Iraqi Elections: The Facade

Twila

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
RE: Iraqi Elections: The

It looks like the US will in fact have the money after all to make over Iran after all.............
 
Twila

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
RE: Iraqi Elections: The

It looks like the US will in fact have the money after all to make over Iran after all.............
 
Twila

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
RE: Iraqi Elections: The

It looks like the US will in fact have the money after all to make over Iran after all.............
 
P

passpatoo

Electoral Member
Aug 29, 2004
128
0
16
Algoma
I have no reason to doubt the message of the article you posted Paradoid. In fact, if true, it wouldn't suprise me. However, my point was that I didn't see any better way out of the quagmire of Iraq right now than Iraqis saying what they want. I didn't have time to read the article thoroughly by I did come across this....

"What they also didn’t tell you was that of those who voted, whether they be 35% or even 60% of registered voters, were not voting in support of an ongoing US occupation of their country.

In fact, they were voting for precisely the opposite reason. Every Iraqi I have spoken with who voted explained that they believe the National Assembly which will be formed soon will signal an end to the occupation."

In other words Iraqis are having thier say.


I have no misconceptions about why there was an invasion. As I said in my original post "a better path could have been followed" (in regards to holding the election at the present time), but this is where we stand right now. And I still don't see any suggestions on moving forward. Only criticisms on what has already happened.
 
P

passpatoo

Electoral Member
Aug 29, 2004
128
0
16
Algoma
I have no reason to doubt the message of the article you posted Paradoid. In fact, if true, it wouldn't suprise me. However, my point was that I didn't see any better way out of the quagmire of Iraq right now than Iraqis saying what they want. I didn't have time to read the article thoroughly by I did come across this....

"What they also didn’t tell you was that of those who voted, whether they be 35% or even 60% of registered voters, were not voting in support of an ongoing US occupation of their country.

In fact, they were voting for precisely the opposite reason. Every Iraqi I have spoken with who voted explained that they believe the National Assembly which will be formed soon will signal an end to the occupation."

In other words Iraqis are having thier say.


I have no misconceptions about why there was an invasion. As I said in my original post "a better path could have been followed" (in regards to holding the election at the present time), but this is where we stand right now. And I still don't see any suggestions on moving forward. Only criticisms on what has already happened.
 
P

passpatoo

Electoral Member
Aug 29, 2004
128
0
16
Algoma
I have no reason to doubt the message of the article you posted Paradoid. In fact, if true, it wouldn't suprise me. However, my point was that I didn't see any better way out of the quagmire of Iraq right now than Iraqis saying what they want. I didn't have time to read the article thoroughly by I did come across this....

"What they also didn’t tell you was that of those who voted, whether they be 35% or even 60% of registered voters, were not voting in support of an ongoing US occupation of their country.

In fact, they were voting for precisely the opposite reason. Every Iraqi I have spoken with who voted explained that they believe the National Assembly which will be formed soon will signal an end to the occupation."

In other words Iraqis are having thier say.


I have no misconceptions about why there was an invasion. As I said in my original post "a better path could have been followed" (in regards to holding the election at the present time), but this is where we stand right now. And I still don't see any suggestions on moving forward. Only criticisms on what has already happened.
 
P

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
Hi! Passpatoo

I've always claimed (or thought) that the US has intentionally set out to cause civil war in Iraq. That is was important for the US to do this because you can not conquer people who are united. It was necessary for the US to have chaos and insurection and thus justify remaining in Iraq.
I'm quite skeptical of anything the US claims as steps towards democracy.

I firmly believe that outright civil war will happen and that the US intends to move their forces into Kurdish held areas up North.

I look at everything inside Iraq through this prisim.

The US claims that Afghanistan is a success too. They had elections too.
But the US only controls 10% of the country and they could care less about the rest. They only control the area inside Afghanistan where the oil pipeline is scheduled to run. The rest of the country is growing opium. This opium is being exported to Western countries and dope addicts are acting like terrorists, robbing banks in our communities to feed their drug dependency.
George Bush has imported terrorism directly into poor neighbourhoods and tonight he will claim success during his State Of Union address.

And America cheers .....

Calm
 
P

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
Hi! Passpatoo

I've always claimed (or thought) that the US has intentionally set out to cause civil war in Iraq. That is was important for the US to do this because you can not conquer people who are united. It was necessary for the US to have chaos and insurection and thus justify remaining in Iraq.
I'm quite skeptical of anything the US claims as steps towards democracy.

I firmly believe that outright civil war will happen and that the US intends to move their forces into Kurdish held areas up North.

I look at everything inside Iraq through this prisim.

The US claims that Afghanistan is a success too. They had elections too.
But the US only controls 10% of the country and they could care less about the rest. They only control the area inside Afghanistan where the oil pipeline is scheduled to run. The rest of the country is growing opium. This opium is being exported to Western countries and dope addicts are acting like terrorists, robbing banks in our communities to feed their drug dependency.
George Bush has imported terrorism directly into poor neighbourhoods and tonight he will claim success during his State Of Union address.

And America cheers .....

Calm
 
P

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
Hi! Passpatoo

I've always claimed (or thought) that the US has intentionally set out to cause civil war in Iraq. That is was important for the US to do this because you can not conquer people who are united. It was necessary for the US to have chaos and insurection and thus justify remaining in Iraq.
I'm quite skeptical of anything the US claims as steps towards democracy.

I firmly believe that outright civil war will happen and that the US intends to move their forces into Kurdish held areas up North.

I look at everything inside Iraq through this prisim.

The US claims that Afghanistan is a success too. They had elections too.
But the US only controls 10% of the country and they could care less about the rest. They only control the area inside Afghanistan where the oil pipeline is scheduled to run. The rest of the country is growing opium. This opium is being exported to Western countries and dope addicts are acting like terrorists, robbing banks in our communities to feed their drug dependency.
George Bush has imported terrorism directly into poor neighbourhoods and tonight he will claim success during his State Of Union address.

And America cheers .....

Calm
 
S

scott malcolm

Nominee Member
Dec 31, 2004
50
0
6
I am anti-war and pro-elections.

The elections is the first step to exiting US troops. It is a top down or bottom up solution.

The US top down solution did not quell the insurgency so they had to give the power to the people. Those who participated will reap the benefits and we can now hope that Sistani who forced the Americans to follow through with the elections and stopped the US constitutional process will have the forsight to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

Though what is intersting is that the US will be forced to be aware of Arab popular opinion now in other theaters.

Which makes the invasion or miltary strikes against Siite Iran a little bit more tricky.

Freedom and independence includes the right to security and none of the destabilizing issues in the middle east have been resolved except to bring the people of Iraq closer together with the people of Iran.

Though now all eyes are on Sistani as he plays conciliatory while the US hands over power to him on a silver platter and exits stage left with some semblance of self respect.

Though their arrogance is not enough to stabilize the region. Only the participation of the people of Iraq can do that. And when they have realized full control the next step is to maintain their own independence by establishing their own foreign policy which rescognizes the necessity to balance regional power.

So unless the US now disarms the Israeli nuclear capability they do not have the moral or ethical authority to refuse Iraq the development of counter measures. Or the ethical or moral authority to counter any measures aimed at curtailing future US intervention of the Free Democratic State of Iraq.

So rather than eliminating the WMD that were not there the US has ensured the process where such countermeasures must be created to balance the region. And no more dual containment.
 
S

scott malcolm

Nominee Member
Dec 31, 2004
50
0
6
I am anti-war and pro-elections.

The elections is the first step to exiting US troops. It is a top down or bottom up solution.

The US top down solution did not quell the insurgency so they had to give the power to the people. Those who participated will reap the benefits and we can now hope that Sistani who forced the Americans to follow through with the elections and stopped the US constitutional process will have the forsight to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

Though what is intersting is that the US will be forced to be aware of Arab popular opinion now in other theaters.

Which makes the invasion or miltary strikes against Siite Iran a little bit more tricky.

Freedom and independence includes the right to security and none of the destabilizing issues in the middle east have been resolved except to bring the people of Iraq closer together with the people of Iran.

Though now all eyes are on Sistani as he plays conciliatory while the US hands over power to him on a silver platter and exits stage left with some semblance of self respect.

Though their arrogance is not enough to stabilize the region. Only the participation of the people of Iraq can do that. And when they have realized full control the next step is to maintain their own independence by establishing their own foreign policy which rescognizes the necessity to balance regional power.

So unless the US now disarms the Israeli nuclear capability they do not have the moral or ethical authority to refuse Iraq the development of counter measures. Or the ethical or moral authority to counter any measures aimed at curtailing future US intervention of the Free Democratic State of Iraq.

So rather than eliminating the WMD that were not there the US has ensured the process where such countermeasures must be created to balance the region. And no more dual containment.
 
S

scott malcolm

Nominee Member
Dec 31, 2004
50
0
6
I am anti-war and pro-elections.

The elections is the first step to exiting US troops. It is a top down or bottom up solution.

The US top down solution did not quell the insurgency so they had to give the power to the people. Those who participated will reap the benefits and we can now hope that Sistani who forced the Americans to follow through with the elections and stopped the US constitutional process will have the forsight to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

Though what is intersting is that the US will be forced to be aware of Arab popular opinion now in other theaters.

Which makes the invasion or miltary strikes against Siite Iran a little bit more tricky.

Freedom and independence includes the right to security and none of the destabilizing issues in the middle east have been resolved except to bring the people of Iraq closer together with the people of Iran.

Though now all eyes are on Sistani as he plays conciliatory while the US hands over power to him on a silver platter and exits stage left with some semblance of self respect.

Though their arrogance is not enough to stabilize the region. Only the participation of the people of Iraq can do that. And when they have realized full control the next step is to maintain their own independence by establishing their own foreign policy which rescognizes the necessity to balance regional power.

So unless the US now disarms the Israeli nuclear capability they do not have the moral or ethical authority to refuse Iraq the development of counter measures. Or the ethical or moral authority to counter any measures aimed at curtailing future US intervention of the Free Democratic State of Iraq.

So rather than eliminating the WMD that were not there the US has ensured the process where such countermeasures must be created to balance the region. And no more dual containment.
 
P

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
Hey! Scott Malcolm

The US is never gonna leave Iraq. They got huge plans. And they will bomb Iraq into the stone ages in order to accomplish their goals.

They are gonna move up North to Kurdistan. That is why they are not worried about troop levels. They will only need 75 thousand troops in Kurdish held areas.

Here is some interesting reading:

Inside U.S. Counterinsurgency:
A Soldier Speaks
By Stan Goff
December 22, 1999
http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/122299a.html

Calm
 
P

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
Hey! Scott Malcolm

The US is never gonna leave Iraq. They got huge plans. And they will bomb Iraq into the stone ages in order to accomplish their goals.

They are gonna move up North to Kurdistan. That is why they are not worried about troop levels. They will only need 75 thousand troops in Kurdish held areas.

Here is some interesting reading:

Inside U.S. Counterinsurgency:
A Soldier Speaks
By Stan Goff
December 22, 1999
http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/122299a.html

Calm
 
P

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
Hey! Scott Malcolm

The US is never gonna leave Iraq. They got huge plans. And they will bomb Iraq into the stone ages in order to accomplish their goals.

They are gonna move up North to Kurdistan. That is why they are not worried about troop levels. They will only need 75 thousand troops in Kurdish held areas.

Here is some interesting reading:

Inside U.S. Counterinsurgency:
A Soldier Speaks
By Stan Goff
December 22, 1999
http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/122299a.html

Calm
 
S

scott malcolm

Nominee Member
Dec 31, 2004
50
0
6
Calm

I don't think the choice is up to them.

I think it is up to Sistani how long they stay. Once the government he controls asks the US to leave they pretty much are forced to.

Though he will have them there as a stabilizing force and the visible target as long as he needs them.

Though I don't see it beyond the realm of possibility that once asked to leave that the Americans would move to "PROTECT AND LIBERATE" the Sunnis and/or Kurds from the "tyranny of the majority".

If one thing is learned by this outing into the Middle East it is that the US military really does not have an understanding of what the effects of their actions are going to be.

They look at military victory without understanding the social-economic-religious victory necessary to accompany it. IN this case Sistani took a US military victory and turned it into his social-religious victory,. And two out of three ain't bad.
 
S

scott malcolm

Nominee Member
Dec 31, 2004
50
0
6
Calm

I don't think the choice is up to them.

I think it is up to Sistani how long they stay. Once the government he controls asks the US to leave they pretty much are forced to.

Though he will have them there as a stabilizing force and the visible target as long as he needs them.

Though I don't see it beyond the realm of possibility that once asked to leave that the Americans would move to "PROTECT AND LIBERATE" the Sunnis and/or Kurds from the "tyranny of the majority".

If one thing is learned by this outing into the Middle East it is that the US military really does not have an understanding of what the effects of their actions are going to be.

They look at military victory without understanding the social-economic-religious victory necessary to accompany it. IN this case Sistani took a US military victory and turned it into his social-religious victory,. And two out of three ain't bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom