you sad deranged tosspot.......Mr.Jack4WAR said:
Why isn't bush recieving an impeachment?
- Thread starter reap
- Start date
spidergoat said:Who did they vote for?
...there is no census, no register of voters, and the 7,700 candidates are all numbered, not named, no Sunnis voted, and the ballots were "counted" in secret. The full list of candidates was not even printed in the newspapers. Oh people of Iraq, welcome to Democracy.
It's another example of the Republicans being blinded by symbolism over reality.
Step 1 on a long road. For those Sunni's who didn't vote, tough shit. Don't vote, don't cry about the results. It's the same in every free election. What would you do different? Give up and leave everyting the way it was. Easy for you to say sitting at your safe comfortable computer spewing your judgements to people who have been oppressed for many, many years. Just the fact that they risked death to vote is enough said about their desire to be free.
moss said:
What growing global economic surge? If you're talking about the economic downswing that occurred just before and during Bush's first term, you might want to look at what happened when people woke up to realize they'd grossly overvalued all of those idiotic web companies from the nineties.
The sense of pity engendered by the 911 attacks was of little value in any case. That France (and likeminded "allies") has a poor opinion of the US is nothing new. Is it really in anyone's interest for the US to adjust their foreign policy to maintain a victim status of dubious worth?
I think American internal security increased tenfold the moment the hostages on that flight over Pennsylvania realized their fate and fought to regain control of the plane. If anything is making the US less safe these days, it's the handwringing approach sought by the Dems over Gitmo. Wearing new gloves (literally) to respect the xenophobic attitudes of mass murderers is ridiculous. Worrying that accidently dropping a holy book is morally equivalent to beating the soles of a prisoner's feet until he dies of blood poisoning is mind-boggling.
And by the way, 45 years of protection afforded by living next to the "amerogants" is the reason I'm not typing this in Russian. Assuming they had wi-fi in the salt mines.
Giskard said:
Bush did not go into Iraq to spread democracy. Bush went there to aquire a vital cog in the in the PNAC plan to use the sole superpower situation to create an American dominated century which in theory would benefit America and the world. I place more weight on what the Bush team was saying when they were out of power and speaking candidly during the Clinton years than what they say now in the media glare.
Haiti and the past history of the Bush team shows that spreading democracy is not their priority. The WMD motive for entering Iraq has been exposed as having been a big lie. The PNAC motive for entering Iraq is the motive that best fits with the way the facts of Iraq have played out.
If the PNAC motive is the true motive then allowing Iraq to break free from American influence under Al-Jaafari or anybody else would be a defeat for the Bush team in a mission that PNAC/neocon thinking considered very important. I think the Bush team thought that they could place an Allawi type in control of Iraq and have a veneer of democratic legitimacy in the same way that they successfully placed Hamid Karzai as head of state in Afghanistan while giving Karzai the veneer of democratic legitimacy.
One of the only things that I like about the Bush team is there determination to succeed and their refusal to back down and take a less ambitious easier path when obstacles arise. Too bad for me that I don't share Bush's theories and goals because I would love to have that determination on my side. If I am right about why the Bush team went into Iraq and my assesment of the Bush teams character then the Bush team will feel that they must overthrow the Iraqi democracy if they can not control the Iraqi demnocracy.
PNAC/neocon goals require permanent American bases in Iraq, permanent American control over Iraqi foreign policy, and American control over the quantity of oil shipped from Iraq in order to be able to threaten to raise and lower the price of oil or even cut off the supply of oil to any particular nation as a means of influencing the policies of other nations. I don't believe that the Bush team will be willing to negotiate on those issues. Bush may also want to impose on Iraq neoliberal economic policy and corporate welfare to allied corporations but that is probably negotiable. Al-Jaafari and most Iraqis won't be willing to give the Bush team what the Bush team wants unless they have no choice; So the Bush team will feel that they must create a situation in which the Iraqis have no choice but to submit to American control.
I hear that private secret police and militias have been creted in Iraq that are on the US payroll and are not part of the Iraqi government. I hear that the Iraqi government intelligence agencies have not yet been turned over to the Iraqi government and are still taking orders direcly from the USA. One interpretation of why Bush the first refused to give air support to the rebllion that he called for in Iraq was that he wanted the rebellion to be lead by Baath / Sunnis and the rebellion he got was led by Shiites (who might be to friendly to Iran).
Iraqis believe that Sistani won them the election by threatening to throw the Shiites into rebellion against the American coalition and believe Bush did not want the election to take place at that time. Bush had not yet completed building a system with which to covertly control Iraq after the elections.
It does make a difference who the Iraqis voted for and who they were aligned with because now that the Iraqis have elected people that Bush did not created and does not control Bush may feel that he must crush the democracy after he crushes the insurgency.
I hope, for your sake, that Hillary really does win in 2008. It will be interesting to see how your views change when the Dems fail to change US foreign policy as it applies to the Middle East. But then again, perhaps you'll just blame it all on some sort of nefarious Bushite mind control scheme.
For the same reason you won't find any statues of FDR in France. Countries build monuments to honour their own. Besides, neither country is stable enough to declare their troubles over and start building monuments to celebrate historic victories.Okeydoke said:Darn. You know, I sure haven't heard of or read any published news reports lately about any big statues of the 'beloved' U.S. President Bush being erected anywhere in Iraq or Afganistan. I wonder why that is?
Okeydoke
Nirakar:"One of the only things that I like about the Bush team is there determination to succeed and their refusal to back down and take a less ambitious easier path when obstacles arise. Too bad for me that I don't share Bush's theories and goals because I would love to have that determination on my side. If I am right..."
So finally we get throught all the BS and the "facts" and analyzations. This has nothing to do with Bush or the war, or terror. It has to do with you being a Democrat and wanting to be right. As with most Democrats, you refuse to believe the other side can do anything right or for the right reasons. Bush's goal is a safer America. I would hope to think you agree with that.
So finally we get throught all the BS and the "facts" and analyzations. This has nothing to do with Bush or the war, or terror. It has to do with you being a Democrat and wanting to be right. As with most Democrats, you refuse to believe the other side can do anything right or for the right reasons. Bush's goal is a safer America. I would hope to think you agree with that.
Nirakar: "It does make a difference who the Iraqis voted for and who they were aligned with because now that the Iraqis have elected people that Bush did not created and does not control Bush may feel that he must crush the democracy after he crushes the insurgency"
You claim that the Iraqi "may feel". How would you know? Sticking such a supposition into a rambling post almost ensures you will get away with it, just as Albert Einstein got away with his opening statement of "Let us suppose..." at the start of his famous theory.
You claim that the Iraqi "may feel". How would you know? Sticking such a supposition into a rambling post almost ensures you will get away with it, just as Albert Einstein got away with his opening statement of "Let us suppose..." at the start of his famous theory.
CellarSylph
Registered Member
Giskard said:
Giskard said:
The difference is that it is essential to understanding the Iraqi mindset and how the population is responding to our democracy crusade. It is far better of a measure of their views than any poll that could be conducted by a major news network. It shows the tenacity of those who did vote, the 'disenfranchised', and for who and what many of them are voting. If many were to vote one way, it's a safer America. If the other, not so much.
(We have created a representative democracy in Iraq.) Let's assume a worst case and superb form of irony. A religious sect gains control of their houses and Senate. First, they anger the other sects by implementing policies in their faith. Maybe, they begin creating a theocratic state. Plus, They feel that somebody in the world needs to be liberated and brought the ideas of their faith. So they attack a smaller nation to bring it to them. If that were to happen, what are we to do? Tell them they can't?
What about Pakistan? The nation that the 9-11 commission said contained "endemic poverty, widespread corruption, and often ineffective government" that "create opportunities for Islamist recruitment." And also "Within Pakistan's borders are 150 million Muslims, scores of Al Qaida terrorists, many Taliban fighters, and--perhaps--Usama Bin Ladin." This country fits the criteria for an immediate invasion to create a safer America, no wait, not really, because many of those people are probably coming to Iraq. We can fight them there. But still, this stuff supposedly exists in Pakistan, and they need democracy. I also think that we should bring democracy to a country where more people favor Bin Ladin than Bush. Now, I mean true democracy. Not this puppet stuff either. Let the people decide their fate, and if the people decide to attack us, then they did it themselves through democracy.
BHS said:
The bottom line is even if there was a statue of the 'beloved' U.S. President Bush erected somewhere in Bagdad or anywhere in Iraq or even Afganistan for that matter, it would have been torn down and destroyed long ago by the Iraqi people. Why would they destroy it and tear it down you ask??? Out of gratitude for his historic decision to bomb, invade, occupy and destroy thier country.
Okeydoke
Okeydoke said:The bottom line is even if there was a statue of the 'beloved' U.S. President Bush erected somewhere in Bagdad or anywhere in Iraq or even Afganistan for that matter, it would have been torn down and destroyed long ago by the Iraqi people. Why would they destroy it and tear it down you ask??? Out of gratitude for his historic decision to bomb, invade, occupy and destroy thier country.
Okeydoke
Or perhaps because they're Muslims and they believe that duplicating the human form in stone for any reason is idolatry. In which case, not having a statue of Bush is really a form of flattery. Saddam broke with religious custom by putting statues of himself everywhere. The US came in and tore them all down, and now people can go to public places without having their religious beliefs besmirched.
Okeydoke said:
So what? The feeling isn't universal. The leftist Bush haters are more vocal than the Bush admirers, because they've got nothing better to do with their lives. It's like Reagan and Thatcher. If you listened to the Lefties back in 1981, shrieking their vehemence, it might have appeared to you that the whole world hated Reagan and Thatcher. But we now know that many of the people admired them were unable to speak, and their silence was used by the opponents of freedom as proof that Reagan and Thatchers' ideas were wrong. Bush has a lot more going for him, historically speaking, than a cursory glance of today's headlines will show. You'll see.
BHS said:
I believe the 2006 U.S. senatorial elections will tell the story. The current U.S. public unrest towards Bush's Iraq war policies and his so-called social security plan will certainly continue and obviously be reflected when the 2006 elections are held. Chances are, the american people will vote in some new democratic senators and then the rest of the story will start to unfold. Watch out and/or so long Bush.
Okeydoke
The inspection regime was WORKING. I would let it work.Giskard said:
What did the first Bush do when those same people rose up to be free after Gulf War I? Nothing, worse than nothing, he let Saddam fly around in helicopter gunships and kill the revolution. Why? Because the oh-so-freedom-loving Bush clan didn't want them to succeed. The reason? It would leave religious Muslims in control, and it would leave the US out of an oil producing country they wanted to control. Maybe the first Bush didn't invade Iraq proper because he knew something his son didn't, that it would be a quagmire resulting in civil war.Giskard said:
Now, the same people that have the desire to be free are fighting the US. Why? Because they want a real government, not a puppet regime that allows US corporations to benefit from war profiteering.
Note: we are both at our comfortable computers...
-Excellent points, nirakar.
Damn you're full of it. Bush's goal is planned chaos, makes it easier to steal. This isn't partisanship, I was for the war initially. The dems just have a better grasp of reality in this case. More and more republicans are beginning to realize the lie and demand answers.