A Tremendous Victory

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gabino, Jan 30, 2005.

  1. Gabino

    Gabino Member

    Maybe 70% of Iraqis turn out to vote.

    Iraqis on the way to the polls see insurgents driving around in am ambulance, surround the vehicle, capture the insurrgents, and turn them over to Iraqi authorities.

    A Major Victory for democracy, for Rumsfeld, Rice and the President, for conservative voters who held the line, for the American military, and especially for Iraqis.

    A Major Defeat, and total humiliation for all those who opposed the war, and have done all they could to thwart democracy in Iraq. if they aren't ashamed today, they should be.
  2. Eugene

    Eugene Senior Member

    Wait a minute... Didn't you notice at all that 25 people died in a 'spate' of attacks across the country, the situation ain't no where near stablizied yet. i know how much you guys like to have mission accomplished parties and such, but you might want to put the cork back in the champagne.

    Seriously, do you think that they are going to vote the insurgency out of existence? these terrorist thugs don't really give a flying fuck who they voted for, they're still going to blow up school children tomorrow.

    Oh, and please stop putting those who opposed the war on moral grounds, or on the grounds that the grounds for the war were groundless :) , into the same categorie as those who are killing people. We don't approve of the insurgency, and other than they think that the US shouldn't be in Iraq, we don't have anything really in common.
  3. RevoMystic

    RevoMystic Member

    Gabino, a very enlightening way you look at life! Bravo!
    I feel sorry for you.
  4. homebudz

    homebudz Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    So,,,when are you enlisting?
  5. Balbus

    Balbus Members



    Well I’m not surprised that this comes from you it is just the type of blinked, myopic and above all simplistic way of looking at things that makes you so easy to counter and such a dangerously misinformed voter.
    The Iraqi farrago must count as one of the most incompetently conceived and conducted fuck ups in history.
    Even when it was a PNAC wet dream this juvenile idea was dismissed as rather stupid by more informed people (which seemed to be anyone that actually thought about it for more than an hour).
    It was only with a 9/11 that it could have been pushed through, but the putrefying and rotten minds that had conceived the plan were quiet willing to lie and cheat and dishonour the lives of those that died in the towers to get what they wanted.
    But just as the idea was conceived in the back passage of the PNAC, it grow in the mutant womb of a administration were reality seldom ventured and when it went forth this bastard form of smoke filled rooms and neo-con ego lurched toward Babylon, with not a brain cell directing it.

    Can anyone tell me what part of it hasn’t been a partial if not complete fuck up?

    From having only one plan, not having the numbers, thinking people would treat them as liberators, disbanding the army and so on and so on and fucking so on. One bad idea or decision after another.

    This election isn’t a victory for Rummy and the neo-con wankers who thought it up, for Rice who either knew that WDM were not there and lied or didn’t and is incompetent. For a President that really isn’t in the loop (except with a personal god). For a military that has done its best but is over-stretched and trained to be bad ass motherfuckers not peacekeepers and whose idea of winning hearts and minds is to push peoples faces in the shit. As to the Iraqi people they are quite sure they are now Kurds, Sunni’s and Shia’s, now not Iraqis.

    Oh so we come to the conservative voters who am sure think it is a victory but only because they are probably as ignorant and simple minded as you.

    Please give source for the insurgents, the ambulance and the Iraqi voters?

  6. Jozak

    Jozak Member

    I just hope, like everyone else, that the best possible scenario comes out of all of this. I think it's great that Iraqi's are turning out to vote and doing everything possible to make sure the election runs smoothly. I have had serious doubts about it, but am hoping and praying, for their sake, that in the end this will turn out for the better.
  7. UrsusKind

    UrsusKind U like Chris Farley?

    I think they all just wanted to get a head of state so finally someone from their country could ask us to leave.
  8. Pointbreak

    Pointbreak Banned

    Well Balbus, I'm not surprised to see you so angry and bitter. Successful elections certainly made for a bleak day for the anti-war left, and I'm sure the sight of Iraqis cheering and celebrating the return of democracy must have really pissed you off thoroughly - even more than seeing them celebrate the downfall of Saddam. And again they are doing it in the UK, your own country! Don't they read the Daily Star? And you haven't even had a chance to get over your fury at elections in Afghanistan.

    Celebration by Iraqis, anger from the UK left. I know where I stand... cheers!

    Remember, its not that the european anti-war left were against democracy in bosnia, kosovo, afghanistan, and iraq, no, its that... oh what was it again? Anyway back to the post election gloom.
  9. An independant news source for coverage of the Iraqi election. On ground interviews and more. . .

    Here is the link to listen to the interview:

    and here is to the whole show -- mp3 format:

    Below is a transcript of just this interview.

  10. HuckFinn

    HuckFinn Senior Member

    That's why these "insurgents" are destroying civilian infrastructure?!
  11. news flash - the United States has been systematically bombing the civillian infrastructure in Iraq for months now.

    I don't know how you got "insurgents destroying civilian infrastructure" from "seeing all those attacks."

    How can you spot an "insurgent"? Please tell me how to pick one out of a crowd. lol.

    I'd like to know how you all classify someone as an insurgent, because it is my impression that the real answer to that is "because the media told me so"
    In a country under martial law and occupied by a foreign military force.

    Come on people. Tell me how you can have a legit election in an environment such as that - and I'll show you someone who doesn't know shit about democracy in the true sense of the word.
  13. RevoMystic

    RevoMystic Member

    Think about how many people that can be applied to. It's sickening.
  14. Balbus

    Balbus Members


    To Point (others please ignore)

    Oh Point once more like so many times before you misread what other people write. And once more I must remind you to read a post and then think about it, I must say it is rather sad that having told you this so many times that you still are making this fundamental and very simple mistake.

    Yes I know you have told me that you have a short attention span and that this means you very rarely ever stay around in a discussion long enough to actually defend anything you say. But you would think after spending so long here that you could read a post and not just reacts with your own blind prejudices. Please Point it is frankly boring and makes me begin to doubt you actually are as intelligent as I had previously thought.

    Your friend as always

  15. Balbus

    Balbus Members


    Point thinks I’m bitter or angry because of the Iraqi elections, I’m not, however I admit I having trepidation’s based on the situation in the area and the elements involved, if he hasn’t I would say he wasn’t looking at things realistically.

    Ok a lot of what I’m going to say Point and I have already discussed. In fact much of it he has admitted to agreeing with, other parts I’m unsure if he agrees or not, since he has a tendency to disappear from a debate when facts and reason come into conflict with his own prejudices. At those moments rather than defend his viewpoint he finds it expedient to withdraw. This means that his views have never been shown to be wrong BUT only because they have never stood up to any serious challenge.

    The subject of my ire is Gabino’s seeming incomprehension of just how badly the Iraqi question has been handled so far. So let us look at some of the points raised in the post.

    The people in the Bush Admin that were pushing for war used the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers to force forward an already wanted agenda that had nothing to do with the Twin Towers or countering terrorism. In fact many impartial experts thought an invasion of Iraq would increase dislike of the US and therefore increase recruitment to anti-American terrorist groups.
    As far as I know, Point agrees with this.

    To strengthen the case for war people within the Bush Admin wilfully manipulated evidence to such a degree that it is so close to lying that only a lawyer would quibble over it not being lying.
    Point I believe agrees with this.

    There have been a series of mistakes from original troop numbers, to not having an adaptive battle plan or having no post-war plan. The mistake are numerous, but as far as I now Point agrees with virtually all the ones put to him at one time or another.


    Where me and Point seem to diverge is over the strategy and the importance of what has happened.

    I believe that the policy makers that set up Iraq for invasion and occupation did so to establish a US base of operations within the Middle East. That was their primary goal everything else was secondary including the best interests of the Iraqi people. This was sign-posted in the views and papers of the PNAC as were some of the reasons for choosing Iraq. As they said Saddam’s position as ruler was not necessary but was fortuitous because he was know to the American public as an enemy. But there were other advantages, Saddam was known to be weakened by the 1991 war and sanctions, in the north the Kurds were independent of Saddam’s rule and in the south there was a ‘no fly zone’ that gave the invading force a distinct advantage. It also had the second largest oil reserves on earth.

    Point doesn’t mind that the all the public reason put forward for going there were lies, and contends that of cause this was done for the supposed interests of the US, no country acts like that and puts out so much money without wanting a return. That is common-sense. But he wants people to ignore that and to only see what has been done, Saddam is gone.

    As Point has been told I’d been supporting anti-Saddam campaigns for over 20 years before he was toppled, back before the Iraq-Iran war, before the gassing of the Kurds. I was calling him a bloody handed tyrant when most western governments including those of the US were supporting him. So yes I wanted him gone but I reasoned any action that was to be taken had to have at it’s number one priority the best interests of the Iraqi people. Nothing the US has done so far or is doing has convinced me that the US policy makers have changed their priorities to that.

    To put it more simply the Bush Admin still has as its number one priority the building of a US base of operations within Iraq, the wishes of the Iraqi people are secondary.

    Therefore US influence and resources are more likely to be used in an effort to achieve their first goal rather than the secondary ones. Point seems to see nothing wrong with this situation his argument seems to be that as long as the US gets what it wants, the Iraqis lives will improve. But as l’ve pointed out on a number of occasions what happens when American desires come into conflict with Iraqi (Shia, Sunni or Kurdish) aspirations?

    Often in the past when such a conflict has taken place the US has pursued what it sees as its own interests over those of the people. Point has often seemed to argue ‘fuck the past this time it will be different’, well I think that is stupid. The past is there to teach valuable lessons and to disregard it is to not learn those lessons, and it is so much easier to be manipulated when you are ignorant.

  16. Balbus

    Balbus Members


    Something that people might not know in your post was the refrence to the Daily Star-


    Point do you really see the Daily Star as a paper of record that is the place to go for hard and objective news coverage?

    The front-page headline on todays website picture of the paper is next to a large picture of a scantily clad woman it reads “CORRIE STAR QUITS FOR LOVE”

    Are you going to explain the soap opera ‘Coronation Street’ to the Americans here or shall?
  17. Pointbreak

    Pointbreak Banned

    Actually, I meant the Morning Star, the paper of record for those who think the Guardian and the Independent are too pro-Bush.

    No matter how long your posts get, you cannot hide your bitterness at the elections. Iraqis are celebrating, but apparently it would be beneath you to join them. The same gloom pervaded HipForums following successful elections in Afghanistan. Who is surprised?

    I fail to be impressed by people who protest Saddam but then immediately reject everything done to take him out of power. I know its more comfortable being in opposition, but is it really courageous?
  18. Balbus

    Balbus Members


    For those that are left wondering about ‘Corrie’ it is the popular term for the soap opera ‘‘Coronation Street’ about northern folk living on the fore mentioned street, it’s production values are middling and its acting often embarrassing but many people like it. Here is the fans website –


    The Daily Star is the kind of tabloid ‘newspaper’ that spends most of its copy on soap stars and ‘z’ list so called celebrities. It is not the kind of paper anyone would read to get any information on a serious news story.

    Just as someone would not expect unbiased news from the other paper mentioned the ‘Morning Star’ which is the official newspaper of the communist party of the UK.


    Point I’m quite happy to chat about the implications of the Iraqi elections if that is what you want? I mean we have already covered the other stuff you talk about in your post and you have either ended up agreeing with my point of view on the relevance of the Afghan elections and Saddam’s toppling or you have run away. If you want to do it again I can try and dig up those old threads or you can begin new ones it doesn’t matter to me.

    Yours in hope of actual debate


  19. Pointbreak

    Pointbreak Banned

    Sorry but I'll never let you draw me into your vast all encompassing all roads lead to USA guilt debates. If you think less of me for that, I can live with it. Maybe someday you'll notice that your efforts to steer debates that way are often a thread killer. Maybe its just the technocrat social engineer in you that thinks we all want to debate is what you presume to be an objectively superior way? Who knows.

    All I can say is that for someone with such a long and illustrious career opposing Saddam (as you continually remind us), you are remarkably quiet about elections which millions of Iraqis risked their lives to participate in, and which the danced in the street to celebrate. In fact, your posts are more bitter and hostile to the US than ever. Anyone care for a decades old anecdote about pro-IRA Americans rather than talk about Iraqi elections? Talk to Balbus - the long suffering supporter of Iraqi democracy who just happened to find other things to talk about on that historic day.

    Me? I'm celebrating.
  20. Maggie Sugar

    Maggie Sugar Senior Member

    Does anyone really think the people who "Win" this election are going to be anyone other than just who the Bush administration wants, and puppets into there? Who is going to know the difference? Who is keeping track?


Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice