Madrid Attack

[August1991]

Cars and trucks are vehicles that travel on the surface of the earth (unless of course they are dropped from an aircraft or driven off a pier or a ferry) Then you might mistake them for a submarine, or a belt bomb if the visual conditions are not optimal.

Sorry, you had me falling off my chair. Ex-military, sense of humour. What a mix. If the Canadian military has to secure a building, you're the guy to send in. I'm sure you'll come back with a five year lease and excellent opt-out clauses.

Sorry, this is serious stuff. Very serious.

I'm embarrassed as a Canadian that the Spaniards have gone through this and we can't look them in the eye and say, we're with you.

[KrustyKidd]

I'm embarrassed as a Canadian that the Spaniards have gone through this and we can't look them in the eye and say, we're with you.

We may possibly go through it ourselves. God forbid, the list of countries joining this club is growing. The reasons put forth by the Left are varied and semi valid but when you think of it, is there any nation on the face of the earth that does not, has not or will not, ever have contact with the US or a western society that has not, is not or will not, ever work with or trade with the US? Six degrees of separation and these guys connect dots very imaginatively.

[Pellaken]

I dont see what the point is

if your going to invade Iraq, regardless of the reason, regardless of weather it was right or wrong, your going to get some terrorists blowing you up.

[KrustyKidd]

Was there lots of terrorists flocking in from Syria, Egypt and all to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Iraq back in 91?

[Black Dog]

hen you are in agreement with Bush's method of giving Iraq to the people and providing people an opportunity to live a life free from oppression? Hopefully, this is what will happen and contiue to happen as the rest of the Arab world sees how Iraq flourishes. On the other hand, the US will contiue to wage physical war on the Terrorists and those who aid and abet them. And I thought you were Left Wing.

No I don't agree, simply because it's impossible to "impose" democracy. (Accepting, of course, that such was the Bushies' intent in Iraq. I don't believe it is.)

Very good. Go to the head of the class. That is what the US is doing, note the difference between the Gulf war before and after the ceasefire? This time, America didn't spend a month softening Iraq before hand. Bridges were left standing, power plants were left untouched, water treatment facilities the same.

Uh, they didn't have to "soften" them up. 12 years of sanctions and bombings accomplished that nicely.

[falling leaf]

I think there is more to the story about the terrorists than both Canada and the USA are willing to admit. 9/11 was not the first time they have attacked and will not be the last . Spain now whos next?! There are others on their list including Canada.

There were terrorists camps found in Iraq!

Canada is now in Afganistan ! Do you really think the terrorists think Canada is inoccent? We all look the same to them. They have been fighting in that area for over a 1000 years.

[Black Dog]

Is there any proof that this was Al Q'aeda? Keep in mind, they also claimed responisibility for last summer's black out as well.

I think there is more to the story about the terrorists than both Canada and the USA are willing to admit. 9/11 was not the first time they have attacked and will not be the last . Spain now whos next?! There are others on their list including Canada.

Again, we have the paradox of the war on terror: three years in and we're told that the world is much safer as a reult of this ham-fisted crusade against terrorism. Yet we're also told there are Al Q'aeda agents behind every bush, just waiting to strike. It seems to me, AQ is a real life Emmanuel Goldstein: an all purpose bogeyman that can neve rbe captured or defeated.

[August1991]

From Moscow:

The real winner in the Spanish election was al-Qaida. The terrorists who murdered 200 people and injured 1,500 in order to force Spain out of Iraq got just what they wanted. This was made possible by the indecisiveness of the ruling Popular Party, the opposition's unscrupulous exploitation of the opportunity afforded by the terrorists, and the indifference of the Spanish people.

Yulia Latynina Article

BTW, she drives me nuts but when I read that, I had to quote her.

[KrustyKidd]

No I don't agree, simply because it's impossible to "impose" democracy. (Accepting, of course, that such was the Bushies' intent in Iraq. I don't believe it is.)

Still don't get it do you BD? Nobody is imposing democracy. The US is providing anopportunity for Iraqis to hold a democratic vote. You know, a vehicle that they can use to express themselves and choose the type of government they wish to have. Hell, it might turn out to be communist for all we know, it will, however be a style that they chose for themselves, not one forced on them. What part about that theory are you unable to comphrehend?

[Black Dog]

Still don't get it do you BD? Nobody is imposing democracy. The US is providing anopportunity for Iraqis to hold a democratic vote. You know, a vehicle that they can use to express themselves and choose the type of government they wish to have. Hell, it might turn out to be communist for all we know, it will, however be a style that they chose for themselves, not one forced on them.

Give me a break. Do you honestly believe if the Iraqi people were to choose, say, a rabid, Islamist anti-American government, that the U.S. (having spent billions of diollars and hundreds of lives in the place) would just shrug its shoulders and say "Oh well. the people have spoken." As I've noted elsewhere (and history backs me up) the US only respects democracy so long as it serves its purposes.

[KrustyKidd]

Give me a break. Do you honestly believe if the Iraqi people were to choose, say, a rabid, Islamist anti-American government, that the U.S. (having spent billions of diollars and hundreds of lives in the place) would just shrug its shoulders and say "Oh well. the people have spoken." As I've noted elsewhere (and history backs me up) the US only respects democracy so long as it serves its purposes.

You have read polls from Iraq? They all show the same thing no matter how they are read. A 'rabid, Islamist anti-American government' will not be what they choose anyhow so your argument is moot.

As for your hypothetical problem, I can't see it anyhow. Instead of fighting a War against a force, they would be fighting a war against the will of a nation. Bad PR and an impossible task. So much so that is not even worth arguing about.

[Black Dog]

You have read polls from Iraq? They all show the same thing no matter how they are read. A 'rabid, Islamist anti-American government' will not be what they choose anyhow so your argument is moot.

Oh? Show me where this is so.

As for my argument being moot, it is not. The point I''m making is the government the Iraqi people choose (if they ever get the chance to do it) will be little more than a docile, American quisling government. theAgain, teh U.S. is not intereste din Iraqi self-determination, but in having a pliant regime in power.

As for your hypothetical problem, I can't see it anyhow. Instead of fighting a War against a force, they would be fighting a war against the will of a nation. Bad PR and an impossible task. So much so that is not even worth arguing about

Why? It's happened before and it'll happen again.

[nitro]

Hi!

Im new here, but I might come once in a while...

Anyway I came here and signed up to ur forums for a reason...

Im a french canadian guy, leader of an online community for online games. We have a forum, and in our "off-topics" forums I like discussing about politics once in a while.

The face is most of my members are Americain, Ill'say like 90% of them... So Im trying to educate them a lil, since I know that in the US they are brainwashed by TV and propaganda... But then they always reply me with stupid stuff...

Anyway, would appreciate, if some of u likes to waist time on forums once in a while, come to our thread and add their 2 cents!

pleeease!?!?!?

http://dssgr.net/~oss/forums/viewtopic.php?t=412

title is "DEMOCRACY DOES WORK" after what happened in Spain, I started my most recent politic topic about it...

oh and u dont need to sign up, u can stay a visitor, I think...huh oh...

[KrustyKidd]

Oh? Show me where this is so.

Gallup polls. no wonder your views are so out to lunch, you don't have any clue of what is going on except what you think. Here, expand yourself.

USA TODAY ON GALLUP POLLS

USA TODAY AGAIN ON GALLUP POLLS

Here's more from today, does this sound like a plan to stifle elections?

AP NEWS, 17 MARCH

“The Governing Council has asked that the United Nations offers advice to Iraq in the field of elections and the formation of a transitional government,” al-Kafaai said.

The United States has urged a U.N. role in the U.S.-backed political process for Iraq, and coalition spokesman Dan Senor welcomed news of the invitation.

The announcement of the invitation, decided in a council meeting Wednesday, followed remarks to reporters by Bahr al-Ulloum’s deputy that Iraq’s most powerful Shiite cleric and his supporters on the U.S.-appointed Governing Council were unhappy with a U.N. report last month that found Iraq unready for elections ahead of June 30.

Black Dog

Why? It's happened before and it'll happen again.

Where? When have they ousted a dictator and then proceeded to war against the people?

[Black Dog]

That's one poll. Of just over 1,000 Baghdad residents. Your articles condradict themselves.

Most people here want Iraq's next government to be something like a democracy, according to a Gallup Poll

but later...

The 1,178 in-home interviews were all in Baghdad, so the results are not a scientific glimpse of all Iraqis' opinions.

And since you love stroking polls, here's anothe rone for you:

Poll finds most Iraqis oppose occupation

Proving...well, nothing. Except that opinion polls are pretty open to spin.

Here's more from today, does this sound like a plan to stifle elections?

No where did I say the U.S planned to stifle the elections. But, one way or another, the next Iraqi regime will be very U.S. friendly. If not, they'd soon be replaced by one that is

Oh and this was pretty funny.

The United States has urged a U.N. role in the U.S.-backed political process for Iraq, and coalition spokesman Dan Senor welcomed news of the invitation.

So all of a sudden the "irrelevant" UN can come play in the country it refused to sanction the invasion of?

QUOTE 

Why? It's happened before and it'll happen again. 

Where? When have they ousted a dictator and then proceeded to war against the people?

???

I was talking about the U.S.'s habit of ousting democratically elected regimes that don't suit their interests. Iran. Chile. Venezuala (attempted, but stay tuned), Haiti, just to name a few.

[KrustyKidd]

What is wrong with you BD? The discussion is about elections and democratic vote, not a popularity contest to see if people love the USA or not. Why are you trying to turn it on it's side?

Further down in your Al Jazzeera artile the facts are:

Asked what political system they believed was needed in their country, 86% said they wanted democracy, but 81% said a single strong Iraqi leader was needed, the poll commissioned by the BBC and other broadcasters found.

Your facts, so I take it that you are wrong and I am right as after I said that Iraq would probably not elect a non democratic type government. You then said:

Oh? Show me where this is so.

I provided some proof, you didn't like it and provided your own, as shown above which confirmed mine. Glad you finally figured out how to do a proper search.

[KrustyKidd]

Black Dog

Oh? Show me where this is so.

Hi BD, did you get the proof? Just wondering as I didn't hear back from you. If you can't get to the post key, just look at your own material, it's there, just trying to save you some trouble.

[Black Dog]

Proof of what?

What is wrong with you BD? The discussion is about elections and democratic vote, not a popularity contest to see if people love the USA or not. Why are you trying to turn it on it's side?

My original point:

Do you honestly believe if the Iraqi people were to choose, say, a rabid, Islamist anti-American government, that the U.S. (having spent billions of diollars and hundreds of lives in the place) would just shrug its shoulders and say "Oh well. the people have spoken." As I've noted elsewhere (and history backs me up) the US only respects democracy so long as it serves its purposes.

In other words, the iraqi people can have all the democracy they want. They can have a big democracy cakewalk right down the middle of downtown Baghdad and it won't make a lick of differnece because the people who get in will be the people the U.S. wants in. The wishes of the Iraqi people are more or less irrelevant.

(update)

Lookee here!

The occupation is a year old this week, and despite the deployment of overwhelming force, it has failed to achieve any major U.S. goals beyond those won by force of arms. Just about every other breakthrough has turned out to be pyrrhic, whether it be the capture of Saddam Hussein, the killing of his sons, entrusting security to new Iraqi forces -- or the hailing by President George W. Bush and Paul Bremer, the U.S. proconsul, of the March 1 agreement on the interim constitution as some sort of enduring political success in building Iraqi democracy.

Right after the signing ceremony, 12 of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council's 13 Shia members disowned key parts of the interim constitution they'd just signed, and pledged to revise them. What President Bush termed a "historic milestone in the Iraqi people's long journey from tyranny and violence to liberty and peace," Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi al-Modaresi condemned as "a time bomb," which if implemented, would "spark a civil war."

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the de facto Iraqi leader who has turned out to be Mr. Bremer's great nemesis, was the first to reveal the anti-democratic ploy in the interim constitution: a central clause ensured that key elements of the interim constitution written by the council (whose support within Iraq is still minimal) would be hard to undo, because one of its clauses prevents the permanent constitution (to be written by elected Iraqis) from becoming law even if just three of the country's 18 governorates vote against it by a two-thirds margin.

The clause in question:

A) Except as otherwise provided in this Law, the laws in force in Iraq on 30 June 2004 shall remain in effect unless and until rescinded or amended by the Iraqi Transitional Government in accordance with this Law.

So the U.S. appointed colonial governor and council (including the likes of criminal toady Ahmed Chalabi) gets to put a whole whack of laws into effect (like, say, massive privatization of national resources) and there's not a helluva lot the future Iraqi government can do about it. Some democracy they're building.