OT: Congratuilations to the people of Iraq

"Tom Veatch" wrote in message

> I hope
> I'm wrong, but I'm not optimistic.

Well hell, if there is anything I've learned from living with SWMBO these
past 20 years is that "optimism" can be the _very_ factor that leads to
success. I, like you apparently, am not naturally wired that way ... but I
am going to try to buck the trend in this case.

;>)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:34:43 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>... for taking that first step, shaky though it may be, to a representative
>form of government.
>
>Imagine, if you will, partaking in your religion's death rites the night
>before going to vote in case you were murdered while voting? How many of you
>in this country, who bitch about having to stand in line for twenty minutes,
>would brave DEATH to cast your vote in a national election?
>
>These courageous folks deserve the support of the _entire_ world, and in
>particular, the UN, for what they did today.
>
>And thanks to the courage and sacrifice of the Coalition servicemen and
>woman, and their families, who made it possible.
>
>This start today need not be in vain as long as support for those who would
>risk death to vote in Iraq is forthcoming from ALL the countries in the
>world.

for sure... I really didn't think it was gonna happen without MAJOR
shit raining down... maybe the insurgents took the week end off??

OTOH, I wanted to go do some serious ass kicking in the US, with so
many of the folks that live here bitching about how "difficult" it was
to vote in the US yesterday...


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

> I'm impressed. With threats of death, they got 60% of eligible voters
> voting.

There may have been other persuasive factors but it's hard to know what's
really going when most of the media have their heads up their butts.

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=27256

> ... for taking that first step, shaky though it may be, to a
> representative
> form of government.

You and everyone else, including all the world media, are dead wrong.

In case you don't recall, Iraq has had elections, as recently as 1995 and
2002. Saddam was elected both times.

Of course, Saddam was the only name on the ballot, but that's a minor
detail.

>> Of course, Saddam was the only name on the ballot, but that's a minor
>> detail.
>
> What is it that you don't understand about the phrase "representative form
> of government"?

I don't understand how you can't see the humour. Regardless, it's a bit of a
farce to suggest that the Iraqi's voted in a "representative form of
government". You can't ram democracy down the throat of a country suffering
under foreign occupation.

The United Iraqi Alliance will probably take power as they have the
majority, and they're headed towards incorporating Islamic law and
proclaiming Islam as the countries official faith. In short, in a few years
it'll be a theocracy much like Iran. This isn't exactly what the Bush admin
had in mind, I'll bet.

> The outcome? You might end up with a Shiite Islamic Republic as a
> puppet of Iran. But that is a long, long way from as certain as you
> seem to feel.

No, I don't feel that any Iraqi government will ever be a puppet of Iran,
and I never said that.

> Ah, mp ... you're just trying once again to prove, by example, that the
> fools in a free society are as dangerous as its enemies.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

> Okay, my mistake. I was reading something into your statement that
> wasn't there.
>
> However I believe that is the only way you're likely to get the kind
> of Shiite fundamentalist government in Iraq you got in Iran. Iran is
> almost 100 percent Shiite. Iraq is only about 60 percent Shiite.

That's enough to maintain a comfortable majority in any electoral political
process. We'll see what happens when their constitution is drafted later
this year. Al-Sistani is going to be a major player and he wants to
incorporate Islamic law.

Hey Frank. Go f*ck yourself.

> All reports I've seen have been clear to mention "free" or "open"
> elections which recent ones of which you reference clearly weren't.

Whatever do you mean? Everyone was free to vote for Saddam.

> No, I got mine _via_ the Internet. From the widest variety of written
> news reports I could find. In addition to the full spectrum of
> American news sources that included Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
> India (several sources), China (several sources), Germany, France
> (several sources, including AFP), South Africa, Latin America,
> Thailand and a bunch of others I don't remember.

Here's a comprehensive list of online newspapers from around the world.
http://www.ipl.org/div/news/

>>We'll see what happens when their constitution is drafted later
>>this year. Al-Sistani is going to be a major player and he wants to
>>incorporate Islamic law.
>
> Okay, now that's a different question -- and a different standard.
> Iraq will almost certainly be run under some form of Islamic law. But
> that doesn't mean it's going to be run by religious leaders -- much
> less Shiite leaders.

While Ayatollah Sistani may not have a seat in the government (at this
time), he has a lot more influence over more of the population than any
government official. Let's not forget that Sistani led the mass protests and
demonstrations last year that demanded an election and a constitution,
rather than the selection process put forth by Paul Bremer and the Iraqi
Governing Council.

> Sure they do. Any time Limbaugh is questioned by anyone other than a
> fawning fan, he claims to be an entertainer, not a reporter. But he
> presents himself on his show as a real reporter and news analyst.
> Putting them together, he's a baldfaced liar.

And here I thought it was just his drug abuse that distorted his perception
of reality.

> I see. I missed where people were led to the polls at gunpoint by US
> troops. There's an easy way to keep democracy from being shoved down your
> throat...don't show up to vote. For Christ's sake...even Jacques Chirac
> said the vote was a success.

It was successful in the sense that Ayatollah Sistani led mass protests last
year demanding a vote and a constitution. If not for him Paul Bremer and the
CPA would have appointed a puppet goverment.

It was unsucessful in the sense that the results, whatever they may be, will
be mostly meaningless as long as Iraq is forced to remain subservient to a
foreign occupying power.

>>It was unsucessful in the sense that the results, whatever they may be,
>>will
>>be mostly meaningless as long as Iraq is forced to remain subservient to a
>>foreign occupying power.
>>
> Which, as we all know, is going to be forever, right?

Hopefully not, but why then, would the US be building permanent military
installations throughout Iraq if they plan on leaving anytime soon?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:44:40 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Waldo" wrote in message
>
>> > I'm impressed. With threats of death, they got 60% of eligible voters
>> > voting.
>> >
>>
>> According to the news this morning, it was 60% of the
>> 'registered' voters. The number, or percentage, of
>> 'eligible' voters that actually registered beforehand has
>> not been readily available.
>
>Yep, you'll notice that the "yabbuts" are beginning to chime in today ...
>there will be many such _qualifications_ presented in the days to come to
>put the most negative spin on the issue as can be presented. Count on it.

Oh, that goes without saying, particularly in the US and Britain. Even
so, it was an amazing performance and well worth celebrating.

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:17:38 -0500, Waldo wrote:
>
>
>> According to the news this morning, it was 60% of the 'registered'
>> voters.
>> The number, or percentage, of 'eligible' voters that actually registered
>> beforehand has not been readily available.
>>
>
> The numbers are:
> 25 million citizens
> 14 million eligible to vote
> 8 milliion voted

9 million children..

57% that could vote did vote. Sounds like a successful election.

In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ... for taking that first step, shaky though it may be, to a representative
> form of government.

Amen. And consider that voter turnout appears to be higher than in
recent federal elections in both the US and Canada. And that terror
attacks were really quite minimal.

djb

--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows

Hi Swingman,

I'm like that.

As someone just said on the tube, democracy should
not be left *OR* right, but left *AND* right.

It is a great day for Iraq (and the U.S.).

Lou

In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tom Veatch" wrote in message
>
> > I hope
> > I'm wrong, but I'm not optimistic.
>
> Well hell, if there is anything I've learned from living with SWMBO these
> past 20 years is that "optimism" can be the _very_ factor that leads to
> success. I, like you apparently, am not naturally wired that way ... but I
> am going to try to buck the trend in this case.
>
> ;>)

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:50:28 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >And to top it all off, IIRC the turn out was better than anticipated.
>
> Better than typical US turnouts! Most US voting places aren't
> threatened by terrorists, either.
>
When I listened to CNN Headline News at about 8 this morning (just for
the first minute of headlines), they said the turnout was high in Kurd
and Shiite areas, but non-existent in Sunni areas.

At noon, when I listened to the whole newscast, they went on and on
about how great it had been, with not a mention of the Sunni
nonappearance.

What happened? Were they wrong this morning, or were they pushing "feel
good about Iraq" at noon?

I'll be interested in hearing news from some other source this evening.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:15:42 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:40:12 -0600, Dave Balderstone
><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> ... for taking that first step, shaky though it may be, to a representative
>>> form of government.
>>
>>Amen. And consider that voter turnout appears to be higher than in
>>recent federal elections in both the US and Canada. And that terror
>>attacks were really quite minimal.
>>
>>djb
>
>I was particularly struck by that fact as well. Says something about
>what the right to vote is worth, don't it?

I really liked the purple finger idea -- that kind of thing (as long as
the ink is *really* indelible) could go a long way to preventing "vote
early, vote often" election fraud.

>
>It may be only a beginning and there are undoubtedly a lot of things
>that can still go wrong.
>
>Still, it's a milestone and we ought to celebrate it!
>
>--RC
>"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
>'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
>fly with a club.
> -- John W. Cambell Jr.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:30:07 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
>
>> I really liked the purple finger idea -- that kind of thing (as long as
>> the ink is *really* indelible) could go a long way to preventing "vote
>> early, vote often" election fraud.
>
>I first experienced that, unpleasantly, back in 1962 in the Venezuelan
>elections. Under Bettancourt, IIRC, everyone of age had to vote by law and
>your thumb was dipped in indelible green ink after doing so.
>
>For two days after the elections armed patrols stopped folks on the streets
>and checked right hands ... and you damn well better have a green thumb on
>that hand. Many who did not were shot on the spot.
>
>Being an American and non-voter, but young, and with a moustache that fit in
>with the rest of the male population in those days, I twice found myself
>spread-eagled on the street with a machine gun to my head while my pockets
>were rifled for my sedula ... and anything else they could find.
>
>That was my first experience with what some consider "democracy", and the
>deadly violence in a population inured to facing death on a regular basis.

What you experienced was the Saddam version of democracy in which the
dictator receives 99 to 100% of the vote and the opposition is
non-existent.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Larry Blanchard wrote:
<snip>

> At noon, when I listened to the whole newscast, they went on and on
> about how great it had been, with not a mention of the Sunni
> nonappearance.
>
> What happened? Were they wrong this morning, or were they pushing "feel
> good about Iraq" at noon?
>
> I'll be interested in hearing news from some other source this evening.

From one I gathered no one wanted to be the first person to vote. Once one
person voted the others followed.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

mp wrote:
...
> You and everyone else, including all the world media, are dead wrong.

...(wrt to elections)...

All reports I've seen have been clear to mention "free" or "open"
elections which recent ones of which you reference clearly weren't.

Charles Spitzer wrote:
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
...
> > ... What "consequences" has Dan Blather faced?
>
> well, he did lose a rather high paying job

Actually, not really...he "retired" from the anchor but is moving (still
in CBS) to a reporter status...I've not seen published salary figures
but I seriously doubt he'll be hurting much financially... :)

<[email protected]> wrote in message
> "Swingman" wrote:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> >> According to the reports, a lot of Iraqis didn't go to the polls early
> >> because they were waiting to see what the level of violence would be
> >> like.
> >
> >Makes sense, but it is nonetheless pure conjecture, and a perfect example
of
> >"made up", editorialized news .. and more insidious because it is
> >believable.
>
> Not when it is coming from the people on the ground who are reporting
> what Iraqis told them.

But, do you know that to be the case, or are you just surmising that? Did
you actually see/hear any Iraqi say that in an actual interview, or hear a
reporter say that he got that particular "reason" from an Iraq voter? I
spent the day watching all the news channels while bunkered down with a
cold, and equally nasty weather, and never once heard that particular
"reason" verified by anyone.

> And in fact that seems to be what happened, judging by the turnout and
> the anecdotal reports from Iraqis in the world press
>
> So I'd say they got this one right.

But you may well be proving my point also ... sorry, call me a skeptic, but
I would have had to hear that from the actual voters to believe it was
nothing more than conjecture, reasonable as it sounds, on the part of the
press.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:36:05 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
>
>> CNN pushing "feel good about Iraq"? Surely you jest. CNN? Yeah,
>that'll
>> happen, right after they air a complementary documentary about the Bush
>> administration.
>
>I tuned in to CNN to see how they were applying their usual spin to anything
>Iraq to the voter turnout, and I am hear to tell you that it is true.
>
>The '360' guy, reporting from inside Iraq, was gushing and almost shedding
>tears of joy and wonder.
>
>I wouldn't have believed it myself it I had not seen it.

That's been the general attitude of the press all around the world.
Glancing over the 2700 or so stories on Google I found they were all
various degress of positive. That includes the ones from papers in
Lebanon, Saudi Araba and Kuwait.

The one exception was an opinion piece in the Independent -- a leftist
English paper. Even the AFP (French wire service) was positive.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 06:08:15 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>: Yep. Never happen. Just like it didn't happen in Germany and Japan
>: after World War II.
>
>
>Have a look at Vietnam, 1967:

Irrelevant to the initial claim -- which was that elections under
occupation never led to a representative government.

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:17:46 -0800, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The outcome? You might end up with a Shiite Islamic Republic as a
>> puppet of Iran. But that is a long, long way from as certain as you
>> seem to feel.
>
>No, I don't feel that any Iraqi government will ever be a puppet of Iran,
>and I never said that.
>
Okay, my mistake. I was reading something into your statement that
wasn't there.

However I believe that is the only way you're likely to get the kind
of Shiite fundamentalist government in Iraq you got in Iran. Iran is
almost 100 percent Shiite. Iraq is only about 60 percent Shiite.

This isn't going to stop some of the Shiites from trying, of course.
But without a liberal helping of outside influence it isn't likely to
happen.

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

"mp" wrote in message
> > ... for taking that first step, shaky though it may be, to a
> > representative
> > form of government.
>
> You and everyone else, including all the world media, are dead wrong.
>
> In case you don't recall, Iraq has had elections, as recently as 1995 and
> 2002. Saddam was elected both times.
>
> Of course, Saddam was the only name on the ballot, but that's a minor
> detail.

What is it that you don't understand about the phrase "representative form
of government"?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:14:55 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>> "Swingman" wrote:
>>
>> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> According to the reports, a lot of Iraqis didn't go to the polls early
>> >> because they were waiting to see what the level of violence would be
>> >> like.
>> >
>> >Makes sense, but it is nonetheless pure conjecture, and a perfect example
>of
>> >"made up", editorialized news .. and more insidious because it is
>> >believable.
>>
>> Not when it is coming from the people on the ground who are reporting
>> what Iraqis told them.
>
>But, do you know that to be the case, or are you just surmising that?

Reading carefully from a variety of sources. So it's more than just
surmise, although I sure wouldn't present it as a certaintity -- hence
the initial qualification.

> Did you actually see/hear any Iraqi say that in an actual interview,

A number of Iraqis were quoted to that effect later in the day. And it
seems to be borne out by the pattern of voting in the election.

> or hear a reporter say that he got that particular "reason" from an Iraq voter?
Yes.

> I spent the day watching all the news channels while bunkered down with a
>cold, and equally nasty weather, and never once heard that particular
>"reason" verified by anyone.

Your mistake was relying on the American television reporters -- the
most gerbilish of the news gerbils. For a variety of reasons they are
_not_ a good source for information like this.

I was using Google to find news resports in papers all around the
world, including the US, and reading a lot of them. I ran across this
explanation several times from a number of different sources.

Also, and this is a little hard to explain, if you've been in the
business you can usually make a pretty good guess at when someone's
summing up a general feeling and when he or she is parroting one side
of an argument or just blowing smoke.

>> And in fact that seems to be what happened, judging by the turnout and
>> the anecdotal reports from Iraqis in the world press
>>
>> So I'd say they got this one right.
>
>But you may well be proving my point also ... sorry, call me a skeptic,

Actually I'd call you a pretty reasonable person. A lot better than
uncritically trusting what you hear or read in the media.

> but I would have had to hear that from the actual voters to believe it was
>nothing more than conjecture, reasonable as it sounds, on the part of the
>press.

Logical, and I don't blame you. But you'll get a much better picture
of any major event if you don't rely on television for your news.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

<[email protected]> wrote in message

> According to the reports, a lot of Iraqis didn't go to the polls early
> because they were waiting to see what the level of violence would be
> like.

Makes sense, but it is nonetheless pure conjecture, and a perfect example of
"made up", editorialized news .. and more insidious because it is
believable.

The dumber the population that will take that particular type of "news" as
fact, the further in the hole we go.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

> I really liked the purple finger idea -- that kind of thing (as long as
> the ink is *really* indelible) could go a long way to preventing "vote
> early, vote often" election fraud.

I first experienced that, unpleasantly, back in 1962 in the Venezuelan
elections. Under Bettancourt, IIRC, everyone of age had to vote by law and
your thumb was dipped in indelible green ink after doing so.

For two days after the elections armed patrols stopped folks on the streets
and checked right hands ... and you damn well better have a green thumb on
that hand. Many who did not were shot on the spot.

Being an American and non-voter, but young, and with a moustache that fit in
with the rest of the male population in those days, I twice found myself
spread-eagled on the street with a machine gun to my head while my pockets
were rifled for my sedula ... and anything else they could find.

That was my first experience with what some consider "democracy", and the
deadly violence in a population inured to facing death on a regular basis.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ... for taking that first step, shaky though it may be, to a
> representative
> form of government.
>
> Imagine, if you will, partaking in your religion's death rites the night
> before going to vote in case you were murdered while voting? How many of
> you
> in this country, who bitch about having to stand in line for twenty
> minutes,
> would brave DEATH to cast your vote in a national election?

None. The idea of not having freedom is so foreign to us that some don't
understand that it exists in the world.

>
> These courageous folks deserve the support of the _entire_ world, and in
> particular, the UN, for what they did today.

Yes, they also deserved the support of the entire world and in particular
the UN when this whole thing started. I would not be surprised if the newly
elected goverment of Iraq says in diplomat-speak to the UN and the
significant number of influencial counries who did all they could to stop
this to "shove it".

>
> And thanks to the courage and sacrifice of the Coalition servicemen and
> woman, and their families, who made it possible.

This is the key. Those who have given their lives for this cause have not
died in vain. They will be remembered as heros to a newly freed nation.

Frank

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ... for taking that first step, shaky though it may be, to a
> representative
> form of government.
>
> Imagine, if you will, partaking in your religion's death rites the night
> before going to vote in case you were murdered while voting? How many of
> you
> in this country, who bitch about having to stand in line for twenty
> minutes,
> would brave DEATH to cast your vote in a national election?
>
> These courageous folks deserve the support of the _entire_ world, and in
> particular, the UN, for what they did today.
>
> And thanks to the courage and sacrifice of the Coalition servicemen and
> woman, and their families, who made it possible.
>
> This start today need not be in vain as long as support for those who
> would
> risk death to vote in Iraq is forthcoming from ALL the countries in the
> world.

And to top it all off, IIRC the turn out was better than anticipated.

Charles Krug wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:34:43 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>... for taking that first step, shaky though it may be, to a representative
>>form of government.
>>
>
>
> I'm impressed. With threats of death, they got 60% of eligible voters
> voting.
>

According to the news this morning, it was 60% of the
'registered' voters. The number, or percentage, of
'eligible' voters that actually registered beforehand has
not been readily available.

> Over here, we barely get 50% on a good day, and all we have to do is
> walk down to the fire house and hit the touch screen.
>
> I don't recall the last time someone told me they were gonna kill me for
> voting to reelect the Sherrif.
>

"mp" wrote in message
> >> Of course, Saddam was the only name on the ballot, but that's a minor
> >> detail.
> >
> > What is it that you don't understand about the phrase "representative
form
> > of government"?
>
> I don't understand how you can't see the humour. Regardless, it's a bit of
a
> farce to suggest that the Iraqi's voted in a "representative form of
> government". You can't ram democracy down the throat of a country
suffering
> under foreign occupation.

Ah, mp ... you're just trying once again to prove, by example, that the
fools in a free society are as dangerous as its enemies.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I see. I missed where people were led to the polls at gunpoint by US
> troops. There's an easy way to keep democracy from being shoved down your
> throat...don't show up to vote. For Christ's sake...even Jacques Chirac
> said the vote was a success.
>

mp has a long, untarnished history of bufoonery 'round these parts when it
comes to politics and foreign policy. Do a search in the archives of his
political postings and you will soon disregard anything he adds to these
conversations.

Frank

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> Of course, Saddam was the only name on the ballot, but that's a minor
> >> detail.
> >
> > What is it that you don't understand about the phrase "representative
form
> > of government"?
>
> I don't understand how you can't see the humour. Regardless, it's a bit of
a
> farce to suggest that the Iraqi's voted in a "representative form of
> government". You can't ram democracy down the throat of a country
suffering
> under foreign occupation.

I see. I missed where people were led to the polls at gunpoint by US
troops. There's an easy way to keep democracy from being shoved down your
throat...don't show up to vote. For Christ's sake...even Jacques Chirac
said the vote was a success.

> The United Iraqi Alliance will probably take power as they have the
> majority, and they're headed towards incorporating Islamic law and
> proclaiming Islam as the countries official faith. In short, in a few
years
> it'll be a theocracy much like Iran. This isn't exactly what the Bush
admin
> had in mind, I'll bet.

You should use your crystal ball to pick lottery numbers.

todd

"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> for sure... I really didn't think it was gonna happen without MAJOR
> shit raining down... maybe the insurgents took the week end off??

Geez, maybe we are just plain winning this war and there either aren't that
many insurgents left or they are dismantled to the point of being inable to
disrupt things like they used to. This was a red letter day for Iraq and
you can bet your bottom dollar the insurgents would love nothing better than
to destroy the success of the vote. I read that in one of the suicide
attacks on election day that insurgents used a child with Down's Syndrome as
the bomber.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/16278831

This is dispicable, however I guess it's not really any different that their
normal MO. I just wonder, is this an indication that the number of their
followers is dwindling especially those will to die for the cause?

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:34:43 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... for taking that first step, shaky though it may be, to a representative
> form of government.
>

I'm impressed. With threats of death, they got 60% of eligible voters
voting.

Over here, we barely get 50% on a good day, and all we have to do is
walk down to the fire house and hit the touch screen.

I don't recall the last time someone told me they were gonna kill me for
voting to reelect the Sherrif.

"Waldo" wrote in message

> > I'm impressed. With threats of death, they got 60% of eligible voters
> > voting.
> >
>
> According to the news this morning, it was 60% of the
> 'registered' voters. The number, or percentage, of
> 'eligible' voters that actually registered beforehand has
> not been readily available.

Yep, you'll notice that the "yabbuts" are beginning to chime in today ...
there will be many such _qualifications_ presented in the days to come to
put the most negative spin on the issue as can be presented. Count on it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>: The difference is that Rush and other conservative commentators don't
>: hide who they are
>
>Sure they do. Any time Limbaugh is questioned by anyone other than a
>fawning fan, he claims to be an entertainer, not a reporter. But he
>presents himself on his show as a real reporter and news analyst.
>Putting them together, he's a baldfaced liar.

Oh, bullshit, Andy. Limbaugh has never claimed to be unbiased. He's quite
forthright about admitting his bias, to the point of referring to his program
as "The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies" -- as you would
know if you ever actually listened to the program. But instead you're quite
content to repeat other people's opinions as if they were fact, never
bothering to check for yourself.

>Michael Wiener, who calls himself Michael Savage (another lie), also
>presents himself as an unbiased, smart, news analyst. Against, kinda far
>from the truth.

I've never heard Savage claim to be unbiased either.
>
>, they don't pretend to be neutral reporters like Dan
>: Rather who rushed to air the forged National Guard memos last October for
>: the argument that the news had to be reported, even before being fully
>: vetted, he had to go with his intuition.
>
>
>Very similar to the Bush admin position on (a) the threat Iraq posed to
>us, and (b) the nonexistent Social Security "crisis".
>
>But Rather has faced the consequences, and GWB has gotten a series of
>get-out-of-jail-free cards.

ROTFLMAO!! What "consequences" has Dan Blather faced?
>
> Yet in 2000/2001, that same Dan
>: Rather absolutely refused to air the Gary Condit story, to the point that
>: CBS was a laughing stock when it finally aired a grudging report from
>: Rather that focused more on the accusers than on the missing intern and her
>: connections.
>
>And four years later, it's pretty clear than Condit had nothing to do with
>her death. What's your point?

Oh, and how is that clear?
>
>: With Rush, Hannity, or other conservative hosts, you know the opinions
>: you are going to get.
>
>Sure: the ones manufactured out of smoke and mirrors in the White House
>public relations office. Yay, Rush and Sean! Go, boys!!!!! You are
>truly the heirs of Murrow!

If you would ever actually listen to Limbaugh and Hannity, instead of
just mindlessly repeating what other people have told you about them, you'd
hear criticism of the President's fiscal policies.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:00:07 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:17:38 -0500, Waldo wrote:
>
>
>> According to the news this morning, it was 60% of the 'registered' voters.
>> The number, or percentage, of 'eligible' voters that actually registered
>> beforehand has not been readily available.
>>
>
>The numbers are:
>25 million citizens
>14 million eligible to vote
>8 milliion voted
>
>- Doug
pretty damn impressive numbers, BEFORE you factor in snipers, suicide
bombers, mortars, etc...



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 00:49:57 -0800, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I see. I missed where people were led to the polls at gunpoint by US
>> troops. There's an easy way to keep democracy from being shoved down your
>> throat...don't show up to vote. For Christ's sake...even Jacques Chirac
>> said the vote was a success.
>
>It was successful in the sense that Ayatollah Sistani led mass protests last
>year demanding a vote and a constitution. If not for him Paul Bremer and the
>CPA would have appointed a puppet goverment.
>
>It was unsucessful in the sense that the results, whatever they may be, will
>be mostly meaningless as long as Iraq is forced to remain subservient to a
>foreign occupying power.
>
Which, as we all know, is going to be forever, right?

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
: You really don't get it, do you? The NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC have all touted
: themselves to be "unbiased" news services. The fact is, prior to the
: advent of talk radio

You're presenting TALK RADIO as an example of unbiased reporting? Are
you totally out of your mind? Limbaugh and Savage are unbiased????

:Fox gets slammed
: for being slanted to the right simply because it really has commentators
: from both sides rather than just a single viewpoint with a token
: conservative that they throw out to the public once in a while.

Since when has FOX "news" been presenting a balanced view from the left
and right? Not anytime in the last seven years I'v been (unhappily)
watching it.

:> without mentioning all the
:>Rushies yapping away on the radio and Fox's power on TV.

: The difference is that Rush and other conservative commentators don't
: hide who they are

Sure they do. Any time Limbaugh is questioned by anyone other than a
fawning fan, he claims to be an entertainer, not a reporter. But he
presents himself on his show as a real reporter and news analyst.
Putting them together, he's a baldfaced liar.

Michael Wiener, who calls himself Michael Savage (another lie), also
presents himself as an unbiased, smart, news analyst. Against, kinda far
from the truth.

, they don't pretend to be neutral reporters like Dan
: Rather who rushed to air the forged National Guard memos last October for
: the argument that the news had to be reported, even before being fully
: vetted, he had to go with his intuition.


Very similar to the Bush admin position on (a) the threat Iraq posed to
us, and (b) the nonexistent Social Security "crisis".

But Rather has faced the consequences, and GWB has gotten a series of
get-out-of-jail-free cards.


Yet in 2000/2001, that same Dan
: Rather absolutely refused to air the Gary Condit story, to the point that
: CBS was a laughing stock when it finally aired a grudging report from
: Rather that focused more on the accusers than on the missing intern and her
: connections.

And four years later, it's pretty clear than Condit had nothing to do with
her death. What's your point?

: With Rush, Hannity, or other conservative hosts, you know the opinions
: you are going to get.


Sure: the ones manufactured out of smoke and mirrors in the White House
public relations office. Yay, Rush and Sean! Go, boys!!!!! You are
truly the heirs of Murrow!

-- Andy Barss

Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:


: mp has a long, untarnished history of bufoonery 'round these parts when it
: comes to politics and foreign policy. Do a search in the archives of his
: political postings and you will soon disregard anything he adds to these
: conversations.

: Frank

Actually, Frank, that's you.


-- Best,

Andy Barss

[email protected] wrote:

: Yep. Never happen. Just like it didn't happen in Germany and Japan
: after World War II.


Have a look at Vietnam, 1967:


"U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and
heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential
election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million
registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked
reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy
the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary
assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns
reaching here."

Six years later, we had the last heli-airlift from Hanoi.

With tens of thousands of US casualties preceding.


Yay, Bush admin!


-- Andy Barss

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Barss
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>: The difference is that Rush and other conservative commentators don't
>>: hide who they are
>>
>>Sure they do. Any time Limbaugh is questioned by anyone other than a
>>fawning fan, he claims to be an entertainer, not a reporter. But he
>>presents himself on his show as a real reporter and news analyst.
>>Putting them together, he's a baldfaced liar.
>
> Oh, bullshit, Andy. Limbaugh has never claimed to be unbiased. He's quite
> forthright about admitting his bias, to the point of referring to his
> program
> as "The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies" -- as you
> would
> know if you ever actually listened to the program. But instead you're
> quite
> content to repeat other people's opinions as if they were fact, never
> bothering to check for yourself.
>
>>Michael Wiener, who calls himself Michael Savage (another lie), also
>>presents himself as an unbiased, smart, news analyst. Against, kinda far
>>from the truth.
>
> I've never heard Savage claim to be unbiased either.
>>
>>, they don't pretend to be neutral reporters like Dan
>>: Rather who rushed to air the forged National Guard memos last October
>>for
>>: the argument that the news had to be reported, even before being fully
>>: vetted, he had to go with his intuition.
>>
>>
>>Very similar to the Bush admin position on (a) the threat Iraq posed to
>>us, and (b) the nonexistent Social Security "crisis".
>>
>>But Rather has faced the consequences, and GWB has gotten a series of
>>get-out-of-jail-free cards.
>
> ROTFLMAO!! What "consequences" has Dan Blather faced?

well, he did lose a rather high paying job

<snip>

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:44:44 GMT, Charles Krug
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:34:43 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ... for taking that first step, shaky though it may be, to a representative
>> form of government.
>>
>
>I'm impressed. With threats of death, they got 60% of eligible voters
>voting.
>
>Over here, we barely get 50% on a good day, and all we have to do is
>walk down to the fire house and hit the touch screen.
>
>I don't recall the last time someone told me they were gonna kill me for
>voting to reelect the Sherrif.

Gives you a lot of respect for a lot of Iraqis, don't it?

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:16:31 -0800, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Of course, Saddam was the only name on the ballot, but that's a minor
>>> detail.
>>
>> What is it that you don't understand about the phrase "representative form
>> of government"?
>
>I don't understand how you can't see the humour. Regardless, it's a bit of a
>farce to suggest that the Iraqi's voted in a "representative form of
>government". You can't ram democracy down the throat of a country suffering
>under foreign occupation.

Yep. Never happen. Just like it didn't happen in Germany and Japan
after World War II.

Obviously just flat impossible. Nope. No way. Complete illusion.

Now if you want to move out of the realm of high-order abstractions
and semantically loaded terms, things appear a little different.

>
> The United Iraqi Alliance will probably take power as they have the
>majority, and they're headed towards incorporating Islamic law and
>proclaiming Islam as the countries official faith. In short, in a few years
>it'll be a theocracy much like Iran. This isn't exactly what the Bush admin
>had in mind, I'll bet.

You might be right. OTOH your reasoning is, shall we say, a trifle
simplistic.

There's a tendency on the part of Westerners to see politics in
countries like Iraq solely in terms of religious affiliation. While
that's important, things like tribal and community loyalties are even
more important. In fact what usually happens, whether there's an
institutional political process or not, is an elaborate balancing act
between a lot of factors, from religion to clan affiliation to family
interests that go into making these decisions.

In other words there are major rifts within the Shiite community, just
as there are in the Sunni and Kurdish communities. (Although perhaps
those are less important right now in the Kurdish areas.) Historically
it is not at all uncommon to see Sunni and Shiites making common cause
against their co-religionists. In fact that's the pattern more often
than not.

There's also the fact that the Iraqis are mostly Arabs, not Persians,
and that drives a wedge between Iranian and Iraqi Shiites.

On top of this you have the way the process and the new government is
designed. Both the Kurds and the Sunnis were well aware of -- and
quite concerned about -- possible attempts to turn Iraq into a Shiite
state.

What is going to happen next is a period of intense politicing and
negotiation as the various factions compete for power.

The outcome? You might end up with a Shiite Islamic Republic as a
puppet of Iran. But that is a long, long way from as certain as you
seem to feel.

--RC



"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

> CNN pushing "feel good about Iraq"? Surely you jest. CNN? Yeah,
that'll
> happen, right after they air a complementary documentary about the Bush
> administration.

I tuned in to CNN to see how they were applying their usual spin to anything
Iraq to the voter turnout, and I am hear to tell you that it is true.

The '360' guy, reporting from inside Iraq, was gushing and almost shedding
tears of joy and wonder.

I wouldn't have believed it myself it I had not seen it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:24:17 -0800, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:50:28 GMT, "Leon"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >And to top it all off, IIRC the turn out was better than anticipated.
>>
>> Better than typical US turnouts! Most US voting places aren't
>> threatened by terrorists, either.
>>
>When I listened to CNN Headline News at about 8 this morning (just for
>the first minute of headlines), they said the turnout was high in Kurd
>and Shiite areas, but non-existent in Sunni areas.
>
>At noon, when I listened to the whole newscast, they went on and on
>about how great it had been, with not a mention of the Sunni
>nonappearance.

According to the reports, a lot of Iraqis didn't go to the polls early
because they were waiting to see what the level of violence would be
like.

Some later reports said that even in the Sunni areas there was a
turnout later in the day. The reports agreed that the turnout in the
Sunni areas wasn't nearly what it was in the other parts of the
country, but most of them reported a significant turnout in most of
the Sunni areas as well. Turnout among the Kurds and Shiites, of
course, was very high.
>
>What happened? Were they wrong this morning, or were they pushing "feel
>good about Iraq" at noon?

I saw a real interesting headline on one of the non-American
(Turkish?) news stories about the election to the effect that Iraqis
were stepping over body parts to vote. Don't know if that was
hyperbole or not, since I didn't bother to read that article. If that
was a Turkish newspaper note that they'd have no reason want the
elections to be a success.
>
>I'll be interested in hearing news from some other source this evening.
Hit google news and ask for the full list of articles on the subject.
Then pick and choose among the American and foreign news reports. You
get a lot better picture. If this really concerns you, do you _not_
want to be relying on the TV news gerbils for your information.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

<[email protected]> wrote in message

> Your mistake was relying on the American television reporters

Because you're dead wrong about that, I suspect even more that you have been
all along. There are a plethora of foreign news sources on the 500 or more
cable channels available here ...from the BBC, to the Russian newscast.

Of course, you admittedly got yours from the Internet ... so how in hell
could one argue with the infallibility of that, eh?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:24:17 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:50:28 GMT, "Leon"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >And to top it all off, IIRC the turn out was better than anticipated.
>>>
>>> Better than typical US turnouts! Most US voting places aren't
>>> threatened by terrorists, either.
>>>
>>When I listened to CNN Headline News at about 8 this morning (just for
>>the first minute of headlines), they said the turnout was high in Kurd
>>and Shiite areas, but non-existent in Sunni areas.
>>
>>At noon, when I listened to the whole newscast, they went on and on
>>about how great it had been, with not a mention of the Sunni
>>nonappearance.
>>
>>What happened? Were they wrong this morning, or were they pushing "feel
>>good about Iraq" at noon?
>
> CNN pushing "feel good about Iraq"? Surely you jest. CNN? Yeah, that'll
> happen, right after they air a complementary documentary about the Bush
> administration.

And that'll happen right after Fox does one on Teddy Kennedy. Neither Fox
nor CNN nor any other medium functions as the mouthpiece for the American
government. They are private enterprises--albeit with a public
responsibility--that owe no support to any current administration's
policies. And they are fully entitled to their opinions, even if we wish
that they'd keep them out of the "straight news" reports.
The neocons keep griping about biased news, without mentioning all the
Rushies yapping away on the radio and Fox's power on TV. Liberals complain
about neocon dominance of radio. This is good--if both sides are complaining
then we're about where we should be. We have, on balance, a good strong
variety of viewpoints in our media, just as the Constitution guarantees.

Bob

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:43:19 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> Your mistake was relying on the American television reporters
>
>Because you're dead wrong about that.

How so?

> I suspect even more that you have been all along.

In fact the comment was borne out by later reports on Iraqi voting
behavior, including stories of individual voters.

> There are a plethora of foreign news sources on the 500 or more
>cable channels available here ...from the BBC, to the Russian newscast.

And you watched -- how many of them?

American or foreign, all of them suffered from the limitations which
are inherent in the television news process. In fact I suspect most of
them suffered more than the American reports in some areas because I
doubt any of them had the resources of the American networks to throw
at the coverage.

Oh yes. Apparently you missed something. Another poster reported
seeing statements directly from Iraqis on the news reports relating to
late voting.

>Of course, you admittedly got yours from the Internet

No, I got mine _via_ the Internet. From the widest variety of written
news reports I could find. In addition to the full spectrum of
American news sources that included Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
India (several sources), China (several sources), Germany, France
(several sources, including AFP), South Africa, Latin America,
Thailand and a bunch of others I don't remember.

You see, like you I don't trust American news reports to be complete
in a matter like this. But rather than making pronouncements ex
cathedra from my bellybutton I go looking for better information.

>... so how in hell could one argue with the infallibility of that, eh?

Easily. I don't claim any of them are infaliable. What I do claim is
that I made a concerted effort to find out what a wide variety of
sources were reporting. I can further report that a number of those
sources made the same comment/observation about the early voting,
including some who quoted Iraqis directly.

This was further backed up by reports later in the day that included
interviews with Iraqis who had voted late and the reasons for it.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 06:08:15 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>: Yep. Never happen. Just like it didn't happen in Germany and Japan
>: after World War II.
>
>
>Have a look at Vietnam, 1967:
>
>
>"U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
>Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
>
>by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)
>
Never happen again... we have CNN now.. *g*

When I was a grunt, I hated the news folks, getting in the way and
asking dumb questions..

As I got older and less aggressive (which, again, is why we have young
kids fight our wars) I appreciate the news networks looking over
everyone's shoulder... I think it's helps keep us a bit more honest..

I was there for the 67 elections and can tell you that they were about
as fair and unbiased as the ones that Saddam held..

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:40:12 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ... for taking that first step, shaky though it may be, to a representative
>> form of government.
>
>Amen. And consider that voter turnout appears to be higher than in
>recent federal elections in both the US and Canada. And that terror
>attacks were really quite minimal.
>
>djb

I was particularly struck by that fact as well. Says something about
what the right to vote is worth, don't it?

It may be only a beginning and there are undoubtedly a lot of things
that can still go wrong.

Still, it's a milestone and we ought to celebrate it!

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:24:17 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:50:28 GMT, "Leon"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >And to top it all off, IIRC the turn out was better than anticipated.
>>
>> Better than typical US turnouts! Most US voting places aren't
>> threatened by terrorists, either.
>>
>When I listened to CNN Headline News at about 8 this morning (just for
>the first minute of headlines), they said the turnout was high in Kurd
>and Shiite areas, but non-existent in Sunni areas.
>
>At noon, when I listened to the whole newscast, they went on and on
>about how great it had been, with not a mention of the Sunni
>nonappearance.
>
>What happened? Were they wrong this morning, or were they pushing "feel
>good about Iraq" at noon?

CNN pushing "feel good about Iraq"? Surely you jest. CNN? Yeah, that'll
happen, right after they air a complementary documentary about the Bush
administration.



>I'll be interested in hearing news from some other source this evening.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:50:28 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>And to top it all off, IIRC the turn out was better than anticipated.

Better than typical US turnouts! Most US voting places aren't
threatened by terrorists, either.

Barry

DEBKAFile (www.debkafile.com ) (take the site for what you want; this report
seems reasonable) is reporting the real turnout is 40-45%), which is still
an amazing number in my mind. And, that of the voters, 55% were women.

Even at 45%, its a huge step.

-jbb

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:50:28 GMT, "Leon"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >And to top it all off, IIRC the turn out was better than anticipated.
>>
>> Better than typical US turnouts! Most US voting places aren't
>> threatened by terrorists, either.
>>
> When I listened to CNN Headline News at about 8 this morning (just for
> the first minute of headlines), they said the turnout was high in Kurd
> and Shiite areas, but non-existent in Sunni areas.
>
> At noon, when I listened to the whole newscast, they went on and on
> about how great it had been, with not a mention of the Sunni
> nonappearance.
>
> What happened? Were they wrong this morning, or were they pushing "feel
> good about Iraq" at noon?
>
> I'll be interested in hearing news from some other source this evening.
>
> --
> Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:00:39 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> I really liked the purple finger idea -- that kind of thing (as long as
> the ink is *really* indelible) could go a long way to preventing "vote
> early, vote often" election fraud.

I wholeheartedly agree, but it sure would put the kibosh on my absentee
baloting - unless I sent in the stained finger with the ballot.

Anyhow, go Iraquis!

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:17:38 -0500, Waldo wrote:


> According to the news this morning, it was 60% of the 'registered' voters.
> The number, or percentage, of 'eligible' voters that actually registered
> beforehand has not been readily available.
>

The numbers are:
25 million citizens
14 million eligible to vote
8 milliion voted

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:56:17 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:

> Very similar to the Bush admin position on (a) the threat Iraq posed to
> us, and (b) the nonexistent Social Security "crisis".

So I assume you're content with the SS system as it stands, which means
you're for increasing the national debt by trillions of dollars, double
taxation, spending money now and passing the debt to future taxpayers so
they will be paying 70-80% of their income on income tax, government style
Enron accounting practices to claim false surplusses, ...

Great idea. Glad you're looking out for the children.

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:37:04 -0600, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
... snip
>> CNN pushing "feel good about Iraq"? Surely you jest. CNN? Yeah, that'll
>> happen, right after they air a complementary documentary about the Bush
>> administration.
>
>And that'll happen right after Fox does one on Teddy Kennedy. Neither Fox
>nor CNN nor any other medium functions as the mouthpiece for the American
>government. They are private enterprises--albeit with a public
>responsibility--that owe no support to any current administration's
>policies. And they are fully entitled to their opinions, even if we wish
>that they'd keep them out of the "straight news" reports.
>The neocons keep griping about biased news,

You really don't get it, do you? The NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC have all touted
themselves to be "unbiased" news services. The fact is, prior to the
advent of talk radio, they were essentially the only source of news and
that "news" was often opinion masquerading as news or news that was very
heavily biased such that the reader was guided to come to a single
conclusion that would follow from the news as presented. Fox gets slammed
for being slanted to the right simply because it really has commentators
from both sides rather than just a single viewpoint with a token
conservative that they throw out to the public once in a while.



> without mentioning all the
>Rushies yapping away on the radio and Fox's power on TV.

The difference is that Rush and other conservative commentators don't
hide who they are, they don't pretend to be neutral reporters like Dan
Rather who rushed to air the forged National Guard memos last October for
the argument that the news had to be reported, even before being fully
vetted, he had to go with his intuition. Yet in 2000/2001, that same Dan
Rather absolutely refused to air the Gary Condit story, to the point that
CBS was a laughing stock when it finally aired a grudging report from
Rather that focused more on the accusers than on the missing intern and her
connections.

With Rush, Hannity, or other conservative hosts, you know the opinions
you are going to get.

> Liberals complain
>about neocon dominance of radio. This is good--if both sides are complaining
>then we're about where we should be. We have, on balance, a good strong
>variety of viewpoints in our media, just as the Constitution guarantees.
>
>Bob
>

The good news is that both those sides exist now. 25 years ago, the only
thing we had were the "unbiased" NYT, and network news.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 00:41:57 -0800, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Okay, my mistake. I was reading something into your statement that
>> wasn't there.
>>
>> However I believe that is the only way you're likely to get the kind
>> of Shiite fundamentalist government in Iraq you got in Iran. Iran is
>> almost 100 percent Shiite. Iraq is only about 60 percent Shiite.
>
>That's enough to maintain a comfortable majority in any electoral political
>process.
That assumes:
1) That all the Shiites will present a united front
2) That there are no special provisions in rules of representation,
etc.

1 is unlikely and 2 is untrue. As I say, the Kurds and the Sunni
wanted to prevent the Shiites from having too much power. This can be
modified as the Iraqis draft their constitution, but IIRC they have
limits on what they can do for the first few years written into the
rules.

>We'll see what happens when their constitution is drafted later
>this year. Al-Sistani is going to be a major player and he wants to
>incorporate Islamic law.

Okay, now that's a different question -- and a different standard.
Iraq will almost certainly be run under some form of Islamic law. But
that doesn't mean it's going to be run by religious leaders -- much
less Shiite leaders.

--RC


"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 00:49:57 -0800, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I see. I missed where people were led to the polls at gunpoint by US
>> troops. There's an easy way to keep democracy from being shoved down your
>> throat...don't show up to vote. For Christ's sake...even Jacques Chirac
>> said the vote was a success.
>
>It was successful in the sense that Ayatollah Sistani led mass protests last
>year demanding a vote and a constitution. If not for him Paul Bremer and the
>CPA would have appointed a puppet goverment.
>
>It was unsucessful in the sense that the results, whatever they may be, will
>be mostly meaningless as long as Iraq is forced to remain subservient to a
>foreign occupying power.
>
yeah... those CPA's are a bitch...
especially around tax time!

Simply put you missed it. I heard it directly from Iraqis(speaking English
fortunately) directly several times..
Greg Ostrom

>
> But, do you know that to be the case, or are you just surmising that? Did
> you actually see/hear any Iraqi say that in an actual interview, or hear a
> reporter say that he got that particular "reason" from an Iraq voter? I
> spent the day watching all the news channels while bunkered down with a
> cold, and equally nasty weather, and never once heard that particular
> "reason" verified by anyone.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:34:43 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>This start today need not be in vain as long as support for those who would
>risk death to vote in Iraq is forthcoming from ALL the countries in the
>world.

That would indeed be grand! However I doubt that kind of unanimity will be
forthcoming. It wasn't present for the struggle against Hitler, Pol Pot,
Hussein, or any of the other regimes of like ilk, so I strongly doubt there will
be universal support for the emerging Iraqi representative government. I hope
I'm wrong, but I'm not optimistic.

I believe they have a chance to make it, if the Shiite majority doesn't make the
mistake of trying to take revenge on the Sunni minority or take any other fatal
turns off the path.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:24:17 -0800, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At noon, when I listened to the whole newscast, they went on and on
>about how great it had been, with not a mention of the Sunni
>nonappearance.
>
>What happened? Were they wrong this morning, or were they pushing "feel
>good about Iraq" at noon?

I only heard the overall version during Bob Brinker's Money Talk on XM
this evening.

Barry

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:40:16 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> According to the reports, a lot of Iraqis didn't go to the polls early
>> because they were waiting to see what the level of violence would be
>> like.
>
>Makes sense, but it is nonetheless pure conjecture, and a perfect example of
>"made up", editorialized news .. and more insidious because it is
>believable.

Not when it is coming from the people on the ground who are reporting
what Iraqis told them.

And in fact that seems to be what happened, judging by the turnout and
the anecdotal reports from Iraqis in the world press

So I'd say they got this one right.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:56:17 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>: You really don't get it, do you? The NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC have all touted
>: themselves to be "unbiased" news services. The fact is, prior to the
>: advent of talk radio
>
>You're presenting TALK RADIO as an example of unbiased reporting? Are
>you totally out of your mind? Limbaugh and Savage are unbiased????

I think you're missing the point.
OP feels that because opinions from the other side are now widely
disseminated, listeners can weigh one against the other and get a more
'balanced' picture overall. It's not that any one source is
particularly 'balanced.'

I'm dubious about that theory, but it is not unreasonable.

For me the most useful change in the last few years has been the
greatly increased availability of information about all sorts of
issues via the Web. You can go searching for information yourself from
a wide variety of sources and get it in depth and detail that's never
going to be matched on the 'news' channels.

I used to think I was well-informed because I got to read AP's A wire
and five or six other news services as part of my job. Comparatively,
I was wrong.

--RC


"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:22:51 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> for sure... I really didn't think it was gonna happen without MAJOR
>> shit raining down... maybe the insurgents took the week end off??
>
>Geez, maybe we are just plain winning this war and there either aren't that
>many insurgents left or they are dismantled to the point of being inable to
>disrupt things like they used to. This was a red letter day for Iraq and
>you can bet your bottom dollar the insurgents would love nothing better than
>to destroy the success of the vote. I read that in one of the suicide
>attacks on election day that insurgents used a child with Down's Syndrome as
>the bomber.
>
>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/16278831
>
>This is dispicable, however I guess it's not really any different that their
>normal MO. I just wonder, is this an indication that the number of their
>followers is dwindling especially those will to die for the cause?
>
I doubt it.. never a shortage of fanatics, especially in an area with
strong religious background.. "god is on our side, strike a blow for
god"...

My guess is that they used the kid because it works... they proved
that in Nam over and over, with cute kids selling coke and stuff that
were remote detonated at the"right" time..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message > I really liked
the purple finger idea -- that kind of thing (as long as
> the ink is *really* indelible) could go a long way to preventing "vote
> early, vote often" election fraud.

Here in Chicago, we invented "vote early, vote often" and of course "vote
dead". As for "indelible", I have an easy solution. Just have everyone put
some Gorilla Glue on their finger after they vote.

todd