All Bullshit Aside: Here Are the Issues

[Plane]

<<The Iranian troops in Iraq are not invited .

<<The US troops ARE .>>

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.   Ohhhhhhh . . .

plane, don't ever lose that sense of humour.

Iraq has an elected government .

Laugh all yu want but the alternative is an unelected government how could that be better?

[Michael Tee]

<<Iraq has an elected government .

<<Laugh all yu want but the alternative is an unelected government how could that be better?>>

I was laughing at the "invitation."  It seems that with enough firepower, I could be "invited" to the next Royal wedding.

[Plane]

<<Iraq has an elected government .

<<Laugh all yu want but the alternative is an unelected government how could that be better?>>

I was laughing at the "invitation."  It seems that with enough firepower, I could be "invited" to the next Royal wedding.

That is not called "firepower"it is called "money".

But who invited Saddam to tke over?
He and his party shot down the competition, firepower was their legitamacy.
Anyone with better firepower than Saddam had better legitamacy than Saddam.

[Michael Tee]

<<But who invited Saddam to tke over?
He and his party shot down the competition, firepower was their legitamacy.
Anyone with better firepower than Saddam had better legitamacy than Saddam.>>

Well, that's sporting of you.  I guess in the long run when America has finally had enough, you'll recognize the "legitimacy" of the Iraqi Resistance over the American puppet government.

[Plane]

<<But who invited Saddam to tke over?
He and his party shot down the competition, firepower was their legitamacy.
Anyone with better firepower than Saddam had better legitamacy than Saddam.>>

Well, that's sporting of you.  I guess in the long run when America has finally had enough, you'll recognize the "legitimacy" of the Iraqi Resistance over the American puppet government.

No ,legitamacy depends on the consent of the governed , this is what elections are about .

There is no reason to cry over the loss of Saddams regime he was just a thug who ruled by haveing the best threat , we can equal that , but why settle for being equal to such a negative quantity?

If we can empower the people of Iraq to run their own govenment we will have lived up to our creed .
Of course if this turns out to be impossible we might as well have tried.
The people of Iraq have been waiting for this oppurtuity since the beginning of history , I hope they can take advantage of it.

[Michael Tee]

<<If we can empower the people of Iraq to run their own govenment we will have lived up to our creed .
<<Of course if this turns out to be impossible we might as well have tried.>>

That is such ridiculous self-serving bullshit.  You did NOT try to bring them democracy.  You invaded them on a totally false pretext and had no intention of bringing democracy.  The intention was and always will be to rob them of their oil, and the recent proposed hydrocarbons law presented to the Iraqi "legislature" makes that abundantly clear.  Your army exercised complete control over every candidate who ran in the phony "elections" and if you think that the people of Iraq are going to let that sham continue much longer, you are deluding yourself once again.

If you think anyone is being fooled by this BS, by all means continue to present it as often as you like.  I will never fall for that garbage and neither will anyone else with an ounce of intelligence.

[sirs]

That is such ridiculous self-serving bullshit.  You did NOT try to bring them democracy.  You invaded them on a totally false pretext and had no intention of bringing democracy.  The intention was and always will be to rob them of their oil

Start with a false premise --> screw all credibility that might have followed

[Plane]

"You did NOT try to bring them democracy."


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


Did so.

The only reason not to think so is your prejuduces.

There is no stolen oil and there will not be no matter who wins the contracts to pump it.

I would like for American firms to win those contracts , in fair auctions.

And if thepeople of Iraq do not like the deal they should elect better dealers.

There are twice as many democracys in the world now as thirty years ago , it is a good trend.

But you have to expect some resistance from the tyrants.

[Michael Tee]

<<The only reason not to think so is your prejuduces.>>

No, the reason is the historical record.  The U.S. has never brought democracy to any oil-producing country in the Middle East.  Stood by the House of Saud like a rock.  Stood up for the Emir of Kuwait like a rock.  Stood up for Saddam Hussein while he allegedly "gassed his own people" and ran the worst torture chambers in the Middle East; still stands up for the Mubarak regime in Egypt, the King of Jordan and the Algerian military dictatorship.  Overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran and installed the Shah and his notorious secret police, SAVAK; supports a 39-year-old military occupation of the West Bank where the population's civil and human rights have added up to ZERO for 39 years.  Only a moron could believe that a country with a record like this is interested in bringing democracy to anybody.

Also in the historical record:  the U.S. invaded Iraq for a reason - - "WMD" - - which did not exist.  The invasion was sold to the American public as an act of self-defence against a "madman" and his "weapons" - - NEVER was it sold to America as a great crusade that had to be undertaken for the purpose of bringing democracy to Iraq.

The "elections" that were held were a farce.  At the best estimate of participation, only 57% of the electorate participated, many of them induced to do so by ration cards and the U.S. reserving unto itself the right to bar all candidates it deemed "unfriendly to democracy."  Some election.

<<There is no stolen oil and there will not be no matter who wins the contracts to pump it.>>

Bullshit.  That oil belonged to the Iraqi people and their government, now it's 70% American.

<<I would like for American firms to win those contracts , in fair auctions.>>

Yeah, that'll happen.  That's what the U.S. Army is there for.

<<And if thepeople of Iraq do not like the deal they should elect better dealers.>>

Yeah, incorruptible ones.  That's what the U.S. Army is there for.

There are twice as many democracys in the world now as thirty years ago , it is a good trend.

<<But you have to expect some resistance from the tyrants.>>

Yeah, I can see how many tyrants there are planting roadside bombs and driving suicide cars.  They're pretty stupid tyrants.  Maybe they can be tyrants in Paradise.

[Amianthus]

At the best estimate of participation, only 57% of the electorate participated,

At least 63 percent of Iraqis voted Saturday, she said, an increase of about 1 million voters over the first democratic election in January for a transitional government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101600301.html

Some estimates were as high as 74%.

[domer]

That statistic should give no comfort for, predictably, it produced a Shiite government which seems to be pursuing a Shiite agenda (Islamic Republic?) and hasn't even sent an intern to look up "reconciliation" in the Arabic dictionary. Without a constitution granting inalienable and impregnable minority rights, and an executive and judiciary eager to enforce them, the extent of the plebiscite means little to the actual ability of the Iraqi government to govern --- until such time as one side or the other is vanquished in a civil war.

[sirs]

At least 63 percent of Iraqis voted Saturday, she said, an increase of about 1 million voters over the first democratic election in January for a transitional government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101600301.html

Some estimates were as high as 74%.

Perhaps what Tee is supporting is the near 100% turn-out to re-elect Saddam as dictator.  I mean, there was no "coercion" by the minority at that time, right?   

[Xavier_Onassis]

Some estimates were as high as 74%.

The population of Iraq, and the voting age part of it is known too well to have an error of from 57 to 74%

The number of voters is known.

Of course, Iraq never had a true election before, so this would be something like a field hockey tournament in the US

[Michael Tee]

Estimates of the voter turnout in the Iraqi "election" are all over the map.  I picked the one from the Iraqi Electoral Commission (not its exact formal name) which was 57% and seemed realistic.  It's based on population figures since the actual number of eligible voters is not known.  Since the population figures themselves are pretty hazy, you can set them anywhere; one of the correspondents on Daily Kos showed that the Iraqi government figures were in all probability based on multiplying the estimated population by the percentage of it that should have been voting age or more, and then giving the turnout as the total number of votes cast, divided by the estimated number of eligible voters and expressed as a percentage.  The turnout can be whatever you want it to be.

[Amianthus]

I picked the one from the Iraqi Electoral Commission (not its exact formal name) which was 57% and seemed realistic.

Interesting.

From the "Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq" website, I get a voter turnout among registered voters of over 76% from their certified results. Most outside agencies claim that number is high.

Taking into account that out of 15,568,702 registered voters, 11,895,756 valid votes, 139,656 invalid votes and
62,836 blank votes were cast in 31,348 polling stations in all Iraqi governorates. Similarly, eligible Iraqi voters
cast 295,377 valid votes, 1,912 invalid votes and 1,094 blank votes in 560 polling stations in fifteen countries
abroad.

Certified Results