to read more into it.

farkdog:

Obviously, it's ridiculous to really assert that we'll still be there in 2050, but in reality we don't know how long we'll be there. It seems entirely possible that we could be there another 4 years. And then, there will HAVE to be a change in the U.S. leadership.

By then we'll have a secure foot hold and a change will be acceptable.

What alot of people need to realize is we're commited to the path we have been led into and to give up now would be beyond costly.

Addendum: Of course, the moderators at Democrat Underground are deleting the moonbat-confrontation messages as fast as they spot them.

Sigh.

Valarius: "Questions for anyone still reading this thread:"

"1. What the hell did the Iraqis vote on?"

A transitional assembly of representatives to draft an Iraqi constitution of government. They are basically the ones who will decide what an Iraqi government should look like.


"2. Who was doing the voting/polling/collecting of votes/vote counting?"

Anyone who could walk to a voting booth were the voters. As far as I know, there is no way to prove Iraqi citizenship. Collecting of votes is being done by a cooperative of Iraqi police, coalition troops, and U.N. observers.

"3. Will the United States back any decision brought by this popular vote?"

This vote does not decide the final government. It is only an interim step to help figure out what that government should look like in the future.

Satchel, I can respect that, but I don't feel any safer now that I did before we went into Iraq. I firmly believe that
by going into Iraq we pissed off a whole lot more people than were already pissed at us. That makes me feel a whole lot less
safe.

Yes, I know that the reasons for extremists being pissed at us can be argued (and I don't want to start down that path). It's just the way I see it.

St. Apatheism:

What alot of people need to realize is we're commited to the path we have been led into and to give up now would be beyond costly.

Perhaps surprisingly, I agree. We're there and we need to finish the job.