Polls Close In Iraq

[ntdz]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/15/iraq.main/index.html

I'm glad the polling went well. It seems that the people of Iraq really do want to vote, and won't let the terrorists stop them. Kudos to them.

 

[EatSpam]

If I were an Iraqi, I'd vote for the constitution, because it means that the American invaders might be out of my land sooner.

 

[Pabster]

Chee, the crappers are out already. What a shock.

:thumbsup: to the Iraqi people for defying the terrorists and voting in (by all early accounts) unbelievably high numbers.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I wish them well, and I hope they ratify the Constitution. Let's hope for the best . . .

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Chee, the crappers are out already. What a shock.

Yup, just like those who want to see this so-called vote as another turning point that will justify an illegal, costly, immoral an unnecessary war.

:thumbsup: to the Iraqi people for defying the terrorists and voting in (by all early accounts) unbelievably high numbers.

Interesting, in spite of the evidence and legal standing to the contrary, any Iraqi who DARES not to want to live under US occupation and brutality is a "terrorist."

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Pabster
Chee, the crappers are out already. What a shock.

Yup, just like those who want to see this so-called vote as another turning point that will justify an illegal, costly, immoral an unnecessary war.

:thumbsup: to the Iraqi people for defying the terrorists and voting in (by all early accounts) unbelievably high numbers.

Interesting, in spite of the evidence and legal standing to the contrary, any Iraqi who DARES not to want to live under US occupation and brutality is a "terrorist."

No, any Iraqi who starts bombing their own citizens and threatens to kill citizens for voting is a terrorist.

Originally posted by: EatSpam
If I were an Iraqi, I'd vote for the constitution, because it means that the American invaders might be out of my land sooner.

Same for me.

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Pabster
Chee, the crappers are out already. What a shock.

Yup, just like those who want to see this so-called vote as another turning point that will justify an illegal, costly, immoral an unnecessary war.

:roll:
:thumbsup: to the Iraqi people for defying the terrorists and voting in (by all early accounts) unbelievably high numbers.

Interesting, in spite of the evidence and legal standing to the contrary, any Iraqi the DARES not to want to live under US occupation and brutality is a "terrorist."

You are an idiot. A terrorist is one who tries to inflict terror via bombings and killings. There are many Iraqis that do not want the US occupation but will not try blow people up. They are no more a terrorist than you to the US for opposing the Iraqi war. :roll:

Terrorism is not a respectable strategy; working to build a democracy that will give each demographic an equal representation according to the populance is.

 

[HardWarrior]

"The Constitution won't get me a job"

 

[sonz70]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Pabster
Chee, the crappers are out already. What a shock.

Yup, just like those who want to see this so-called vote as another turning point that will justify an illegal, costly, immoral an unnecessary war.

:thumbsup: to the Iraqi people for defying the terrorists and voting in (by all early accounts) unbelievably high numbers.

Interesting, in spite of the evidence and legal standing to the contrary, any Iraqi who DARES not to want to live under US occupation and brutality is a "terrorist."

They stoped fighting against the occupation the momment they began killing children, woman and man civilians.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: ntdz
No, any Iraqi who starts bombing their own citizens and threatens to kill citizens for voting is a terrorist.

No, that's not the way guerilla warfare under a foreign occupation works. Those who collaborate with the occupier, for good or ill, are fair game. There's also the fact that there's a civil war underpinning all of this.

guerilla warfare
noun
Definition: sudden unexpected attacks carried out by an unofficial military group or groups that are trying to change the government by assaults on the armed forces

Again, perceived collaborators have always been subject to reprisals under these circumstances.

Same for me.

There's nothing in or about the Iraqi contsitution that indicates or otherwise addresses an American pullout any time soon.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: sonz70

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Pabster
Chee, the crappers are out already. What a shock.

Yup, just like those who want to see this so-called vote as another turning point that will justify an illegal, costly, immoral an unnecessary war.

:thumbsup: to the Iraqi people for defying the terrorists and voting in (by all early accounts) unbelievably high numbers.

Interesting, in spite of the evidence and legal standing to the contrary, any Iraqi who DARES not to want to live under US occupation and brutality is a "terrorist."

They stoped fighting against the occupation the momment they began killing children, woman and man civilians.

Again, just because these things offend you doesn't change the dynamics of the way people behave under occupation. Non-combatants have always been targets under these circumstances, and more. Since you're so exercised over civilian deaths, how do you feel about our military killing\abusing so many non-combatants? Are we terrorists too, or do our supposedly "pure" motives wipe away any negative connotations?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: ntdz
No, any Iraqi who starts bombing their own citizens and threatens to kill citizens for voting is a terrorist.

No, that's not the way guerilla warfare under a foreign occupation works. Those who collaborate with the occupier, for good or ill, are fair game. There's also the fact that there's a civil war underpinning all of this.

guerilla warfare
noun
Definition: sudden unexpected attacks carried out by an unofficial military group or groups that are trying to change the government by assaults on the armed forces

Again, perceived collaborators have always been subject to reprisals under these circumstances.

Same for me.

There's nothing in or about the Iraqi contsitution that indicates r otherwise addresses an American pullout any time soon.

The Iraqi's have their own government now, and they voted for their own constitution and representatives. They aren't collaborating with the U.S. by voting, they are merely participating in their own ELECTED government. If you want to defend the suicide bombings and slaughter of innocent school children, go right ahead. Good luck going to sleep at night.

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and that the will and longing for the manifestation of these rights in the life of men has always and will always express itself as an innate longing for just that when and where it can will manifest itself. The only issue I see is how best we promote this manifestation.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: ntdz
No, any Iraqi who starts bombing their own citizens and threatens to kill citizens for voting is a terrorist.

No, that's not the way guerilla warfare under a foreign occupation works. Those who collaborate with the occupier, for good or ill, are fair game. There's also the fact that there's a civil war underpinning all of this.

guerilla warfare
noun
Definition: sudden unexpected attacks carried out by an unofficial military group or groups that are trying to change the government by assaults on the armed forces

Again, perceived collaborators have always been subject to reprisals under these circumstances.

Same for me.

There's nothing in or about the Iraqi contsitution that indicates r otherwise addresses an American pullout any time soon.

The Iraqi's have their own government now, and they voted for their own constitution and representatives. They aren't collaborating with the U.S. by voting, they are merely participating in their own ELECTED government. If you want to defend the suicide bombings and slaughter of innocent school children, go right ahead. Good luck going to sleep at night.

No they don't. What they have is viewed by the majority as a puppet that would be swept away if it wasn't protected by American force of arms. This may surprise you, but the act of voting can be veiwed in many different ways. Playing along with the wishes of an occupying power can easily be seen as collaboration by people driven to desperation.

Don't you dare try to label me a "defender of baby killers", or adopt a holier than thou attitude. I haven't once said anything of the kind. If I wanted to jerk my knee I could just as easily accuse you of being a propagandized and ignorant dupe, who wants to sugarcoat reality because he can't stomach facts and\or history. Let's not go there.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: ntdz
No, any Iraqi who starts bombing their own citizens and threatens to kill citizens for voting is a terrorist.

No, that's not the way guerilla warfare under a foreign occupation works. Those who collaborate with the occupier, for good or ill, are fair game. There's also the fact that there's a civil war underpinning all of this.

guerilla warfare
noun
Definition: sudden unexpected attacks carried out by an unofficial military group or groups that are trying to change the government by assaults on the armed forces

Again, perceived collaborators have always been subject to reprisals under these circumstances.

Same for me.

There's nothing in or about the Iraqi contsitution that indicates r otherwise addresses an American pullout any time soon.

The Iraqi's have their own government now, and they voted for their own constitution and representatives. They aren't collaborating with the U.S. by voting, they are merely participating in their own ELECTED government. If you want to defend the suicide bombings and slaughter of innocent school children, go right ahead. Good luck going to sleep at night.

No they don't. What they have is viewed by the majority as a puppet that would be swept away if it wasn't protected by American force of arms. This may surprise you, but the act of voting can be veiwed in many different ways. Playing along with the wishes of an occupying power can easily be seen as collaboration by people driven to desperation.

Don't you dare try to label me a "defender of baby killers", or adopt a holier than thou attitude. I haven't once said anything of the kind. If I wanted to jerk my knee I could just as easily accuse you of being a propagandized and ignorant dupe, who wants to sugarcoat reality because he can't stomach facts and\or history. Let's not go there.

I'm not the one defending terrorists, you are. Don't even talk to me about being ignorant.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

what i am really worried about is what will happen when we pull out? our troops will have to leave Iraq at some point, but will the Iraqi people and their government stand strong or will this whole thing collapse?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: ntdz
No, any Iraqi who starts bombing their own citizens and threatens to kill citizens for voting is a terrorist.

No, that's not the way guerilla warfare under a foreign occupation works. Those who collaborate with the occupier, for good or ill, are fair game. There's also the fact that there's a civil war underpinning all of this.

guerilla warfare
noun
Definition: sudden unexpected attacks carried out by an unofficial military group or groups that are trying to change the government by assaults on the armed forces

Again, perceived collaborators have always been subject to reprisals under these circumstances.

Same for me.

There's nothing in or about the Iraqi contsitution that indicates r otherwise addresses an American pullout any time soon.

The Iraqi's have their own government now, and they voted for their own constitution and representatives. They aren't collaborating with the U.S. by voting, they are merely participating in their own ELECTED government. If you want to defend the suicide bombings and slaughter of innocent school children, go right ahead. Good luck going to sleep at night.

No they don't. What they have is viewed by the majority as a puppet that would be swept away if it wasn't protected by American force of arms. This may surprise you, but the act of voting can be veiwed in many different ways. Playing along with the wishes of an occupying power can easily be seen as collaboration by people driven to desperation.

Don't you dare try to label me a "defender of baby killers", or adopt a holier than thou attitude. I haven't once said anything of the kind. If I wanted to jerk my knee I could just as easily accuse you of being a propagandized and ignorant dupe, who wants to sugarcoat reality because he can't stomach facts and\or history. Let's not go there.

I'm not the one defending terrorists, you are. Don't even talk to me about being ignorant.

You're full of sh1t and don't appear to be able to read English with any comprehension. If you HAVE to believe I'm defending terrorists here, then you just go right ahead, chimp. I couldn't care less. BTW, continue supporting imperialism, believing ANYTHING you're told that feeds your completely ignorant\hyper-emotional worldview and kissing Bush's ass.

Our political system needs at least a few fools to keep things entertaining.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
what i am really worried about is what will happen when we pull out? our troops will have to leave Iraq at some point, but will the Iraqi people and their government stand strong or will this whole thing collapse?

It may collapse and in turn bring forth something that all (surviving) parties can live with. There's no way of telling. The fact of the matter is that US forces ARE NOT making things better, some high-ranking military types have even said as much. The Iraqi's are a tough, intelligent people who can figure out what they want without our "help."

 

[umbrella39]

What exactly does this constitution mean for our soldiers and our presence? Does it protect the people of Iraq from another tyrant like Saddam rising to power?

While I will never pretend to care about the Iraqi people at the cost of American lives, it is nice to see them out en mass voting to ratify it. But was there ever a doubt they would? Seems that it is just a dangerous to go to the market and get food as it is to go to a poll and vote, so why the admiration? Seems very disingenuous.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: ntdz
No, any Iraqi who starts bombing their own citizens and threatens to kill citizens for voting is a terrorist.

No, that's not the way guerilla warfare under a foreign occupation works. Those who collaborate with the occupier, for good or ill, are fair game. There's also the fact that there's a civil war underpinning all of this.

guerilla warfare
noun
Definition: sudden unexpected attacks carried out by an unofficial military group or groups that are trying to change the government by assaults on the armed forces

Again, perceived collaborators have always been subject to reprisals under these circumstances.

Same for me.

There's nothing in or about the Iraqi contsitution that indicates r otherwise addresses an American pullout any time soon.

The Iraqi's have their own government now, and they voted for their own constitution and representatives. They aren't collaborating with the U.S. by voting, they are merely participating in their own ELECTED government. If you want to defend the suicide bombings and slaughter of innocent school children, go right ahead. Good luck going to sleep at night.

No they don't. What they have is viewed by the majority as a puppet that would be swept away if it wasn't protected by American force of arms. This may surprise you, but the act of voting can be veiwed in many different ways. Playing along with the wishes of an occupying power can easily be seen as collaboration by people driven to desperation.

Don't you dare try to label me a "defender of baby killers", or adopt a holier than thou attitude. I haven't once said anything of the kind. If I wanted to jerk my knee I could just as easily accuse you of being a propagandized and ignorant dupe, who wants to sugarcoat reality because he can't stomach facts and\or history. Let's not go there.

I'm not the one defending terrorists, you are. Don't even talk to me about being ignorant.

You're full of sh1t and don't appear to be able to read English with any comprehension. If you HAVE to believe I'm defending terrorists here, then you just go right ahead, chimp. I couldn't care less. BTW, continue supporting imperialism, believing ANYTHING you're told that feeds your completely ignorant\hyper-emotional worldview and kissing Bush's ass.

Our political system needs at least a few fools to keep things entertaining.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Are you telling me the freedom fighters you support don't fit under than definition? If you say they don't, then YOU can't comprehend English.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I can't recall. What percentage of citizens is required to pass this?

 

[Tab]

Wow, ndtz you're bitching about semantics; lexical definitions. Aren't you such a smart one... :roll:

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I can't recall. What percentage of citizens is required to pass this?

I think that 3 provinces needed 2/3 of the voters to defeat it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nevermind. I found out how many. This should pass. It only needs 1/3 of registered voters. It would take a supermajority of voters to kick his out. Only a relatively small number of Iraqis are needed to approve this. Piece of cake.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Are you telling me the freedom fighters you support don't fit under than definition? If you say they don't, then YOU can't comprehend English.

According to you, any Iraqi who doesn't play by your limp-wristed ROE is automatically a filthy, Freedom(tm) hating "terrorist." You haven't shown yourself capable of any subtlety or empathy so far, why try to pull it out of your ass now? Just keep emoting all over the place, acting like a crybaby and proving how stupid you are. You're much better at this.

BTW, I recall a bunch of people and Washington types getting all wet and salty over the January "elections." See how THAT turned out?