Re: Early Iragi Turnout Appears Huge!

From: Charles Buckley (rijrunner_at_friiSTOPSPAM.com)
Date: 01/31/05 

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:27:56 -0700

Christopher M. Jones wrote:
> Charles Buckley wrote:
>
>> Ed Earl Ross wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Buckley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed Earl Ross wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm tired of playing what if.
>>
>>
>> Which concisely sums up the the reason why things have
>> deteriorated in Iraq.
>
>
> Deteriorated... into democracy! Oh, horrible, horrible
> democracy! What foul, cruel machinations are in store
> for those sad little wogs once they travel down the
> road of democratic rule? Just the thought of all the
> blood shed from people poking themselves with political
> buttons makes my heart ache.

   Let's see.. from 5 attacks a day to 2500 a day?

   You're right, those political buttons only killed what..
a couple hundred people this week.

    It isn't a democracy. The have taken a grand total of
*one* vote for a large number of people too afraid to even
announce their names or motives to form a government, then
write a constitution.

   There are a lot of potential outcomes to this vote and
a fairly large number of them destabalize the region even further.

   Chris, I have been reading your stuff on here for a couple years
now about this war. Do you really want to see your trackrecord on
accuracy in your predictions?

   One of my favorites:

"Oh, but please, go on pretending that Saddam's regime
never had anything to do with international terrorism or
al'qaeda, or that they never had a current WMD program,
or that there was never any danger of Iraq's WMDs
falling into the hands of terrorists. Sometimes it can
be emotionally difficult when your precious security
blankets get ripped away by the harsh reality of the
world, so just curl up and keep pretending. "

That *was* the official conclusion of the US government agencies
researching it.

>Perhaps one day the wogs
> will learn their proper place in the universe and will
> refuse utterly the bait of democratic self-rule.

And, of course, no democracy anywhere would wage war killing
hundreds of thousands of people or pursue an aggressive radical
policy of establishing a form of government around the world
without consulting said world as to the advisability of such a move.

Democracy is just a form of government. It is not a
panacea, nor does it negate any hostile feelings. It is *not*
in the US strategic interest to allow a hostile government to
form in Iraq under any guise or form. And, the best - the very
best to be expected - is neutrality.

> Perhaps one day they will rise up, cast of the shackles
> of freedom and say "NO MORE!" and call with a
> unanimous voice for a return to the halcyon days of
> tyranical despotism and brutal thugocracy. Perhaps...
>
> Our hope for such a day has been sadly diminished by
> recent events in Iraq, but we cannot let such things
> erode our determination or quench our eternal hope that
> one day the stability of tyranny will return to the
> peoples of Iraq.

This is a single vote. The results of this vote will play
out over a long period of time and it is foolish to think that,
in a country where 98% of the population oppose the occupation
to one degree or another, that an election with a large turnout
would be necessarily favorable to the occupying power.

But, of course, you have no objection should the next 911
be done by a democratic government. It's only those
ones from the types of governments you don't approve of that
upsets you.