READER COMMENTS ON
"Iraq Election Results Fueling Insurgency and Protests"
(20 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 12/28/2005 @ 2:59 pm PT...
Paul and Ricky must be real proud now!
Historic Iraq Election:
Democracy = Theocracy
Peace = Civil War
Constitution = Religious Fundamental Laws
New Iraq = Old Iran
New Mideast = More of the worst
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 12/28/2005 @ 3:34 pm PT...
The USA's elections results fueled protests. Just more in common you have with terrorists.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 12/28/2005 @ 3:44 pm PT...
Just once I'd like to see the trolls come here and -not- spew ignorance and bullshit.. Just ONCE it would be nice if they came in and said something that didn't SIMPLY try to make some false association in order to generate emotional support for their "side" despite having no position to stand on.. Just ONCE it would be nice if the trolls .. well.. weren't trolls..
I guess that's too much to ask. Funny though, how they come in and project on us.. "in common you have with terrorists"? I think the "hate" is what's the common thread, and it sure isn't "us" who seems to live on division and hate.. Again, just ONCE it would be nice if the trolls.. bah.. who'm I kidding.. Trolls will be trolls.. expecting them to act like intelligent human beings is too much to ask.
Fact: The vote in Iraq has done NOTHING to quell the violence surrounding the power vaccume created by removing a secular leader (Saddam).
Now the secularists in that country (and religious folks of opposing factions) are going to escilate their violence and may well break out into full on civil war.
No, really.. come on Trolls.. comment on how Saddam was a bad guy and needed to be removed, and leave out how many other BAD DICTATORS there are in the world that we aren't doing a damn thing about.. leave out how removing that "bad man" left a huge power vaccume that's being filled by religious zealots, the same ones that are "terrorists" that we are trying to "win a war against".. No, really..
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 12/28/2005 @ 4:20 pm PT...
If the Sunni protestors are right that the election was fraudulent, a new election might be held, and Sunni clerics could gain more control of the political process in Iraq.
If the Sunni protestors are wrong, the election will stand and Shiite clerics will maintain control in Iraq.
Either way, we've lost 2,160 dead and 10,000+ wounded in exchange for a Muslim theocracy on the order of Iran's. Which is passing strange, because we've been told the idea was to create a democracy in Iraq. Question: What court do the families of the dead soliders go to for redress?
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 12/28/2005 @ 4:21 pm PT...
Medium Right #2 said:
"The USA's elections results fueled protests. Just more in common you have with terrorists."
So now a large portion of the Iraqi population are terrorists?
I thought you all have been saying that the terrorists are invading Iraq from other countries and that we are protecting them.
Which is it - can't have it both ways.
Oh wait - "If you aren't with us you are one of THEM" - GWB
I see - they are disenting and therefore they are terrorists - I think I'm beginning to understand!
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 12/28/2005 @ 4:24 pm PT...
Or is it:
I think therefore I am a terrorist.
Or was it: I think therefore I am a commie bastard.
Damn now I'm confused again!
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 12/28/2005 @ 4:26 pm PT...
I think it's :
I thunk there was a commie bastard terrorist, therefore I was a thunker?
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 12/28/2005 @ 4:42 pm PT...
Up until now, we've been one or more of the following: America haters, Commie bastards, conspiracy theorists, sore losers, two-percenters, moonbats, pathetic liberals, or losers.
With the election outcome in Iraq, we've been proven right. So now we're all of the following: American haters, Commie bastards, conspiracy theorists, sore losers, two-percenters, moonbats, pathetic liberals, and losers.
Never realized it could feel so good to be any of those awful things. Hell hath no fury like a troll who realizes he's been betrayed by his sponsor.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
Judge of Judges
said on 12/28/2005 @ 5:07 pm PT...
It would have been lot easier if gwb Inc. just installed
a dictator. I. E. Ron Jeremy looks the part.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 12/28/2005 @ 5:23 pm PT...
The new issue of National Geographic has an article about the Kurds. Judging by what's said, it does not matter how the Shia/Sunni conflict works out--the Kurds will NEVER accept a unified Iraq. They want control of Kirkuk's oil fields, and they want all Arabs expelled from northern Iraq. The future of Iraq is a three-way civil war. Can anybody recall any historical parallels?
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 12/28/2005 @ 5:54 pm PT...
Any three-way civil wars? Well, Vietnam had the North Vietnamese regulars, the Vietcong, and the South Vietnamese army. Don't know if that makes two Vietnams or three.
Vietnam wound up united. Not until we left, of course. But our real concern was never the North Vietnamese, it was a grand Communist conspiracy based in...uh, Moscow, I think. Or China. Or Korea. Don't remember. I do remember that Thailand and Malaysia were supposed to fall to the Commies as soon as we left Vietnam, though. Only they didn't.
So now we have a grand Muslim conspiracy, called a caliphate, extending from Indonesia to Spain. We invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there (after all our other excuses proved fraudulent). Now that Iraq has voted, they have a theocracy, just like Iran's. But that's O.K., because Saddam Hussein is on trial. Except it's partly for crimes he committed while he was our ally in the 1980s and cutting arms deals with us. That's still O.K., because if he's convicted we can ask for our guns back, and use them to attack Iran...to establish a democracy just like the one we founded in Iraq.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 12/28/2005 @ 6:39 pm PT...
I have posted my thoughts on the election at #62 in Iranian-Style Shiite Theocracy Comes to Power in 'Historic' Iraqi Election! thread (I had not realised the discussionhad moved on to this thread). I was responding to Dredd but I think the posting is relevant here.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 12/29/2005 @ 6:22 am PT...
You can link to your post #62 (link here) because Brad Blog is quite sophisticated and well done.
The posts each have identifying numbers so that it is easy to reference posts.
Good job Brad!
What you are beginning to do is fragment and quote posts intermingled between and among threads.
That is probably not good for coherence unless you link to them when you refer to them.
Since it puts too much burden on a reader to search for them, I link as a courtesy.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 12/29/2005 @ 7:08 am PT...
The long, repetitious, unfounded, and shill positioning was pointed out in my very first post to you (link here).
Like many before you who fail to respond and answer the specific requests directed toward you, you will fade into history. The first thing to go will be your against-the-rules looooooonnnnnnnngggggggg posts that greedily grab up screen space with toxic fat typing.
Brad corrected some of your longing posts and said "You may now continue your dull, unsupported, discredited, wishful-thinking, PNAC-inspired skreeds" (link here). We handle troll pandemics well here, so consider this to be a friendly warning.
Here are some links to my responses to your invalid helter skelter assertions fragmented in various threads on this blog:
US Paid Candidates would do better in the red states in the US than in the Religious States in Iraq (link here).
The roots of the Iraqi civil war predate the existence of The United States of America by about seventeen centuries (link here).
Perhaps the real neoCon "democracy" you have in mind is in fact a theocracy where the lord speaks from the burning bush again (link here).
Here are two links to what a resident historian posts about your non sequiter historical comparisons (link here, and here).
That is all your nonresponsive nonsense is going to get from me, here is your goodbye stroke, which is what, in the final analysis and history here at Brad Blog trolls always want
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 12/29/2005 @ 12:33 pm PT...
Gee dredd - were'd he go?
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 12/29/2005 @ 1:25 pm PT...
Don't know BlueBear2, but if s/he had played ball with us I was going to ask s/he how the German body politic allowed the NAZI party to take over the government of Germany in the late '30's ...
Guess one would have to conclude that there were no blogs like this one in those daze days
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 12/29/2005 @ 1:30 pm PT...
a steady stream of information about JRR here. More talk of Scott Ritter here. Getting a little hot under the collar here.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 12/29/2005 @ 2:18 pm PT...
Protest are great. I thought you guys liked protest. While they are protesting they can't be blowing us up. Another example everything is moving toward democracy in Iraq. They see that they can make changes just by being heard. They look like a bunch of little Cindy Sheehans running around everywhere thanks to men like Private Sheehand they can do things like that without fearing their heads being chopped off.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 12/30/2005 @ 3:41 am PT...
Your rhetoric in a context vacuum is like empty thoughts in a neoCon brain. Useful only to the neoCon who is a legend in his own mind.
Note that Iran has protests too. Someday you might want to take note of the subject matter of the protests and the context from which they come.
Then you can approach relevancy. But be careful, being relevant will make you look like a liberal, and your handlers will take umbrage at that.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 12/30/2005 @ 6:21 am PT...
You pointed out that "Iraq Election Results Fueling Insurgency and Protests", and so is the lack of security. It was said:
"Long lines formed at gas stations in Baghdad on Friday as word spread that Iraq's largest oil refinery had shut down in the face of threats against truck drivers, and fears grew of a gas shortage" (link here).
I think what the admin should start to say in its propaganda campaign, you know to "catapult the propaganda" as bu$hit calls it, that what it wants to bring to Iraq is capitalism.
The kind that, when it cannot compete in the world because the life-blood of the economy - oil - is in the hands of others, requires "God to speak to the president".
The capitalism neoCons preach is one that would have the oil in the mideast sell at over $100 per barrel. Hey the rule is "whatever the market will bear", however, that rule would not bode well for the hypocrit phony neoCon oil barron "capitalists" now would it?
No, real capitalism to them is military action to grab up resources and construct some phony diatribe and call it "capitalism" to convince people like Rush Limbaugh.
It is rank militarism ... exactly what Saadam did to Kuwait, and what the UN condemned of Saadam and of this neoCon bu$hit administration.
Perhaps Gonzales, now rested up from his torture memos, could write a memo entitled "Das PNAC Kapital". I am sure he would maintain that it is not covered by the Geneva Convention.