NationStates Jolt Archive

1 hour extension (http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/iraq/082701iraqplane;_ylt=Ap10yzHaIyTqDeoQEMLvwE_lWMcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg--)added to voting times in Iraq because the turn out was too big and they couldn't get them all through the lines before the scheduled closing times.

Kurds, Shi'ite and Sunni are going to have a parlimentary republic afterall :D


Slideshow Report:
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/iraq/082701iraqplane;_ylt=AguTFaSP5iLmQhS_Ax6vD8hg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGk2OHYzBHNlYwN0bXA-

Video Report:
Video (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/free;_ylt=Aq7CydgDjbz6qH1LasPaPOlg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBhNXIwMGFqBHNlYwN2cHJvbW8-?ch=61492&cl=211305','playerWindow','width=793,height=608,scrollbars=no'));")

All you naysayers go hide in your caves on election days, huh? No one is reporting this stuff here why?

fixed video link

1. The people who believe this is a good thing know it already.
2. The people who hate that anything is actually working well in Iraq hate it, and don't want to see it.
3. The people who think that the elections are illegitimate don't want to see it.
4. The people who are skeptical of everything will only say that it doesn't mean or prove anything, no matter what good things happen in Iraq.

All you naysayers go hide in your caves on election days, huh? No one is reporting this stuff here why?

Because there's nothing to talk about right now untill the results get announced and anyone who cared knew about it already?

Well anyway, its nice they got around to it. I just wonder how many allegations of vote rigging there are going to be, whether any of them are true and whether the government elected will be good reflection of the religous differences of the populace.

i can see this thread going into an allout anti-bush anti-war whine whine thing....*hides in cupboard*

All you naysayers go hide in your caves on election days, huh? No one is reporting this stuff here why?
You're reporting this stuff here. Or hadn't you noticed?

Because there's nothing to talk about right now untill the results get announced and anyone who cared knew about it already?

Well anyway, its nice they got around to it. I just wonder how many allegations of vote rigging there are going to be, whether any of them are true and whether the government elected will be good reflection of the religous differences of the populace.

You fit into my category 4, in my previous post.

1. The people who believe this is a good thing know it already.
2. The people who hate that anything is actually working well in Iraq hate it, and don't want to see it.
3. The people who think that the elections are illegitimate don't want to see it.
4. The people who are skeptical of everything will only say that it doesn't mean or prove anything, no matter what good things happen in Iraq.

Then there are the realists waiting to see what it actually means...

1. The people who believe this is a good thing know it already.
2. The people who hate that anything is actually working well in Iraq hate it, and don't want to see it.
3. The people who think that the elections are illegitimate don't want to see it.
4. The people who are skeptical of everything will only say that it doesn't mean or prove anything, no matter what good things happen in Iraq.
Very true. And there are surprisingly few terrorist incidents taking place as well. Verrrry interesting! :D

You fit into my category 4, in my previous post.

Really? And 1 as well. My posts do sound rather mean spirited today but i do think its a good thing, just not the be all and end all of progress. It depends what the results are I suppose.

You're reporting this stuff here. Or hadn't you noticed?

Thank you, thank you very much.

*takes a bow*

i was listening to npr's morning edition on the car radio this morning. their reporters said there was a good turnout and that it was mostly peaceful with people being happy to vote

the reporter in falujah said there were lots of men on the streets (no cars were allowed in the city today) but few women. it turned out that in most polling places the men were being allowed to vote for their women. (its against election rules but no one seemed to care much) i hope they took notes on who the women wanted for the various offices.

Because there's nothing to talk about right now untill the results get announced ....

What do the results have to do with it? The first constitutional election of a new government is only a good and memorable thing if the side you personally want to win, does? I don't think so. MY side doesn't have to win for me to be happy for them being able to vote at all.

i was listening to npr's morning edition on the car radio this morning. their reporters said there was a good turnout and that it was mostly peaceful with people being happy to vote

the reporter in falujah said there were lots of men on the streets (no cars were allowed in the city today) but few women. it turned out that in most polling places the men were being allowed to vote for their women. (its against election rules but no one seemed to care much) i hope they took notes on who the women wanted for the various offices.

There's an awful lot of pictures (as linked to already) of women voting all over the country, for me to be able to just believe a radio report like that I'd have to see some more evidence I think. It sounds like naysayer balderdash to me.

What do the results have to do with it? The first constitutional election of a new government is only a good and memorable thing if the side you personally want to win, does? I don't think so. MY side doesn't have to win for me to be happy for them being able to vote at all.

Well a contested election could be very bad - the election of say Al Sadr could be very bad - a split parliament could be very bad - as could and overwhelming majority for one party... it'll take a little time before the "hurah for democracy/freedom" banners can go up...

Why go anti Bush here? If this works great I'd be happy for Iraq. If it doesn't I'd be disapointed for Iraq. Thing is. No matter how the vote works out my oppinion of Bush remains low.

Why go anti Bush here? If this works great I'd be happy for Iraq. If it doesn't I'd be disapointed for Iraq. Thing is. No matter how the vote works out my oppinion of Bush remains low.
So, would you give Bush any credit for this if it works out? It's his plan, you know.

What do the results have to do with it? The first constitutional election of a new government is only a good and memorable thing if the side you personally want to win, does? I don't think so. MY side doesn't have to win for me to be happy for them being able to vote at all.

What i meant was there's nothing to talk about now because we dont know any details. Just that its happening and all the people that care know about it already.

Plus if its not done right there could be instances of vote rigging, intimidation to vote one way or another, plus the reasons ashmoria and caelcorma mentioned so untill we know more i'm witholding judement.

I still oppose Bush because this political 'freedom' could have been acheived through less murderous ways. And this is basically his way of saying(lieing): "See? It wasn't all about money!" just to bring his reputation back up to scratch. If he was so upset about oppressed peoples in Iraq, why didn't sort his own country out?

So, would you give Bush any credit for this if it works out? It's his plan, you know.

Thing is. I've just about convicted Bush of intentionaly missleading the public and Congress.

3 reasons I think he lied.

The Niger document remained in Bush's speak long after it was demonstrated to be a forgery.

Dick Cheney's viel of powder when he addressed foriegn nations about the potential for harm the WMDs not accounted for in Iraq's documents posed. Thing is even if those WMDs where not destroyed they would have long ago expired. A viel of worthless sludge would have more accuretly represented the threat.

The Vallery Plaim leak.

So no matter how it turns out I'm still holding to the idea that Bush lied in order to gain support for the war.

So no matter how it turns out I'm still holding to the idea that Bush lied in order to gain support for the war.

Which is my point - few Democrats would give Bush credit at all if this works out well. The logic of your position, however, is that if the war is a lie, and the war is illegitimate, we should immediately put Saddam back in power and leave right now.

Bland skuggor rider en odjur.
Som en svarta träd.
Griper hård på en mäktig hammar.
Ut för svaga kristna blod.

TROLLHAMMAREN!

Whaaaaaaaaaaa!!! TROLLHAMMAREN! :headbang: :D

Very true. And there are surprisingly few terrorist incidents taking place as well. Verrrry interesting! :D
From what I heard on the radio, yesterday, the Shites are leaning on the terrorists to lay low during the elections. Makes you wonder why they exert that kind of influence everyday.

Thing is. I've just about convicted Bush of intentionaly missleading the public and Congress.

3 reasons I think he lied.

The Niger document remained in Bush's speak long after it was demonstrated to be a forgery.

Dick Cheney's viel of powder when he addressed foriegn nations about the potential for harm the WMDs not accounted for in Iraq's documents posed. Thing is even if those WMDs where not destroyed they would have long ago expired. A viel of worthless sludge would have more accuretly represented the threat.

The Vallery Plaim leak.

So no matter how it turns out I'm still holding to the idea that Bush lied in order to gain support for the war.

It doesn't seem to matter that regime change in Iraq was national policy since the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, does it?

1 hour extension (http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/iraq/082701iraqplane;_ylt=Ap10yzHaIyTqDeoQEMLvwE_lWMcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg--)added to voting times in Iraq because the turn out was too big and they couldn't get them all through the lines before the scheduled closing times.
Could American invade Britain next? Our turnout's been disappointingly low in the last two elections.

All you naysayers go hide in your caves on election days, huh? No one is reporting this stuff here why?
[insert satirical comment about Liberal Conspiracy]

It doesn't seem to matter that regime change in Iraq was national policy since the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, does it?

That doesn't excuse George Bush for bombing the shit out of Iraq.

I'll put it on the bottom of this page, because I didn't do a 56k warning on the title, but what the hay, this stuff rocks :D

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c17/Greenlander3/Women_Iraqi_Voters.jpg

It doesn't seem to matter that regime change in Iraq was national policy since the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, does it?
No, everyone wants to forget that was the brainchild of Bill Clinton and Madeliene Albright.

And since we've mentioned that, some anti-Bush wag will now come on and say, "oh, can't you just forget the Clinton Administration yet?"

Well, it's historically true that regime change was the official policy of the US - per the Clinton Administration.

It's perfectly valid and true to say that Bush was just implementing Clinton policy.

Democracy Rules. High voter turnout is a good thing.

Despite this, Bush STILL sucks. For a great number of reasons.

Democracy Rules. High voter turnout is a good thing.

Despite this, Bush STILL sucks. For a great number of reasons.
*firm agreement*

Which is my point - few Democrats would give Bush credit at all if this works out well. The logic of your position, however, is that if the war is a lie, and the war is illegitimate, we should immediately put Saddam back in power and leave right now.

You have a very strange logic if you think that not forgiving Bush for lieing to get the US to go to war equates to leaving right now. I think that it was wrong to go in in the first place but now that we're there we should try and clean the place up. Leaving now could plunge the place into civil war for all we know and it could end up worse than before.

It's perfectly valid and true to say that Bush was just implementing Clinton policy.
Did he ever say that? I never heard him say that.

1 hour extension [/URL]added to voting times in Iraq

Oh suuure ... but they wouldn't do that in Ohio in 2004, eh?

Ah well ... good on them. Now, instead of voting for whom Saddam tells them to vote for, they're voting for whom the US tells them to vote for ...

Congrats?

That doesn't excuse George Bush for bombing the shit out of Iraq.
Therein lies the problem. Bush fought Kerry's 'sensitive' war after all. We avoided heavy bombing of populated areas and mosques. So we wasted a good opportunity to demonstrate that we were in charge.

Did he ever say that? I never heard him say that.
Read this:


Regime change in Iraq became a stated goal of United States foreign policy when Public Law 105-338 (the "Iraq Liberation Act") was signed into law by US President Bill Clinton. The act directed that:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Which is my point - few Democrats would give Bush credit at all if this works out well. The logic of your position, however, is that if the war is a lie, and the war is illegitimate, we should immediately put Saddam back in power and leave right now.

umm what?

I never suggested those things.

Oh suuure ... but they wouldn't do that in Ohio in 2004, eh?

Ah well ... good on them. Now, instead of voting for whom Saddam tells them to vote for, they're voting for whom the US tells them to vote for ...

Congrats?

Voting for who the US wants them to vote for? LMMFAO...Hahahahaha



Whatever dude, over two hundred candidates on the ballot and you think the US put only the ones they want on them AND that they would do that? Mwahahahaha

*hands Keruvalia his tinfoil hat*

Read this:
Ok cool, this was something I didn't know about, so thank you for the proof.

We avoided heavy bombing of populated areas and mosques.
...so Baghdad isn't populated? What are you talking about?

Voting for who the US wants them to vote for? LMMFAO...Hahahahaha



Whatever dude, over two hundred candidates on the ballot and you think the US put only the ones they want on them AND that they would do that? Mwahahahaha

*hands Keruvalia his tinfoil hat*
I think you're just being immature; Keruvalia clearly isn't an idiot, and I see a lot of truth in what he says.

Well, then I have a question.

If this:
Regime change in Iraq became a stated goal of United States foreign policy when Public Law 105-338 (the "Iraq Liberation Act") was signed into law by US President Bill Clinton. The act directed that:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

shows that the policy existed before Bush, and Bush is only carrying out this policy, does that make the original policymaker as "evil" and as "wrong" as Bush?

Come to think of it, just why did Clinton and Albright make this official US policy? Any answers?

Well, then I have a question.

If this:


shows that the policy existed before Bush, and Bush is only carrying out this policy, does that make the original policymaker as "evil" and as "wrong" as Bush?

Come to think of it, just why did Clinton and Albright make this official US policy? Any answers?
It doesn't make Clinton evil that he made the policy, because Saddam *was* an oppressive dictator, I just oppose the way Bush has used this to his economic advantage, not caring about loss of life. I mean come on... hiding the coffins? ...please.