Is this soon to occur in Iraq?

[sirs]

<<FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  MEANING IT'S [dismemberment's] NO LONGER "PUBLIC POLICY">>

Well, in the first place, some of it's still government policy. 

Show us where in the Maliki is sanctioning and supporting dismemberment as Government policy for political dissent.  He DOES represent the Government elected by the people, you realize.  Come on, give us some of these "facts" you're makin.....showing us

But even if it weren't the government doing the dismembering, it's still gotta be a worse situation.  As I pointed out, under Saddam, all you had to do to avoid dismemberment was to keep your fucking mouth shut.  Under the "liberation" of Iraq, you have lost that option.  You'd have to be a real fool to think the present situation is better than the second.  You have no protection at all at present - - everyone's a target.

It's amazing you're even allowed to drive

Come on, when a bunch of guys come to dismember you, do you think your last thoughts are gonna be, "Well, thank God it's not the government?"  That's lunacy.  What you see in Iraq now, in the absence of strong central authority (Saddam) is that every man is every other man's torturer and executioner.  The Americans took apart a system they didn't like and lo and behold!  they weren't able to put together anything to replace it with and the situation is ten times worse than before.

No, what you see now is a Democracy in its infancy.  You see alot of folks that surround this potential NOT liking it, and doing everything they can to disrupt it, if not destroy it.  THAT's what you're seeing.  Oppressive dictatorship replaced by a Democratically elected Government.  THAT's what you're seeing. 

Also, your "not supported by America" is only half-true.  Why do you think Negroponte of all people was picked as Ambassador to Iraq?  What do you think the El Salvador Option was? 

Nice red herring.  What kind of bait did you use there, cause I'm not biting.  Most other rationally minded people won't either

Even BT predicted US-sponsored death squads would be the next step in fighting the insurgency, although now I'm sure he'd be the first to ask, what Salvador Option, what death squads, what American involvement, where's the smoking gun?

Precisely......WHERE'S THE SMOKING GUN? (tranlsated ; FACTS to support the continued asanine allegations.)  Your say so just doesn't have an ounce of credibility to hold a match, much less a valid accusation, at this point

[Michael Tee]

<<Show us where in the Maliki is sanctioning and supporting dismemberment as Government policy for political dissent.  He DOES represent the Government elected by the people, you realize.  Come on, give us some of these "facts" you're makin.....showing us>>

You're a little confused.  YOU were the one who was crowing about how Iraqis were no longer going to be dismembered for disagreeing with the government.

I AGREED with that and pointed out that now they could be dismembered merely for their religion. 

Now you are challenging me to prove something I never said was happening - - I didn't say that Iraqis were now being killed for political dissent.

However, to prove Maliki's connection to the death squads is a no-brainer, whatever their motives may be.  Here, for example, from today's Asia Times, Nov. 15 (I guess it's already yesterday's Asia Times now) - -

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK15Ak02.html

<<Under Maliki's predecessor and boss, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Interior Ministry had been used by Bayan Jabr (a member of the SCIRI) to arrest, torture and kill members of the Sunni community who were connected or remained supportive of Saddam Hussein.

<<Sunnis loudly asked Maliki to change course, as did non-religious figures such as former prime minister Iyad Allawi, who coveted Maliki's job. Muqtada, however, would not hear of it and announced that this was a line-in-the-sand issue and insisted that Interior remain in the hands of Shi'ite religious parties so they could control the police apparatus.

<<The result is that under Maliki and his Shi'ite-dominated Interior Ministry, militants dressed in police uniform using ministry cars have arrested, murdered and kidnapped Sunni citizens. Sunni political parties have finally threatened to resign from the cabinet if Maliki does not put an end to the militia wars raging in Baghdad. The Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front, which holds 44 seats in the 275-member parliament, is threatening to pull out of the political process completely.>>

This is just a short excerpt from the article.  It goes into more detail, I'm not going to reproduce the whole of it here, but this snippet ought to be sufficient.  Maliki's connection to the death squads and his dependence on the political parties that they represent is very well known.

<<It's amazing you're even allowed to drive>>

Once again, if you have anything intelligent to say in response to anything I write, I'd be interested to hear it.  Facts, logic, whatever.  This kind of childish crap, saying nothing, proving nothing, refuting nothing - - aren't you embarrassed to write it?  It's like painting a big sign "MORON" right across your own forehead in red lipstick.

<<No, what you see now is a Democracy in its infancy.>>

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten what Democracy in its infancy was like.  Benjamin Franklin dismembering Alexander Hamilton.  Thomas Jefferson raping Tom Paine's wife and then drilling a hole right through her skull with a Black & Decker.   John Quincy Adams ripping George Washington's head right off him and then drinking his blood.  Yes, you sure know a lot about democracy in its infancy, sirs.  You can spot it a mile away.

<<Nice red herring.  What kind of bait did you use there, cause I'm not biting.  Most other rationally minded people won't either.>>

Of course not.  Negroponte and death squads  Where do these leftist maniacs get this stuff from anyway?

[Michael Tee]

By the way, I find that it's impossible to type three  question marks in a row without inviting one of those moronic smiley faces into the message, permanently.  Has anybody figured out how to politely say "Thanks but no thanks" to the row of icons just waiting to jump into the action?

[sirs]

You're a little confused.  YOU were the one who was crowing about how Iraqis were no longer going to be dismembered for disagreeing with the government.  I AGREED with that and pointed out that now they could be dismembered merely for their religion.  Now you are challenging me to prove something I never said was happening - - I didn't say that Iraqis were now being killed for political dissent.

OK, let's fix that.  Show us where Maliki is sanctioning and supporting dismemberment as Government policy for being the wrong religion.  He DOES represent the Government elected by the people, you realize.  Come on, give us some of these "facts" you're makin.....showing us

This kind of childish crap, saying nothing, proving nothing, refuting nothing - - aren't you embarrassed to write it?

Not really, as it's in reponse to garbage equally moronic

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten what Democracy in its infancy was like

Ohh?  You were alive and kicking during America's infancy?  Or was it some other country?  Do tell, what was it like?

Benjamin Franklin dismembering Alexander Hamilton.  Thomas Jefferson raping Tom Paine's wife and then drilling a hole right through her skull with a Black & Decker

Strange, I thought they were all on the same side, all fighting for the same goal, American Independence.  Why would they be fighting each other?  You use different history books, in your reality?

[Michael Tee]

<<OK, let's fix that.  Show us where Maliki is sanctioning and supporting dismemberment as Government policy for being the wrong religion.  He DOES represent the Government elected by the people, you realize.  Come on, give us some of these "facts" you're makin.....showing us>>

Are you stupid or just totally unconscious?  I just showed you the Asia Times article outlining the relationship between Maliki (representing "The Government elected by the people* "  as you put it) and the Shi'ite death squads.  Were you too fucking lazy to read the article?

<<Not really, as it's in reponse to garbage equally moronic>>

More of your lying bullshit.  It was obviously in response to my previous post, which you quoted from in some detail.  If you felt something in it was moronic, which is your right, you might have pointed out exactly what that was, and what was so "moronic" about it - - as I do, in detail, on just about every piece of moronic crap that you post.

<<Ohh?  You were alive and kicking during America's infancy?  Or was it some other country?  Do tell, what was it like?>>

Whether I was alive and kicking during the period of democracy's issue is kind of beside the point, isn't it?  I'll bet you weren't alive and kicking during WWII, yet that never stopped you from sharing your "wisdom" on it with the rest of us- - which included delivering the most idiotic comments about it that I've ever heard in my life (for example that the Treaty of Versailles was never enforced against Germany, when it was the enforcement of that very treaty which created the bitterness that led directly to the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party.)

However, to answer your smart-ass question:  the birth of democracy wasn't anything at all like the inter-religious slaughterhouse that you see in Iraq.  Nothing like it.  Nothing resembling it.  Democracy is born when an entire people want it to be born, not when a foreign army invades and forces it down their throats from the barrel of a gun.  (And before you bring out that old, tired shit about Germany and Japan and 1945, let me beat you to the punch - - both of them already had functioning representative democracies for many, many years before they were seized and manipulated by a bunch of fascists and militarists; which probably won't stop you from repeating your ignorant mantra because of course your disregard of historical fact is iinvincible.)  The will for democracy doesn't have to be 100% by any means or it would never have happened anywhere - - but it's pretty obvious that there's a certain minimal percentage of public support that democracy needs in a country for it to take hold, and it should be apparent to you by this point that Iraq is falling short of whatever minimal percentage that might be by a considerable margin.

<<Strange, I thought they were all on the same side, all fighting for the same goal, American Independence.  Why would they be fighting each other?  You use different history books, in your reality?>>

Sorry, sirs.  (MEMO TO SELF:  Turn off the irony when you are dealing with this individual.  He just. doesn't. get it.)

[Amianthus]

Has anybody figured out how to politely say "Thanks but no thanks" to the row of icons just waiting to jump into the action?

Yeah, click on "Additional Options..." and check the "Don't use smileys." option.

It's easy???

[Xavier_Onassis]

Iraq is a fledgling democracy, hunh.

Is that in the same sense that President Thieu and the flamboyant Vice-President Ky were fledgling democrats?

It is deeply ironic to hear Juniorbush and his puppeteers speak of democracy as a positive thing. Many of them are the sort of dipwads that are always reminding us "The You Hess Hay is not a democracy. It is a Republic!"

They are not even capable of using the WORD democrat properly. Their opposition party has been called the Democratic Party for well over 150 years, and yet they refer to it as the "Democrat Party".

It would be NICE if the Iraqis actually wanted a democracy enough to cease murdering, torturing and dismembering one another with US branded Chinese made Black & Decker power tools, but the evidence does not seem to be there. The President of Iraq recently demanded that the US troops cease to surround Sadr City, the center of Shiite attacks on Sunnis.

Democracy?  Really? 

Do you see that light on the horizon? Is it Democracy?  It's redstate red, perhaps it is the forebearer of GOP-inspired Iraqi Democracy!

No, false alam, it's Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer...

PS Negroponte does Death Squads. Do a search on his name and Atlacat/Atlacatl.

[Amianthus]

They are not even capable of using the WORD democrat properly. Their opposition party has been called the Democratic Party for well over 150 years, and yet they refer to it as the "Democrat Party".

They use it in the same vein that Democrats call Republicans "Nazis."

And, to hear you complain about it so often, you'd think it was just as insulting.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The fact is that Democratic Party is the name of the organization, NOT "Democrat Party"

The Democrats do not call the GOP the "Republic Party" This makes them appear to be less foolish.

This is simply childish. The Republicans who do this are simply being childish assholes.

It is amazing that a grown man could be such a childish asshole as to do this, but strangely, most of them do.

It is not unlike the clowns with the huge woofers in their trunks that roam about the ghetto "Sharing" their annoying rap music.
And just about as effective.

[Amianthus]

This is simply childish. The Republicans who do this are simply being childish assholes.

I'll remember to remind you of this the next time you throw in a gratuitous insult.

Oh wait, that would be the post I'm replying to...

[sirs]

This is simply childish. The Republicans who do this are simply being childish assholes.

I'll remember to remind you of this the next time you throw in a gratuitous insult.  Oh wait, that would be the post I'm replying to...