gungasnake wrote:That's just an AK resting on a bipod where somebody left it, and it's basically pointed at the sky.
now there's that homeland security...USA style.....
kickycan wrote
"What a mess. I can't believe people are thinking this vote is turning out well. It's a mess, and it only goes to show that democracy at the point of a gun is no democracy."
look to the history books. the first elections in the U.S. were not held without blood, and look how that turned out.
for nearly a decade after germany became a democratic state things were still on a long, rough upward trend. look at the U.S. today and look at germany today. in the late 1940's, germany bore somewhat of a resemblance to modern day iraq as far as insurgents and violence, etc...
i don't know about you, but guns in the right hands at the polling places do much to deter violence.
- just my thoughts - t
JW
If someone voted like in your pic above - we (= from the ballot commitee) - would have asked her/him, not to show the votes, because it is a screl election. :wink: (Besides the point that the voter herself/hmself has to throw to paper in the box, but we certainly we led children do it, if no-one was against that) :wink:
thorman944 wrote:kickycan wrote
"What a mess. I can't believe people are thinking this vote is turning out well. It's a mess, and it only goes to show that democracy at the point of a gun is no democracy."
look to the history books. the first elections in the U.S. were not held without blood, and look how that turned out.
for nearly a decade after germany became a democratic state things were still on a long, rough upward trend. look at the U.S. today and look at germany today. in the late 1940's, germany bore somewhat of a resemblance to modern day iraq as far as insurgents and violence, etc...
i don't know about you, but guns in the right hands at the polling places do much to deter violence.
- just my thoughts - t
yeah look how that turned out....from Washington to bush...chicken salad to chicken ****......good ride in the middle though.....
Planet_Z wrote:Considering only 60% showed up to vote for the U.S. 2004 election and it hadn't been that high since 1968 then I think 72% is outstanding for Iraqis.
An aside: are the US figures re paricipation made out of rtegiserted voters or out of the number of all, who could vote? (In Iraq, it is 70% of the registered voters. Numbers here in Europe are of all, who could vote, since we don't have to register especially.)
When we hear the stat here it is a percentage of registered voters. Who would tally the number of children and otherwise ineligibles that didn't vote?
Lash wrote:When we hear the stat here it is a percentage of registered voters. Who would tally the number of children and otherwise ineligibles that didn't vote?
People trying to fix things to go their way and make them look like the pillars of democracy the vicars of christ and the saviors of the world while counting the money behind closed doors? Just a guess.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I think it's positively fascinating how the US government can put so much successful effort into a huge voter turnout in Iraq and so much successful effort into supressing the vote in their own country.
Could there be a profit motive at work here?
One can sense your overwhelming joy that the people of Iraq have taken a step in the right direction.
Here, there is a difference between those eligible to vote, and those who registered. I believe it is the same in the U.S. (Or at least that's how the U.S. election results seemed to be discussed)
Not all those eligible to vote, register. My understanding, from looking at some of the middle Eastern sites (thanks for that additional link, timber), is that over 50% of eligible voters in Iraq registered. About 30 - 40 percent of eligible voters outside of Iraq registered (about 20 - 25 % in the U.S.)
The comments re percentage of registered voters is simply that - registered. That has to be considered against eligible to vote.
kickycan wrote:Violence, death, only half of the people showing up...yeah, what a great success.
I suppose it's lost on you that people who have never had an election and have suffered under one of the worst tyrants in modern history have at least achieved a beginning democracy. You really don't feel the tiniest empathy for these people do you, except to the extent that the war allows you to accuse Bush of killing them?
Lash wrote:When we hear the stat here it is a percentage of registered voters. Who would tally the number of children and otherwise ineligibles that didn't vote?
Thanks, but here, chidren etc. are not allowed to vote either: we (in the EU and other European countries] get registered "automatically".
Razor sharp sarcasm there Brandon :wink:
Please define for us step in the right direction.
The Iraqis have gained what exactly? The ability to vote in a election where the results have been predetermined to install a government friendly to the interests of bush inc?
Do you think the thousands of people killed by the brutal Saddam regime rest in a different place than the thousands of people killed by bushco liberating the country from the Saddam regime? Are they more or less dead or did they die under more or less horrifying circumstances?
Bullshit from day one. All of it. From beginning to end.
Lash wrote:That "Democracy at the point of a gun" line has caught on among Democrats. They couldn't help the GOP any more if they all donated to the RNC.
The Iraqis say you're liars.
Didn't you see the men with guns forcing Iraqis to vote for the candidates America favors at each polling place? The bulk of the modern incarnation of liberalism has little or no interest in the fact that an oppressed people has taken a step towards democracy, aside from looking through the news for some way to criticize Bush. Who doubts that if the election had been marred by tragedy, they would be crowing with delight all over this board?
PDiddie wrote:Brand X wrote:I didn't see any guns pointed at the people going to the polls, unless they were insurgent guns.
You have failed to distinguish between guns designed to prevent insurgents from killing people and guns designed to force the Iraqis to vote for certain candidates. Do you have the tiniest shred of evidence that the guns you pictured are the latter?
and your irrefutable proof that their purpose is the former?
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Razor sharp sarcasm there Brandon :wink:
Please define for us step in the right direction.
The Iraqis have gained what exactly? The ability to vote in a election where the results have been predetermined to install a government friendly to the interests of bush inc?
Evidence of a rigged election? They have taken a step towards living in a democratic republic.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Do you think the thousands of people killed by the brutal Saddam regime rest in a different place than the thousands of people killed by bushco liberating the country from the Saddam regime? Are they more or less dead or did they die under more or less horrifying circumstances?
According to this argument, all wars are wrong, since those killed in collateral damage are just as dead as those killed by tyrants. And even if one granted for argument that the war was wrong (which I don't believe), it is still a great day for the Iraqis who are alive. You appear to me to have no empathy for these people whatever.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:and your irrefutable proof that their purpose is the former?
He implied that guns were being used against the Iraqi voters to control the election outcome, and then advanced the notion that any picture of a gun in their presence consituted proof.
No, I appear to disagree with your gleeful support of all things bush including the Iraq debacle and so you resort to the "You're not for me so you must be against me" strategy spoon fed to you by bushinc.
I cannot feel empathy for the Iraqis dead or alive because I have no life experiences to match theirs but I do feel sympathy for any group of citizens dead or alive used as gameboard pieces for a handful of rich and powerful people.
And btw, the dead Iraqis, Americans, and others killed in this senseless crime against humanity called the Iraqi war are human beings not collateral damage. Or they were anyway.
