8 million+ iraqis defy terrorists & insurgents to vote: widespread dancing in the streets

02-01-05, 10:15

any one follow the elections ?
hard even for the critics
to deny the success of american/iraqi policy/strategy.
even the arab media has had to concede the point.
lol
score 1 for the home team.

02-01-05, 10:42

Absolutely. Especially if you want democracy to prevail, which of course in this case the arab media does, becaue it means an Iranian style islamic dictatorship. Score one for democracy!

02-01-05, 11:25

I think it's a good thing, despite the fact that I agree with Rodger about them creating a government similar to every other government in the area. The most democratic thing the Iraqi people have seen from America is 15 years of indiscriminate bombings. However, I am a believer that people should live like they want to live; the irony would be if they get this new government and then support a terrorist attack on us for the attacks we've done to them. I worry that we will find out they liked it just how it was, and now that we've destroyed it all, we'll give them free elections so we can find out we screwed up and just piss them off more. I hope not, though, I hope it becomes a bright shining star of freedom throughout the Middle East. Like so many other of our allies in the region like, say, Saudi Arabia.

I worry. But I hope.

02-01-05, 19:43

" I hope it becomes a bright shining star of freedom throughout the Middle East. Like so many other of our allies in the region like, say, Saudi Arabia. "

May the American dollar always have the power to win us friends.

02-01-05, 20:24

lol
it just kills you guys to see success eh ?
always gotta look for the bad
so to justify a position
increasingly demonstrated to be incorrect.
we're going to win
in iraq,
which will give us two-fold joy-
the joy of seeing them free
and the joy of seeing
the critics proved wrong.
i look forward to both with relish.

02-01-05, 21:08

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

increasingly demonstrated to be incorrect.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
A little enlightenment please? We just lost a record number of our soldiers last month. The insurgency has grown from 5,000 to 200,000 in the last year, and the country is virtually shut down. It's going from bad to worse, regardless of bush adminstration rhetoric, which you seem so eager to push.

yupster · 02-02-05, 01:06

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

lol
it just kills you guys to see success eh ?
always gotta look for the bad
so to justify a position
increasingly demonstrated to be incorrect.
we're going to win
in iraq,
which will give us two-fold joy-
the joy of seeing them free
and the joy of seeing
the critics proved wrong.
i look forward to both with relish. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Amen to that, Hippie.

America will always be a beacon of hope for those who want to be free. If freedom requires that we weed out (This means kill) the evil pricks who will deny this in Iraq, then this needs to be done. Government is always about "threat of force". if we let the Insurgents have their way now, that will be the defacto government there. We are there. We cannot fail and we will not fail.

Only in America can petty abuses become front page stories. Yes... some soldiers hurt the feelings of some prisoners over there.
Every person who has ever been a prisoner has their feelings hurt.
Saddam hurt some feelings over there too.
He regime cut body parts off

No American is shooting prisoners in the head for amusement. If they do they will be brought to trial as a criminal and it will make all the papers.

You want to see real prisoner abuse? Read up on the Bataam death march. American and Filipino soldiers were bayoneted and/or shot if they stumbled, by the Japanese soldiers while on a forced 60 mile "march" in world war II. 10,000 Americans and Filipinos died. I had the honor of knowing a man who survived that march.

Germany in World War II murdered millions of civilians and certainly thousands of military POW's.

America is fighting a war and playing by rules the otherside doesn't abide by.

War is brutal and ugly. Our American troops are dying over there for freedom. Did the American people owe the people of Iraq this? Maybe...maybe not.

Should we dishonor our men and women who have given the ultimate sacrafice over there by leaving the job uncompleted? Never.

Should Americans forgive and forget the terrorists and nations that harbor them?

Does the America owe the Iraqi people the right to have a fairly elected government there and support it by force of arms?
We do now.

If not America and its true allies such as Great Britain, who?

BTW: Someone mentioned that 70% of Fox News viewers thought Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. That's unsupported drivel that is repeated by those who despertly want to claim the "other side" is stupid.

Whenever I hear political discussion reduced to calling the other side stupid, I'm reminded of a six year old child arguing with a playmate by declaring "Oh yea, well...well you're a stupidhead!"

02-02-05, 02:53

Such disinformation. Let's take a closer look.
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

If freedom requires that we weed out (This means kill) the evil pricks who will deny this in Iraq, then this needs to be done. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
You seem to forget, the insurgents are Iraqi citizens fighting for their homeland against a foreign aggressor. The right of resistance to occupation is firmly entrenched into international law. It's THEIR country.
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Only in America can petty abuses become front page stories. Yes... some soldiers hurt the feelings of some prisoners over there.
Every person who has ever been a prisoner has their feelings hurt.
Saddam hurt some feelings over there too.
He regime cut body parts off<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
And 'our' regime stacked them naked on the floor and tied wires to their balls. Many have been shot and killed. In gitmo, an undercover agent who was a former national guardsman posing as an inmate received brain damage from the beatings he received.link
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

You want to see real prisoner abuse? Read up on the Bataam death march. American and Filipino soldiers were bayoneted and/or shot if they stumbled, by the Japanese soldiers while on a forced 60 mile "march" in world war II. 10,000 Americans and Filipinos died. I had the honor of knowing a man who survived that march.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Agreed, the Japanese were war criminals. I wonder if you drive a japanese car? On a recent day when I was counting bush/cheney bumper stickers, I didn't find one single one on an american made car. They were all on jap cars. The neocons seem to have very short memories of the wars our country fights. Perhaps that's because so many of them are draft dodgers and don't fight them. For example: President George W. Bush: Avoided service in Vietnam by using political connections to land a coveted place in the Texas Air National guard. Failed to complete his full six-year National Guard enlistment. Transferred to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate. Failed to apper for required medical exam. Unable to document required service.
* Vice President Dick Cheney: Did not serve. Multiple deferments for education and marriage.

* Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert: Did not serve.

* Republican leader Tom Delay: Did not serve.

* Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: Did not serve.

* Mitch McConnell: Did not serve.

* Senator Rick Santorum: Did not serve.

* Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott: Did not serve.

* Attorney General John Ashcroft: Did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.

* Florida Governor Jeb Bush: Did not serve.

* Presidential Advisor Karl Rove: Did not serve.

* Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: Did not serve.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

War is brutal and ugly. Our American troops are dying over there for freedom.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Whos freedom? That's a recent twist. I thought our troops were dying because of the possiblility of a "mushroom cloud over America" and "undeniable proof of weapons of mass destruction" Which is it?
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Should we dishonor our men and women who have given the ultimate sacrafice over there by leaving the job uncompleted? Never. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Do you suggest we stay and get thousands more killed, before leaving in disgrace the way we did in viet nam?
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Should Americans forgive and forget the terrorists and nations that harbor them? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Finally, something I can agree with you on. We were attacked by qaida, who were harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan. It's a sorry shame Afghanistan doesn't have oil. Perhaps bush would have had our boys stay and finish the job. We pulled out and left it to the Taliban to make a comeback, as we left in pursuit of oil. . .Oops, my bad, in pursuit of freedom for Iraq who never attacked us and was also an enemy of al qaida.
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Does the America owe the Iraqi people the right to have a fairly elected government there and support it by force of arms?
We do now.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Sure, just ask the sunni's to vote for the best shiite candidates we allow to run. That will teach them a lesson about democracy.
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

BTW: Someone mentioned that 70% of Fox News viewers thought Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. That's unsupported drivel that is repeated by those who despertly want to claim the "other side" is stupid.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
That was me, and you're absolutely right. I was mistaken. The figure is actually 80%. The 70% figure was people who watch CBS news with Dan Rather, the absolute sworn enemy of the neocons.

(Message edited by skyypilot on February 02, 2005)

02-02-05, 07:15

I saw on BBC news that the turn out for the Iraqi elections, despite the death threats was 60%. What is the US turn out rate for your elections, approximately?

yupster · 02-02-05, 07:46

rodger, your response is... well... unbelievable.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005656

Blame It on Neo
Don't call me a "neocon" unless you are a friend.

BY JULIA GORIN
Thursday, September 23, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Last week Pat Buchanan appeared on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," and liberal host Jon Stewart bonded with his paleoconservative guest over their mutual opposition to the liberation of Iraq. Mr. Stewart smiled and nodded while Mr. Buchanan derided "neoconservatives" four times in the course of the six-minute interview. In his efforts to promote his and his guest's common agenda, Mr. Stewart didn't ask Mr. Buchanan what he meant by "neoconservatives." It was clear that the Jewish Mr. Stewart didn't realize that Mr. Buchanan was using what has become an epithet for "Jews"--an epithet employed most often by the left.

One big culprit has been Air America. Tune in to the proudly liberal radio network, and you'll hear actress-turned-activist Janeane Garofalo and other hosts frequently blast the "influence" of the "neocons" on the Bush Administration, then go on to name names such as Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and Libby. Not a single gentile name makes the list, so it's the Jewish influence to which the network takes particular exception.

Others have gotten in trouble for pointing this out, but let's give up the charade. When a member of the enlightened classes, or Pat Buchanan, makes reference to a "neocon," what he's saying is "yid." That's right, "neoconservative," particularly in its shortened form, when employed by a nonconservative (or by Buchananites) and therefore meant derogatorily, is the modern, albeit more specific, word for "kike" that the left can say--and it has been doing so liberally (no pun intended) ever since American conservatism became yet something else that Jews have managed to benefit from--the conquered, final frontier of that famous Jewish manipulation.

By "neocons," the left means the Jewish subset of neocons. Witness Maureen Dowd's column last year, titled "Neocon Coup at the Department d'Etat": "The neocons have moved on to a vigilante action to occupy diplomacy. The audacious ones have saddled up their pre-emptive steeds and headed off to force a regime change at Foggy Bottom. . . . The president is not always privy to the start of a grandiose neocon scheme. . . . When the neocons want something done, they'll get it done, no matter what Mr. Bush thinks. And they think Mr. Powell has downgraded the top cabinet post into a human resources job, making nicey-nice with the U.N. and assorted bad guys instead of pursuing the neocon blueprint for world domination."

At first, Ms. Dowd's neocon list of last names included only Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Libby and their "Likudnik friends," but later, as blogger "Silver Surfer" writes on IsraPundit.com, she amended the list to include Cheney, Woolsey and Gingrich. "In Ms. Dowd's view," he writes, "adding a few non-Jewish names to her 'neo-cons' list makes her conspiratorial story-line kosher. But it doesn't. The result is a classical portrait of 'neo-con' (read: Jewish) advisors, who drip poison in the ears of their hapless gentile bosses, while they advance their global plot to subvert true American interests and take over the world--and, as Ms. Dowd is always quick to point out . . . thereby 'advance the strategic goals of Israel.' "

For a while, I couldn't tell whether the word was a euphemism or a slur, but from the resentful tone with which it was being employed by certain contingents ("pushy neocons" is another popular one), I could discern that the term's usage was undergoing a transition. After all, ethnic slurs can start out as euphemisms (meant to avoid identifying anyone blatantly by nationality) before evolving into derogations. "Colored" was a way to avoid the N-word, but today it doesn't go over very well itself. And a century ago Jews jokingly called one another by their Ellis Island designation "keikle" (Yiddish for "circle")--until the joke was co-opted by those hostile to Jews.

As a new staple of mainstream American vocabulary, "neoconservative" warrants a reminder of the term's beginnings, before it became chic newspeak. It originally referred to a movement of largely Jewish liberals who gave leftism an honest and protracted effort, who dutifully reviled every Republican president through Eisenhower, who did their time in inner cities, and who gave peace and social engineering a chance, until the real-world consequences of their good will forced them to acknowledge that what they were doing wasn't working but in fact backfiring. At which point, these men (e.g., Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol) underwent a midlife epiphany and became conservative after the 1960s.

Today the word applies to anyone who undergoes such a transformation, Jewish or not. True, neoconservatives are not the same breed of conservative that made up the Republican Party of Barry Goldwater. The difference is the neoconservatives' more interventionist foreign policy as opposed to vintage conservatism's isolationism.

With today's "post-9/11 omigod I think I may be Republican" Democrats, what we have in effect are neo-neoconservatives. Many of the Jews in this group might be more accurately described as Bush Democrats, but they've opted for the cachet of the label and call themselves neocons. But when Al Franken and other determinedly left-wing Jews use the term, they don't mean it nicely, embarrassed as they are by their politically wayward fellow tribesmen.

So let's go over the rules: Just because we call ourselves "neocons," it doesn't mean you can. Of course, if you're right-leaning and don't intend the word disparagingly, you get a pass. Just know that unless you're aware that "neoconservative" also includes last names like Bennett, Kirkpatrick, Sowell, Kemp and Ashcroft, when you refer to someone as a neocon, you're saying "Jew." We might suggest reverting to previous, less codey expressions such as "Jewish conservative" or "Republican Jew"--especially since not every right-leaning Jew is neo. But not to worry: We neocons, Republican Jews, Jewish conservatives and Jews for Bush won't take offense, since we don't want American Christians to feel even more paranoid than they already do (particularly during "holiday" season).

As for our imperviously left-leaning fellow tribesmen, let them figure out for themselves how to handle their non-Jewish co-ideologists who say "neocon" angrily and freely in mixed company.

Ms. Gorin, a contributing editor of JewishWorldReview.com, performs with RightStuffComedy.com.

###

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1095942859.shtml

I'm Sold: It Is A Bigot's Term

I've vacillated back and forth on this for a while, but Julia Gorin's sold me.

There are certain words I don't like to use casually. One of them is "liberal," since such a perfectly nice word is too often used as either a club (by blowhards like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh) or as a self-important badge by closed minded reactionaries (like Paul Krugman and Janeane Garafalo). I only use "liberal" in its original definition: a person not limited to established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, favoring proposals for reform, and open to new ideas for progress. Such a term could easily apply to many people who lean left or right on a variety of issues, and that's the sense I try to restrict myself to when using it.

Real liberals want to discuss things, search for the truth, and keep an open mind. Maybe that open-mindedness is what disturbs some people on the right, but there are plenty of ideologues on the left with pretensions to liberalism who are no less rigid than their ideological enemies.

A word I use even less often than "liberal," though, is "neocon." I've long recognized that, while it may have had benign origins, it's become the property of sneering-and-smearing bigots now. As Julia Gorin says so well:

Others have gotten in trouble for pointing this out, but let's give up the charade. When a member of the enlightened classes, or Pat Buchanan, makes reference to a "neocon," what he's saying is "yid." That's right, "neoconservative," particularly in its shortened form ["neocon"], when employed by a non-conservative (or by Buchananites) and therefore meant derogatorily, is the modern, albeit more specific, word for "kike" that the left can say--and it has been doing so liberally (no pun intended) ever since American conservatism became yet something else that Jews have managed to benefit from--the conquered, final frontier of that famous Jewish manipulation.

By "neocons," the left means the Jewish subset of neocons. Witness Maureen Dowd's column last year, titled "Neocon Coup at the Department d'Etat": "The neocons have moved on to a vigilante action to occupy diplomacy. The audacious ones have saddled up their pre-emptive steeds and headed off to force a regime change at Foggy Bottom. . . . The president is not always privy to the start of a grandiose neocon scheme. . . . When the neocons want something done, they'll get it done, no matter what Mr. Bush thinks. And they think Mr. Powell has downgraded the top cabinet post into a human resources job, making nicey-nice with the U.N. and assorted bad guys instead of pursuing the neocon blueprint for world domination."

At first, Ms. Dowd's neocon list of last names included only Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Libby and their "Likudnik friends," but later, as blogger "Silver Surfer" writes on IsraPundit.com, she amended the list to include Cheney, Woolsey and Gingrich. "In Ms. Dowd's view," he writes, "adding a few non-Jewish names to her 'neo-cons' list makes her conspiratorial story-line kosher. But it doesn't. The result is a classical portrait of 'neo-con' (read: Jewish) advisors, who drip poison in the ears of their hapless gentile bosses, while they advance their global plot to subvert true American interests and take over the world--and, as Ms. Dowd is always quick to point out . . . thereby 'advance the strategic goals of Israel.'"

Gorin doesn't even mention the absurdity of hastily attaching the prefix "neo" to lifelong conservatives like Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, James Woolsey, or Donald Rumsfeld, who are no more "neo" in their rock-ribbed conservatism than Phyllis Schlafley. Furthermore, most of the people doing this clumsy retro-fit damn well know it.

Mind you, I'm sure some decent people can use the term "neocon" without meaning it in a sinister, evil, sneering, smearing, bigoted fashion. Just like I fully recognize that someone could refer to an Arab as a "towel head" and simply be a little clueless, be using it as a joke among friends who know they don't mean anything by it. The way to respond to people who use such a term carelessly is to gently remind them that it's most often an epithet used by bigots and that they shouldn't use it too casually 'lest they hurt feelings or be misinterpreted. I would never refer to my doctor, a fine Muslim gentleman of Palestinian descent, in such a way. Neither would I use such a term for our family veteranarian, a gentle, incredibly decent man who literally does wear a turban. I hope none of you would either.

So sure, someone could say "neocon" innocently enough. But let's recognize what it means most of the time: it means "sinister Jew," and is an all-too-reliable marker for conspiracy-minded bigots who are different from the cretins at Stormfront only in their more friendly demeanor and their more sophisticated attitudes.

We should all recognize that these people are also not without their friends, the oblivious and/or self-hating Jews. You know, guys like Al Franken, Jon Stewart, and Bill Maher.

By the way, do you remember when Bill Maher was funny? Me neither. But I do remember when Stewart and Franken were. I was younger then, and more shallow. We're all older now, but alas, they're no less shallow.

Anyway, you can read the rest of Ms. Gorin's essay here in the selfish, scheming-Neocon dominated Wall Street Journal.

yupster · 02-02-05, 07:53

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

I saw on BBC news that the turn out for the Iraqi elections, despite the death threats was 60%. What is the US turn out rate for your elections, approximately?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

2004: 60.7%

Source:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-14 -election-turnout_x.htm?csp=36

USA Today/ Associated press story.

02-02-05, 09:17

So, is somebody named 'Goren' calling me an anti-semite because I was not in favor of the conquest of Iraq? Very interesting. . .

I've touched on this in other threads. I'm sick and tired of Jews declaring us to be the new 'master race'. It's disgusting, and it's blatantly racist. Now it appears we have to be in favor of killing all the Arabs in the world or be declared anti-semitic. I'm curious why you would post an article that calls me a hater of my own people because I don't favor telling lies in order to take over the middle east.

Perhaps if you don't like the message, you can attack that and not me personally. Do you think Dick Cheney served in the military? Do you think bush did? Do you think john ashcroft and those others listed served in the military? Do you doubt that an undercover investigator for the justice department received brain damage from the beating he received at gitmo?

What exactly is 'unbelievable' about my response? That you don't like the message? You're not the first one who has called me racist around here and I won't stand for it any longer. For the record, I'm not aryan, I'm jewish

grave · 02-02-05, 09:53

wow
i saw the thread and was like..oh man, a nice positive thread about a lil good news.
lol
well im just gonna kinda walk around the current discussion and say that i think its a good thing that the elections went pretty well. i really didnt know how it was going to pan out. i personally dont watch the bbc or anything that often, but my family is pretty up to date and will kinda toss info at me as i walk by them.

from what i have seen, the turnout was pretty good
no big massacre. thats good
i feel good knowing that someone over in iraq has a sense of happiness knowing that he has a voice to vote now.

lets see where this goes

02-02-05, 10:00

I hate parties, and more than that I hate this "liberal" "conservative" "left" "right" bullshit. BULLSHIT!!! "The left says this" "The right says that" - really? Who is Mr. Right and Mr. Left, I'd love to have a talk to clarify their positions on a few things because people seem to constantly misquote them. Dig this. Abortion. If you're a "pro-life" or anti-abortionist, guess what? You're one liberal guy - abortion is legal right now in America - if one was a conservative and attempting to maintain the status quo then you must be for the current laws in America, not trying to change the laws that exist, that's what the liberals do! This is one of a lot of examples that show how there is no such thing as a liberal or a conservative - no one is entirely dedicated to maintaining a status quo and no one else is dedicated to changing everything. Words like neocon are used by BOTH SIDES to make people who happen to maybe accept some new ideas and try and make them applicable in the world that they're in look like traitors or "flip-floppers." You know what? I like people that change their minds. I don't like people who say stupid shit like "You'd got to stay the course." Not with Elian Gonzales we didn't - talk about an issue of freedom - I'm not even going there. Sometimes change is good, sometimes change is bad, I don't know how we went from an argument about the freedom of Iraq into some bullshit about neocons. If you're for the war in Iraq - is it a conservative view because we've been fighting the war for a while now or is it a liberal view because the war has been going on for such a short time that it's still a big change? These are fun questions that don't mean shit. Let's stick to the issues: I find it hard to believe that when the U.S. government is making THE PEOPLE, not the terrorists, the farmers, go and take all the seed they have to plant crops and make them destroy it to buy corporate U.S. seed. Well, you have a good time winning support of those people, I'll send you the rose-colored glasses if you need a spare pair.

(Message edited by taoistshredder on February 02, 2005)

02-02-05, 10:03

I really do hope it all works out for them. I wish those people all the best. They went through 30 years of saddam, now this. I hope it all can end soon. We need peace at home now as much or more than anywhere else.

02-02-05, 10:32

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

I really do hope it all works out for them. I wish those people all the best. They went through 30 years of saddam, now this. I hope it all can end soon. We need peace at home now as much or more than anywhere else.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
amen.

02-02-05, 10:44

i don't think rodger's any kind of racist,
and i think the term 'racist' has often been
mis-applied here, on both sides.
but rodger is guilty of distorting the facts and glossing over inaccuracies in his arguments.
there is no evidence of 200,000 active insurgents,
that figure has just been manufactured.
the casualties last month set a new record because of a helicopter crash,
not as a result of combat.
the us government didn't torture anyone,
and the soldiers that did
are in prison now.
i could go on and on,
picking apart each line easily.
but there's no need,
we all saw the video of the iraqi people on election day,
that speaks far louder and with greater clarity on the matter than i ever could.
these people in their millions came out of the safety of their homes, despite death threats and numerous bombings, mortar & rocket attacks,
and then they walked miles to cast their vote
their actions clearly show their trust and support for the interim government and the coalition, they would not risk their lives to
cast a vote if they did not truly believe that it was worthwhile.
there will continue to be those who refuse to believe their own eyes
because to do so would force them to re-evaluate cherished beliefs.
i for one pity them,
it's sad to see the world in such a negative light, all doom and gloom.
as was said
there are none so blind
as those that will not see.

02-02-05, 14:38

Yippee. Today all of the Sunni Clerics reject any election results. Their people were either told to boycott or we too afraid to get to the polls. The Sunni areas also happen to be places where the insurgency could keep them from voting.

Hardly a success when 1/3 of the country boycotts and rejects the elections.

But still, I hope they manage to move forward.

02-02-05, 14:50

the sunni only number about 20% of the population,
that's 1/5th, not 1/3rd.
and those clerics do not speak for the people,
they speak in their own interest.
many of the sunni did vote,
defying their clerics.
their boycott only hurt their own interests,
the rest of the country will procede ahead
with or without them.
eventually even the rebellious sunni will be brought under the control of the central government, they are out-numbered and out-gunned
and cannot go it alone.

02-02-05, 14:57

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

eventually even the rebellious sunni will be brought under the control of the central government, they are out-numbered and out-gunned
and cannot go it alone. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
You can understand their frustation with a democratic decision making system though. They know that they are the religious minority in their country and that even if they all vote, their canidate will still lose unless he appeals to both sides (gee sounds like a similar impasse faced by the electoral system in this country. I must admit I was surprised to see that such a large % actually got out to try this newfangled voting thing considering the threats of terrorism, ect. Interesting that the faction of Islam that you follow doubles as a political party in this region of the world

02-02-05, 15:29

Ok, 20% instead of 30%.

Still quite a sizable number in regards to the whole population. Quite enough to wage a civil war and keep the country in even more turmoil.

The insurgents and also "out-number and out gunned" but we haven't exactly been able to keep them under control, or even decrease their numbers and attacks.

There are many many many more obstacles to overcome before any of this can be called a "success".

02-02-05, 15:48

it's simply misleading to keep trumpeting the success of the insurrection.
their rebellion is pathetic,
if they are so strong and so numerous
then why weren't they able to disrupt the elections ?
if there are 200,000 insurgents
then why are our losses lower than any other war ever fought ?

02-02-05, 16:48

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

eventually even the rebellious sunni will be brought under the control of the central government, they are out-numbered and out-gunned
and cannot go it alone. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Isn't that exactly what saddam did to the shiites?

Of course millions went out and voted in Iraq. They were the shiites who were suppressed by saddam, and now see their chance to take power. The sunnis are going to reject the results for sure.

I think what we're seeing is the beginning of the balkanization of Iraq. Of course, that will lead to problems with Turkey, which doesn't want to see an independent Kurdistan. More wars could follow.

yupster · 02-02-05, 18:38

http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/02/incoher ent_sunn.php#more

Incoherent Sunni Hypocrisy

"Which comes first: the cart or the horse? Iraq’s Sunnis cannot seem to decide. Sunni political and/or religious groups urged a boycott of Sunday’s elections. Sunni terrorists scared many of their brethren away from the polling places. But today,

A leading group of Iraqi Sunni clerics have said the country's landmark election lacks legitimacy as so many Sunnis did not take part in the vote.

What? This overt failure engineering. Do these Sunni “clerics” really expect to be taken seriously? They coerce Sunnis into avoiding the elections, then go kicking and screaming because many Sunnis avoided the elections..."

02-02-05, 18:56

actually the latest stats indicate that roughly
30% of the sunni did vote.
further ABC news just reported that today was the quietiest day in iraq since the invasion.
not one shot was fired at any of our aircraft,
not one IED was detonated
and only 9 attacks took place in all of baghdad,
less than 1/3 the normal rate.

the great strength of the insurgency
is shown
in their recent capture of GI Joe
who they are threatening to behead.
lol
instead of being real soldiers
they are reduced
to pointing plastic guns at kids' dolls.
read the writing on the wall.
their days have been numbered.

(Message edited by admin on February 02, 2005)

02-02-05, 19:38

Its slightly insulting and naive to make light of an insurgency that sends soldiers and Iraqi civilians home in body bags everyday.

I think the election was a step forward but how many times have we took one step forward only to take two backwards a month later?

I just think its crazy how overly optimistic the war supporters can be. I don't know where you get your numbers about who has voted, but officially not a single number has been released from the counts.

I'm as hopeful as anyone for success in Iraq. I just don't know if its completely possible.

02-03-05, 09:09

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

I don't know where you get your numbers about who has voted, but officially not a single number has been released from the counts. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

i saw that 30% figure on the ABC Evening News
which i watched just b4 posting.
i belive they said that they got that figure from the iraqi interior ministry, some preliminary counts from sunni areas.
they were also the source that reported the quiestest day in iraq mentioned above.
i have no great reason to suspect ABC is just making things up as they go.
if indeed 30% of the sunni actually did vote then i'd call that very significant.

(Message edited by admin on February 03, 2005)

02-03-05, 09:15

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Its slightly insulting and naive to make light of an insurgency that sends soldiers and Iraqi civilians home in body bags everyday<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

it's called
'ridicule',
and it's an effective method of boosting our morale while mocking the enemy
so i feel no guilt in it.
the GI Joe [actually Cody but close enough] Video we saw is indeed laughable
and deserves ridicule.

(Message edited by admin on February 03, 2005)

02-03-05, 09:22

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

I just think its crazy how overly optimistic the war supporters can be. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

the same could be said
about the pessimism
of the war's critics.
they steadfastly refuse to see
what is right before their eyes.

there is a great movement ongoing in the middle east,
free democratic elections
in afghanistan, palestine and iraq
are sending shock waves throughout arab society.

the insurgents find themselves isolated from mainstream society,
forced to bomb their own people into submission but it's not working,
they clearly are not all intimidated.
chairman Mao in his little red book tells us plainly that a guerilla movement can only succede with the good will of the common people.
but in iraq we are getting increased cooperation from the natives, who daily provide us with the tips that help us raid their safe houses and make arrests.
do you know that despite horrific losses
we are still getting 5 iraqi volunteeers for every police position ?
they are joining their own army at a better rate than americans are joining theirs...
all in all i'd say there is good reason to be optimistic and that those who cling to their visions of doom and gloom really should begin to re-evaluate their position and perhaps even question themselves about bias.

(Message edited by admin on February 03, 2005)

[Home]	[The Vaults]	[Glossary]	[Donate]	[Sponsors]	[Affiliates]
[Calendar]	Mark Forums Read	[VIP Chat]	[Register]	[Activate]	[Resend Email]

02-01-05, 21:08	#6 (permalink)
~rodger Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> increasingly demonstrated to be incorrect.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> A little enlightenment please? We just lost a record number of our soldiers last month. The insurgency has grown from 5,000 to 200,000 in the last year, and the country is virtually shut down. It's going from bad to worse, regardless of bush adminstration rhetoric, which you seem so eager to push.

02-02-05, 01:06	#7 (permalink)
yupster Mycophiliac Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 40	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> lol it just kills you guys to see success eh ? always gotta look for the bad so to justify a position increasingly demonstrated to be incorrect. we're going to win in iraq, which will give us two-fold joy- the joy of seeing them free and the joy of seeing the critics proved wrong. i look forward to both with relish. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Amen to that, Hippie. America will always be a beacon of hope for those who want to be free. If freedom requires that we weed out (This means kill) the evil pricks who will deny this in Iraq, then this needs to be done. Government is always about "threat of force". if we let the Insurgents have their way now, that will be the defacto government there. We are there. We cannot fail and we will not fail. Only in America can petty abuses become front page stories. Yes... some soldiers hurt the feelings of some prisoners over there. Every person who has ever been a prisoner has their feelings hurt. Saddam hurt some feelings over there too. He regime cut body parts off No American is shooting prisoners in the head for amusement. If they do they will be brought to trial as a criminal and it will make all the papers. You want to see real prisoner abuse? Read up on the Bataam death march. American and Filipino soldiers were bayoneted and/or shot if they stumbled, by the Japanese soldiers while on a forced 60 mile "march" in world war II. 10,000 Americans and Filipinos died. I had the honor of knowing a man who survived that march. Germany in World War II murdered millions of civilians and certainly thousands of military POW's. America is fighting a war and playing by rules the otherside doesn't abide by. War is brutal and ugly. Our American troops are dying over there for freedom. Did the American people owe the people of Iraq this? Maybe...maybe not. Should we dishonor our men and women who have given the ultimate sacrafice over there by leaving the job uncompleted? Never. Should Americans forgive and forget the terrorists and nations that harbor them? Does the America owe the Iraqi people the right to have a fairly elected government there and support it by force of arms? We do now. If not America and its true allies such as Great Britain, who? BTW: Someone mentioned that 70% of Fox News viewers thought Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. That's unsupported drivel that is repeated by those who despertly want to claim the "other side" is stupid. Whenever I hear political discussion reduced to calling the other side stupid, I'm reminded of a six year old child arguing with a playmate by declaring "Oh yea, well...well you're a stupidhead!"

02-02-05, 02:53	#8 (permalink)
~rodger Guest Posts: n/a	Such disinformation. Let's take a closer look. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> If freedom requires that we weed out (This means kill) the evil pricks who will deny this in Iraq, then this needs to be done. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> You seem to forget, the insurgents are Iraqi citizens fighting for their homeland against a foreign aggressor. The right of resistance to occupation is firmly entrenched into international law. It's THEIR country. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> Only in America can petty abuses become front page stories. Yes... some soldiers hurt the feelings of some prisoners over there. Every person who has ever been a prisoner has their feelings hurt. Saddam hurt some feelings over there too. He regime cut body parts off<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> And 'our' regime stacked them naked on the floor and tied wires to their balls. Many have been shot and killed. In gitmo, an undercover agent who was a former national guardsman posing as an inmate received brain damage from the beatings he received.link <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> You want to see real prisoner abuse? Read up on the Bataam death march. American and Filipino soldiers were bayoneted and/or shot if they stumbled, by the Japanese soldiers while on a forced 60 mile "march" in world war II. 10,000 Americans and Filipinos died. I had the honor of knowing a man who survived that march.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Agreed, the Japanese were war criminals. I wonder if you drive a japanese car? On a recent day when I was counting bush/cheney bumper stickers, I didn't find one single one on an american made car. They were all on jap cars. The neocons seem to have very short memories of the wars our country fights. Perhaps that's because so many of them are draft dodgers and don't fight them. For example: President George W. Bush: Avoided service in Vietnam by using political connections to land a coveted place in the Texas Air National guard. Failed to complete his full six-year National Guard enlistment. Transferred to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate. Failed to apper for required medical exam. Unable to document required service. * Vice President Dick Cheney: Did not serve. Multiple deferments for education and marriage. * Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert: Did not serve. * Republican leader Tom Delay: Did not serve. * Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: Did not serve. * Mitch McConnell: Did not serve. * Senator Rick Santorum: Did not serve. * Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott: Did not serve. * Attorney General John Ashcroft: Did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business. * Florida Governor Jeb Bush: Did not serve. * Presidential Advisor Karl Rove: Did not serve. * Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: Did not serve. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> War is brutal and ugly. Our American troops are dying over there for freedom.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Whos freedom? That's a recent twist. I thought our troops were dying because of the possiblility of a "mushroom cloud over America" and "undeniable proof of weapons of mass destruction" Which is it? <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> Should we dishonor our men and women who have given the ultimate sacrafice over there by leaving the job uncompleted? Never. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Do you suggest we stay and get thousands more killed, before leaving in disgrace the way we did in viet nam? <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> Should Americans forgive and forget the terrorists and nations that harbor them? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Finally, something I can agree with you on. We were attacked by qaida, who were harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan. It's a sorry shame Afghanistan doesn't have oil. Perhaps bush would have had our boys stay and finish the job. We pulled out and left it to the Taliban to make a comeback, as we left in pursuit of oil. . .Oops, my bad, in pursuit of freedom for Iraq who never attacked us and was also an enemy of al qaida. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> Does the America owe the Iraqi people the right to have a fairly elected government there and support it by force of arms? We do now.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Sure, just ask the sunni's to vote for the best shiite candidates we allow to run. That will teach them a lesson about democracy. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> BTW: Someone mentioned that 70% of Fox News viewers thought Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. That's unsupported drivel that is repeated by those who despertly want to claim the "other side" is stupid.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> That was me, and you're absolutely right. I was mistaken. The figure is actually 80%. The 70% figure was people who watch CBS news with Dan Rather, the absolute sworn enemy of the neocons. (Message edited by skyypilot on February 02, 2005)

02-02-05, 07:53	#11 (permalink)
yupster Mycophiliac Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 40	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> I saw on BBC news that the turn out for the Iraqi elections, despite the death threats was 60%. What is the US turn out rate for your elections, approximately?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> 2004: 60.7% Source:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-14 -election-turnout_x.htm?csp=36 USA Today/ Associated press story.

02-01-05, 10:15	#1 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	any one follow the elections ? hard even for the critics to deny the success of american/iraqi policy/strategy. even the arab media has had to concede the point. lol score 1 for the home team.

02-01-05, 10:42	#2 (permalink)
~rodger Guest Posts: n/a	Absolutely. Especially if you want democracy to prevail, which of course in this case the arab media does, becaue it means an Iranian style islamic dictatorship. Score one for democracy!

02-01-05, 11:25	#3 (permalink)
~taoist Guest Posts: n/a	I think it's a good thing, despite the fact that I agree with Rodger about them creating a government similar to every other government in the area. The most democratic thing the Iraqi people have seen from America is 15 years of indiscriminate bombings. However, I am a believer that people should live like they want to live; the irony would be if they get this new government and then support a terrorist attack on us for the attacks we've done to them. I worry that we will find out they liked it just how it was, and now that we've destroyed it all, we'll give them free elections so we can find out we screwed up and just piss them off more. I hope not, though, I hope it becomes a bright shining star of freedom throughout the Middle East. Like so many other of our allies in the region like, say, Saudi Arabia. I worry. But I hope.

02-01-05, 19:43	#4 (permalink)
~vrooota! Guest Posts: n/a	" I hope it becomes a bright shining star of freedom throughout the Middle East. Like so many other of our allies in the region like, say, Saudi Arabia. " May the American dollar always have the power to win us friends.

02-01-05, 20:24	#5 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	lol it just kills you guys to see success eh ? always gotta look for the bad so to justify a position increasingly demonstrated to be incorrect. we're going to win in iraq, which will give us two-fold joy- the joy of seeing them free and the joy of seeing the critics proved wrong. i look forward to both with relish.

02-02-05, 07:15	#9 (permalink)
~demus Guest Posts: n/a	I saw on BBC news that the turn out for the Iraqi elections, despite the death threats was 60%. What is the US turn out rate for your elections, approximately?

02-02-05, 07:46	#10 (permalink)
yupster Mycophiliac Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 40	rodger, your response is... well... unbelievable. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005656 Blame It on Neo Don't call me a "neocon" unless you are a friend. BY JULIA GORIN Thursday, September 23, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT Last week Pat Buchanan appeared on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," and liberal host Jon Stewart bonded with his paleoconservative guest over their mutual opposition to the liberation of Iraq. Mr. Stewart smiled and nodded while Mr. Buchanan derided "neoconservatives" four times in the course of the six-minute interview. In his efforts to promote his and his guest's common agenda, Mr. Stewart didn't ask Mr. Buchanan what he meant by "neoconservatives." It was clear that the Jewish Mr. Stewart didn't realize that Mr. Buchanan was using what has become an epithet for "Jews"--an epithet employed most often by the left. One big culprit has been Air America. Tune in to the proudly liberal radio network, and you'll hear actress-turned-activist Janeane Garofalo and other hosts frequently blast the "influence" of the "neocons" on the Bush Administration, then go on to name names such as Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and Libby. Not a single gentile name makes the list, so it's the Jewish influence to which the network takes particular exception. Others have gotten in trouble for pointing this out, but let's give up the charade. When a member of the enlightened classes, or Pat Buchanan, makes reference to a "neocon," what he's saying is "yid." That's right, "neoconservative," particularly in its shortened form, when employed by a nonconservative (or by Buchananites) and therefore meant derogatorily, is the modern, albeit more specific, word for "kike" that the left can say--and it has been doing so liberally (no pun intended) ever since American conservatism became yet something else that Jews have managed to benefit from--the conquered, final frontier of that famous Jewish manipulation. By "neocons," the left means the Jewish subset of neocons. Witness Maureen Dowd's column last year, titled "Neocon Coup at the Department d'Etat": "The neocons have moved on to a vigilante action to occupy diplomacy. The audacious ones have saddled up their pre-emptive steeds and headed off to force a regime change at Foggy Bottom. . . . The president is not always privy to the start of a grandiose neocon scheme. . . . When the neocons want something done, they'll get it done, no matter what Mr. Bush thinks. And they think Mr. Powell has downgraded the top cabinet post into a human resources job, making nicey-nice with the U.N. and assorted bad guys instead of pursuing the neocon blueprint for world domination." At first, Ms. Dowd's neocon list of last names included only Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Libby and their "Likudnik friends," but later, as blogger "Silver Surfer" writes on IsraPundit.com, she amended the list to include Cheney, Woolsey and Gingrich. "In Ms. Dowd's view," he writes, "adding a few non-Jewish names to her 'neo-cons' list makes her conspiratorial story-line kosher. But it doesn't. The result is a classical portrait of 'neo-con' (read: Jewish) advisors, who drip poison in the ears of their hapless gentile bosses, while they advance their global plot to subvert true American interests and take over the world--and, as Ms. Dowd is always quick to point out . . . thereby 'advance the strategic goals of Israel.' " For a while, I couldn't tell whether the word was a euphemism or a slur, but from the resentful tone with which it was being employed by certain contingents ("pushy neocons" is another popular one), I could discern that the term's usage was undergoing a transition. After all, ethnic slurs can start out as euphemisms (meant to avoid identifying anyone blatantly by nationality) before evolving into derogations. "Colored" was a way to avoid the N-word, but today it doesn't go over very well itself. And a century ago Jews jokingly called one another by their Ellis Island designation "keikle" (Yiddish for "circle")--until the joke was co-opted by those hostile to Jews. As a new staple of mainstream American vocabulary, "neoconservative" warrants a reminder of the term's beginnings, before it became chic newspeak. It originally referred to a movement of largely Jewish liberals who gave leftism an honest and protracted effort, who dutifully reviled every Republican president through Eisenhower, who did their time in inner cities, and who gave peace and social engineering a chance, until the real-world consequences of their good will forced them to acknowledge that what they were doing wasn't working but in fact backfiring. At which point, these men (e.g., Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol) underwent a midlife epiphany and became conservative after the 1960s. Today the word applies to anyone who undergoes such a transformation, Jewish or not. True, neoconservatives are not the same breed of conservative that made up the Republican Party of Barry Goldwater. The difference is the neoconservatives' more interventionist foreign policy as opposed to vintage conservatism's isolationism. With today's "post-9/11 omigod I think I may be Republican" Democrats, what we have in effect are neo-neoconservatives. Many of the Jews in this group might be more accurately described as Bush Democrats, but they've opted for the cachet of the label and call themselves neocons. But when Al Franken and other determinedly left-wing Jews use the term, they don't mean it nicely, embarrassed as they are by their politically wayward fellow tribesmen. So let's go over the rules: Just because we call ourselves "neocons," it doesn't mean you can. Of course, if you're right-leaning and don't intend the word disparagingly, you get a pass. Just know that unless you're aware that "neoconservative" also includes last names like Bennett, Kirkpatrick, Sowell, Kemp and Ashcroft, when you refer to someone as a neocon, you're saying "Jew." We might suggest reverting to previous, less codey expressions such as "Jewish conservative" or "Republican Jew"--especially since not every right-leaning Jew is neo. But not to worry: We neocons, Republican Jews, Jewish conservatives and Jews for Bush won't take offense, since we don't want American Christians to feel even more paranoid than they already do (particularly during "holiday" season). As for our imperviously left-leaning fellow tribesmen, let them figure out for themselves how to handle their non-Jewish co-ideologists who say "neocon" angrily and freely in mixed company. Ms. Gorin, a contributing editor of JewishWorldReview.com, performs with RightStuffComedy.com. ### http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1095942859.shtml I'm Sold: It Is A Bigot's Term I've vacillated back and forth on this for a while, but Julia Gorin's sold me. There are certain words I don't like to use casually. One of them is "liberal," since such a perfectly nice word is too often used as either a club (by blowhards like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh) or as a self-important badge by closed minded reactionaries (like Paul Krugman and Janeane Garafalo). I only use "liberal" in its original definition: a person not limited to established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, favoring proposals for reform, and open to new ideas for progress. Such a term could easily apply to many people who lean left or right on a variety of issues, and that's the sense I try to restrict myself to when using it. Real liberals want to discuss things, search for the truth, and keep an open mind. Maybe that open-mindedness is what disturbs some people on the right, but there are plenty of ideologues on the left with pretensions to liberalism who are no less rigid than their ideological enemies. A word I use even less often than "liberal," though, is "neocon." I've long recognized that, while it may have had benign origins, it's become the property of sneering-and-smearing bigots now. As Julia Gorin says so well: Others have gotten in trouble for pointing this out, but let's give up the charade. When a member of the enlightened classes, or Pat Buchanan, makes reference to a "neocon," what he's saying is "yid." That's right, "neoconservative," particularly in its shortened form ["neocon"], when employed by a non-conservative (or by Buchananites) and therefore meant derogatorily, is the modern, albeit more specific, word for "kike" that the left can say--and it has been doing so liberally (no pun intended) ever since American conservatism became yet something else that Jews have managed to benefit from--the conquered, final frontier of that famous Jewish manipulation. By "neocons," the left means the Jewish subset of neocons. Witness Maureen Dowd's column last year, titled "Neocon Coup at the Department d'Etat": "The neocons have moved on to a vigilante action to occupy diplomacy. The audacious ones have saddled up their pre-emptive steeds and headed off to force a regime change at Foggy Bottom. . . . The president is not always privy to the start of a grandiose neocon scheme. . . . When the neocons want something done, they'll get it done, no matter what Mr. Bush thinks. And they think Mr. Powell has downgraded the top cabinet post into a human resources job, making nicey-nice with the U.N. and assorted bad guys instead of pursuing the neocon blueprint for world domination." At first, Ms. Dowd's neocon list of last names included only Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Libby and their "Likudnik friends," but later, as blogger "Silver Surfer" writes on IsraPundit.com, she amended the list to include Cheney, Woolsey and Gingrich. "In Ms. Dowd's view," he writes, "adding a few non-Jewish names to her 'neo-cons' list makes her conspiratorial story-line kosher. But it doesn't. The result is a classical portrait of 'neo-con' (read: Jewish) advisors, who drip poison in the ears of their hapless gentile bosses, while they advance their global plot to subvert true American interests and take over the world--and, as Ms. Dowd is always quick to point out . . . thereby 'advance the strategic goals of Israel.'" Gorin doesn't even mention the absurdity of hastily attaching the prefix "neo" to lifelong conservatives like Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, James Woolsey, or Donald Rumsfeld, who are no more "neo" in their rock-ribbed conservatism than Phyllis Schlafley. Furthermore, most of the people doing this clumsy retro-fit damn well know it. Mind you, I'm sure some decent people can use the term "neocon" without meaning it in a sinister, evil, sneering, smearing, bigoted fashion. Just like I fully recognize that someone could refer to an Arab as a "towel head" and simply be a little clueless, be using it as a joke among friends who know they don't mean anything by it. The way to respond to people who use such a term carelessly is to gently remind them that it's most often an epithet used by bigots and that they shouldn't use it too casually 'lest they hurt feelings or be misinterpreted. I would never refer to my doctor, a fine Muslim gentleman of Palestinian descent, in such a way. Neither would I use such a term for our family veteranarian, a gentle, incredibly decent man who literally does wear a turban. I hope none of you would either. So sure, someone could say "neocon" innocently enough. But let's recognize what it means most of the time: it means "sinister Jew," and is an all-too-reliable marker for conspiracy-minded bigots who are different from the cretins at Stormfront only in their more friendly demeanor and their more sophisticated attitudes. We should all recognize that these people are also not without their friends, the oblivious and/or self-hating Jews. You know, guys like Al Franken, Jon Stewart, and Bill Maher. By the way, do you remember when Bill Maher was funny? Me neither. But I do remember when Stewart and Franken were. I was younger then, and more shallow. We're all older now, but alas, they're no less shallow. Anyway, you can read the rest of Ms. Gorin's essay here in the selfish, scheming-Neocon dominated Wall Street Journal.

02-02-05, 09:17	#12 (permalink)
~rodger Guest Posts: n/a	So, is somebody named 'Goren' calling me an anti-semite because I was not in favor of the conquest of Iraq? Very interesting. . . I've touched on this in other threads. I'm sick and tired of Jews declaring us to be the new 'master race'. It's disgusting, and it's blatantly racist. Now it appears we have to be in favor of killing all the Arabs in the world or be declared anti-semitic. I'm curious why you would post an article that calls me a hater of my own people because I don't favor telling lies in order to take over the middle east. Perhaps if you don't like the message, you can attack that and not me personally. Do you think Dick Cheney served in the military? Do you think bush did? Do you think john ashcroft and those others listed served in the military? Do you doubt that an undercover investigator for the justice department received brain damage from the beating he received at gitmo? What exactly is 'unbelievable' about my response? That you don't like the message? You're not the first one who has called me racist around here and I won't stand for it any longer. For the record, I'm not aryan, I'm jewish

02-02-05, 09:53	#13 (permalink)
grave Mycotopiate Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 235	wow i saw the thread and was like..oh man, a nice positive thread about a lil good news. lol well im just gonna kinda walk around the current discussion and say that i think its a good thing that the elections went pretty well. i really didnt know how it was going to pan out. i personally dont watch the bbc or anything that often, but my family is pretty up to date and will kinda toss info at me as i walk by them. from what i have seen, the turnout was pretty good no big massacre. thats good i feel good knowing that someone over in iraq has a sense of happiness knowing that he has a voice to vote now. lets see where this goes

02-02-05, 10:00	#14 (permalink)
~taoist Guest Posts: n/a	I hate parties, and more than that I hate this "liberal" "conservative" "left" "right" bullshit. BULLSHIT!!! "The left says this" "The right says that" - really? Who is Mr. Right and Mr. Left, I'd love to have a talk to clarify their positions on a few things because people seem to constantly misquote them. Dig this. Abortion. If you're a "pro-life" or anti-abortionist, guess what? You're one liberal guy - abortion is legal right now in America - if one was a conservative and attempting to maintain the status quo then you must be for the current laws in America, not trying to change the laws that exist, that's what the liberals do! This is one of a lot of examples that show how there is no such thing as a liberal or a conservative - no one is entirely dedicated to maintaining a status quo and no one else is dedicated to changing everything. Words like neocon are used by BOTH SIDES to make people who happen to maybe accept some new ideas and try and make them applicable in the world that they're in look like traitors or "flip-floppers." You know what? I like people that change their minds. I don't like people who say stupid shit like "You'd got to stay the course." Not with Elian Gonzales we didn't - talk about an issue of freedom - I'm not even going there. Sometimes change is good, sometimes change is bad, I don't know how we went from an argument about the freedom of Iraq into some bullshit about neocons. If you're for the war in Iraq - is it a conservative view because we've been fighting the war for a while now or is it a liberal view because the war has been going on for such a short time that it's still a big change? These are fun questions that don't mean shit. Let's stick to the issues: I find it hard to believe that when the U.S. government is making THE PEOPLE, not the terrorists, the farmers, go and take all the seed they have to plant crops and make them destroy it to buy corporate U.S. seed. Well, you have a good time winning support of those people, I'll send you the rose-colored glasses if you need a spare pair. (Message edited by taoistshredder on February 02, 2005)

02-02-05, 10:03	#15 (permalink)
~rodger Guest Posts: n/a	I really do hope it all works out for them. I wish those people all the best. They went through 30 years of saddam, now this. I hope it all can end soon. We need peace at home now as much or more than anywhere else.

02-02-05, 10:32	#16 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> I really do hope it all works out for them. I wish those people all the best. They went through 30 years of saddam, now this. I hope it all can end soon. We need peace at home now as much or more than anywhere else.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> amen.

02-02-05, 10:44	#17 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	i don't think rodger's any kind of racist, and i think the term 'racist' has often been mis-applied here, on both sides. but rodger is guilty of distorting the facts and glossing over inaccuracies in his arguments. there is no evidence of 200,000 active insurgents, that figure has just been manufactured. the casualties last month set a new record because of a helicopter crash, not as a result of combat. the us government didn't torture anyone, and the soldiers that did are in prison now. i could go on and on, picking apart each line easily. but there's no need, we all saw the video of the iraqi people on election day, that speaks far louder and with greater clarity on the matter than i ever could. these people in their millions came out of the safety of their homes, despite death threats and numerous bombings, mortar & rocket attacks, and then they walked miles to cast their vote their actions clearly show their trust and support for the interim government and the coalition, they would not risk their lives to cast a vote if they did not truly believe that it was worthwhile. there will continue to be those who refuse to believe their own eyes because to do so would force them to re-evaluate cherished beliefs. i for one pity them, it's sad to see the world in such a negative light, all doom and gloom. as was said there are none so blind as those that will not see.

02-02-05, 14:38	#18 (permalink)
~i_am_me Guest Posts: n/a	Yippee. Today all of the Sunni Clerics reject any election results. Their people were either told to boycott or we too afraid to get to the polls. The Sunni areas also happen to be places where the insurgency could keep them from voting. Hardly a success when 1/3 of the country boycotts and rejects the elections. But still, I hope they manage to move forward.

02-02-05, 14:50	#19 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	the sunni only number about 20% of the population, that's 1/5th, not 1/3rd. and those clerics do not speak for the people, they speak in their own interest. many of the sunni did vote, defying their clerics. their boycott only hurt their own interests, the rest of the country will procede ahead with or without them. eventually even the rebellious sunni will be brought under the control of the central government, they are out-numbered and out-gunned and cannot go it alone.

02-02-05, 14:57	#20 (permalink)
~vrooota! Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> eventually even the rebellious sunni will be brought under the control of the central government, they are out-numbered and out-gunned and cannot go it alone. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> You can understand their frustation with a democratic decision making system though. They know that they are the religious minority in their country and that even if they all vote, their canidate will still lose unless he appeals to both sides (gee sounds like a similar impasse faced by the electoral system in this country. I must admit I was surprised to see that such a large % actually got out to try this newfangled voting thing considering the threats of terrorism, ect. Interesting that the faction of Islam that you follow doubles as a political party in this region of the world

02-02-05, 15:29	#21 (permalink)
~i_am_me Guest Posts: n/a	Ok, 20% instead of 30%. Still quite a sizable number in regards to the whole population. Quite enough to wage a civil war and keep the country in even more turmoil. The insurgents and also "out-number and out gunned" but we haven't exactly been able to keep them under control, or even decrease their numbers and attacks. There are many many many more obstacles to overcome before any of this can be called a "success".

02-02-05, 15:48	#22 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	it's simply misleading to keep trumpeting the success of the insurrection. their rebellion is pathetic, if they are so strong and so numerous then why weren't they able to disrupt the elections ? if there are 200,000 insurgents then why are our losses lower than any other war ever fought ?

02-02-05, 16:48	#23 (permalink)
~rodger Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> eventually even the rebellious sunni will be brought under the control of the central government, they are out-numbered and out-gunned and cannot go it alone. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Isn't that exactly what saddam did to the shiites? Of course millions went out and voted in Iraq. They were the shiites who were suppressed by saddam, and now see their chance to take power. The sunnis are going to reject the results for sure. I think what we're seeing is the beginning of the balkanization of Iraq. Of course, that will lead to problems with Turkey, which doesn't want to see an independent Kurdistan. More wars could follow.

02-02-05, 18:38	#24 (permalink)
yupster Mycophiliac Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 40	http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/02/incoher ent_sunn.php#more Incoherent Sunni Hypocrisy "Which comes first: the cart or the horse? Iraq’s Sunnis cannot seem to decide. Sunni political and/or religious groups urged a boycott of Sunday’s elections. Sunni terrorists scared many of their brethren away from the polling places. But today, A leading group of Iraqi Sunni clerics have said the country's landmark election lacks legitimacy as so many Sunnis did not take part in the vote. What? This overt failure engineering. Do these Sunni “clerics” really expect to be taken seriously? They coerce Sunnis into avoiding the elections, then go kicking and screaming because many Sunnis avoided the elections..."

02-02-05, 18:56	#25 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	actually the latest stats indicate that roughly 30% of the sunni did vote. further ABC news just reported that today was the quietiest day in iraq since the invasion. not one shot was fired at any of our aircraft, not one IED was detonated and only 9 attacks took place in all of baghdad, less than 1/3 the normal rate. the great strength of the insurgency is shown in their recent capture of GI Joe who they are threatening to behead. lol instead of being real soldiers they are reduced to pointing plastic guns at kids' dolls. read the writing on the wall. their days have been numbered. (Message edited by admin on February 02, 2005)

02-02-05, 19:38	#26 (permalink)
~i_am_me Guest Posts: n/a	Its slightly insulting and naive to make light of an insurgency that sends soldiers and Iraqi civilians home in body bags everyday. I think the election was a step forward but how many times have we took one step forward only to take two backwards a month later? I just think its crazy how overly optimistic the war supporters can be. I don't know where you get your numbers about who has voted, but officially not a single number has been released from the counts. I'm as hopeful as anyone for success in Iraq. I just don't know if its completely possible.

02-03-05, 09:09	#27 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> I don't know where you get your numbers about who has voted, but officially not a single number has been released from the counts. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> i saw that 30% figure on the ABC Evening News which i watched just b4 posting. i belive they said that they got that figure from the iraqi interior ministry, some preliminary counts from sunni areas. they were also the source that reported the quiestest day in iraq mentioned above. i have no great reason to suspect ABC is just making things up as they go. if indeed 30% of the sunni actually did vote then i'd call that very significant. (Message edited by admin on February 03, 2005)

02-03-05, 09:15	#28 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> Its slightly insulting and naive to make light of an insurgency that sends soldiers and Iraqi civilians home in body bags everyday<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> it's called 'ridicule', and it's an effective method of boosting our morale while mocking the enemy so i feel no guilt in it. the GI Joe [actually Cody but close enough] Video we saw is indeed laughable and deserves ridicule. (Message edited by admin on February 03, 2005)

02-03-05, 09:22	#29 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> I just think its crazy how overly optimistic the war supporters can be. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> the same could be said about the pessimism of the war's critics. they steadfastly refuse to see what is right before their eyes. there is a great movement ongoing in the middle east, free democratic elections in afghanistan, palestine and iraq are sending shock waves throughout arab society. the insurgents find themselves isolated from mainstream society, forced to bomb their own people into submission but it's not working, they clearly are not all intimidated. chairman Mao in his little red book tells us plainly that a guerilla movement can only succede with the good will of the common people. but in iraq we are getting increased cooperation from the natives, who daily provide us with the tips that help us raid their safe houses and make arrests. do you know that despite horrific losses we are still getting 5 iraqi volunteeers for every police position ? they are joining their own army at a better rate than americans are joining theirs... all in all i'd say there is good reason to be optimistic and that those who cling to their visions of doom and gloom really should begin to re-evaluate their position and perhaps even question themselves about bias. (Message edited by admin on February 03, 2005)