Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (178764)	12/24/2005 1:10:51 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Look at the article I just posted. And read the post which that post is a reply to. You are clearly a Bush supporter to be able to believe that either that Hackett's loss or this election in Iraq were somehow wonderful victories for Bush's foreign policy. Hackett should have lost by at least a double digit margin, but only lost by a few points. Do you have any idea why Mike DeWine--who is a reliable Republican vote on almost every issue--just voted against those deficit cuts in the Senate? or why Cheney flew back to cast the tie breaking vote in order to get those cuts passed, so that Republicans can pretend to the world that they are fiscally responsible when the vote for yet more tax breaks for wealthy people? It is because DeWine is seen as vulnerable. Hackett is the current favorite to be his Democratic opposition. He was allowed to vote "No" because he wants to project an image of distancing himself from the Bush Administration in the upcoming election. If Hackett's near win didn't scare the Ohio Republican party, there is no way he would have voted no. He probably had to draw straws to win the privilege away from several other vulnerable Senators. But then, you just parrot talking points. Oh what an independent guy DeWine is. He knows how to vote Ohio's interest, yessirree. As for the election--if you think this or any of the other elections that have been held in Iraq in the past year settle anything at all, you are unhappily mistaken. The fault lines in Iraqi society are becoming more and more clear as time goes by. Unhappily, the same is true US society as well. But nevermind, I can't believe I am taking the time to respond to you, who obviously has attention-deficit disorder, and can't think or see beyond the magical talking points of our Leader.

To: steve harris who wrote (178764)	12/26/2005 4:28:05 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Well considering what that dimwit Repug "winner??" did on the floor of Congress as soon as she got there, she certainly is not a loss for the Dems. No doubt she is your kind of "winner" just as the Iraq invasion and occupation is a big "win?" for democracy and freeeeeedom.

To: steve harris who wrote (178764)	12/26/2005 10:56:47 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yep, Hackett's loss to Mean Jean Schmidt is a victory for those, like you, who believe that veteran Murtha, and the military he represents, are COWARDS. I don't believe that Mean Jean Schmidt's attack on the military is warranted...why do you?

To: steve harris who wrote (178764)	12/26/2005 11:21:43 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The Iraqi 'elections' do the following: 1. Force a fake 'democracy' on the Iraqis. When they started the 'lists' were secret with the candidates names not appearing on them. How does anyone vote for nameless candidates in a 'democracy' and how did some parties have the money and wherewithal to make those slick tv ads? The US meddled before, during and after the 'elections' forcing all kinds of strange compromises like including unelected Sunnis and forcing fake extensions and desperate ammendment options to the Constitution. 2. The elections codify the majority power of the Shiites and force the Sunnis to consider that they are absolutely, definitely in really big trouble in their own country. 3. The elections also make the ethnic divisions in the country stark and deep. When the US first invaded and forced the 'thieving' government on the Iraqis, one woman representative had to call her father and ask if she was Sunni or Shiite. Now, families that are mixed are arguing within themselves. The elections force people to choose when before at least some of them didn't really know or care. 4. The elections may also force the US out which is not the worst thing to happen in what is a horrendous situation. Now that there are no more large political milestones...what the heck is the US doing in a sovereign country whose 'government' has said: GET THE HECK OUT. 5. The elections also put into place an Islamic theocracy with close ties to Iran. They also put into place a clear point of withdrawal for the Kurds who have already decided that the northern oil fields belong to them and negotiated a deal for development without Baghdad's knowledge. It's possible that the elections put into place the framework for breaking up Iraq with the world's 2nd largest known oil reserves underneath two of the three pieces. 6. American style democracy is not about VOTING. Anyone can VOTE, Saddam had people VOTE. Big blooming deal. American style democracy is about the rule of law that people can trust to protect each and every person from each other and from the government. I don't think that's how most Sunnis see the results of the Iraqi elections.