There is no way but surrender for America in Iraq...

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33
Relax, they are letting Al-Sader run and he was a "terrorist" for months while he led the insurection and killed Amrican soldiers. They flip-flopped on that one.

Well i don't really care about that, i am not going to say that the left or the right is right, when it down to US internal politics i have no say in it, let them flip-flop or whatever is the buzz word this week, i really couldn't care less, what i DO care about though is what is going on in Iraq with the elections, if this isn't a democratic election where ALL parties are allowed, then this mission has been for NOTHING imo.

Um, that was Bremer, which had to come from the White House.

You don't get my stance though, i don't care who does what, left or right, i'm not American so i am not part of the left-right debate, whoever said what doesn't matter that much to me.

Actions speak for themselves, i'll hold my judgement until the rules are set, i am just saying IF, no matter who is deciding IF, then IF not all parties that are willing to run can run then it is wrong.

That is my point in it's entirity. IF the Baath party isn't allowed to run then the fight for democracy is gone.

OK, more directly, it seems all the members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party were deemed crimminals under the new Iraqi laws and thus will officially not be allowed to run by the law. I suppose someone outside Saddam's Baath party could run under the Baath Party nomer and in that way the party itself would be allowed to participate..................just none of the people affiliated with the Baath party under Saddam.

I don't think you can make laws without a valid elected government so who are to deem them illegal? The US officials or the current US invoked set of government (which changes constantly as some are deemed not friendly enough).

So who deems them criminals in the new Iraqi democracy if they are elected? Or is it so that pretty much anyone who would stand a chance won't enter the elections if they are not US friendly?

These are not questions for you, and neither you nor me will know until the elections are over but it seems to me that if they are not allowed to participate, the election has been fixed and must be declared illegal in a court of law in Iraq based on the rules of democracy (and surely the new constitution of Iraq, whoever gets to write it).

Um, the interim government is/was clear to set laws for Iraq as it saw/sees neccessary. A representative from each province was brought in and they appointed an interim "president".

I would also think that members of this new interim government would declare members of the party which was in dictatorship of Iraq for years, was feared by the people of Iraq, which ran "mock" elections where the only candidate on the ballot was Saddam and whom freely tortured and killed anyone deemed to be opposing Saddam or the party.............

The interim government is not recognized by anyone but the US government and has as much legality as this forum.

The government has been recognized by some countries, and also the World Bank and other organizations.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yes, I'm sure klixxer must support their right to be represented in elections in Germany.

I do, if we make it illegal we will only make them stronger.

It is part of why nazism and fascism has grown stronger all over the world, it is a forbidden thoughtsystem, except in the US.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: arsbanned

That is my point in it's entirity. IF the Baath party isn't allowed to run then the fight for democracy is gone.

How about the Nazis after WWII?

That's what I was going to say, too. Many European countries have outlawed Nazis (but Nazi-like parties still are popular)

Of course they are, we are all nazis in your eyes. Godwins invoked.

Now let's see if it's relevant to this conversation (since that is the use of Godwins Law). Yes, it is since you brought up the outlawing of political parties means no democracy.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yes, I'm sure klixxer must support their right to be represented in elections in Germany.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's illegally a member 😀

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33
Relax, they are letting Al-Sader run and he was a "terrorist" for months while he led the insurection and killed Amrican soldiers. They flip-flopped on that one.

Well i don't really care about that, i am not going to say that the left or the right is right, when it down to US internal politics i have no say in it, let them flip-flop or whatever is the buzz word this week, i really couldn't care less, what i DO care about though is what is going on in Iraq with the elections, if this isn't a democratic election where ALL parties are allowed, then this mission has been for NOTHING imo.

Um, that was Bremer, which had to come from the White House.

You don't get my stance though, i don't care who does what, left or right, i'm not American so i am not part of the left-right debate, whoever said what doesn't matter that much to me.

Actions speak for themselves, i'll hold my judgement until the rules are set, i am just saying IF, no matter who is deciding IF, then IF not all parties that are willing to run can run then it is wrong.

That is my point in it's entirity. IF the Baath party isn't allowed to run then the fight for democracy is gone.

OK, more directly, it seems all the members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party were deemed crimminals under the new Iraqi laws and thus will officially not be allowed to run by the law. I suppose someone outside Saddam's Baath party could run under the Baath Party nomer and in that way the party itself would be allowed to participate..................just none of the people affiliated with the Baath party under Saddam.

I don't think you can make laws without a valid elected government so who are to deem them illegal? The US officials or the current US invoked set of government (which changes constantly as some are deemed not friendly enough).

So who deems them criminals in the new Iraqi democracy if they are elected? Or is it so that pretty much anyone who would stand a chance won't enter the elections if they are not US friendly?

These are not questions for you, and neither you nor me will know until the elections are over but it seems to me that if they are not allowed to participate, the election has been fixed and must be declared illegal in a court of law in Iraq based on the rules of democracy (and surely the new constitution of Iraq, whoever gets to write it).

Um, the interim government is/was clear to set laws for Iraq as it saw/sees neccessary. A representative from each province was brought in and they appointed an interim "president".

I would also think that members of this new interim government would declare members of the party which was in dictatorship of Iraq for years, was feared by the people of Iraq, which ran "mock" elections where the only candidate on the ballot was Saddam and whom freely tortured and killed anyone deemed to be opposing Saddam or the party.............

The interim government is not recognized by anyone but the US government and has as much legality as this forum.

The government has been recognized by some countries, and also the World Bank and other organizations.

Yeah, and 95% of those countries are dictatorships, Mongolia, Micronesia, woohooo wide supprt, the World Bank is just looking out for the economy, not the politics, but of course, you know that... or not.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33
Relax, they are letting Al-Sader run and he was a "terrorist" for months while he led the insurection and killed Amrican soldiers. They flip-flopped on that one.

Well i don't really care about that, i am not going to say that the left or the right is right, when it down to US internal politics i have no say in it, let them flip-flop or whatever is the buzz word this week, i really couldn't care less, what i DO care about though is what is going on in Iraq with the elections, if this isn't a democratic election where ALL parties are allowed, then this mission has been for NOTHING imo.

Um, that was Bremer, which had to come from the White House.

You don't get my stance though, i don't care who does what, left or right, i'm not American so i am not part of the left-right debate, whoever said what doesn't matter that much to me.

Actions speak for themselves, i'll hold my judgement until the rules are set, i am just saying IF, no matter who is deciding IF, then IF not all parties that are willing to run can run then it is wrong.

That is my point in it's entirity. IF the Baath party isn't allowed to run then the fight for democracy is gone.

OK, more directly, it seems all the members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party were deemed crimminals under the new Iraqi laws and thus will officially not be allowed to run by the law. I suppose someone outside Saddam's Baath party could run under the Baath Party nomer and in that way the party itself would be allowed to participate..................just none of the people affiliated with the Baath party under Saddam.

I don't think you can make laws without a valid elected government so who are to deem them illegal? The US officials or the current US invoked set of government (which changes constantly as some are deemed not friendly enough).

So who deems them criminals in the new Iraqi democracy if they are elected? Or is it so that pretty much anyone who would stand a chance won't enter the elections if they are not US friendly?

These are not questions for you, and neither you nor me will know until the elections are over but it seems to me that if they are not allowed to participate, the election has been fixed and must be declared illegal in a court of law in Iraq based on the rules of democracy (and surely the new constitution of Iraq, whoever gets to write it).

Um, the interim government is/was clear to set laws for Iraq as it saw/sees neccessary. A representative from each province was brought in and they appointed an interim "president".

I would also think that members of this new interim government would declare members of the party which was in dictatorship of Iraq for years, was feared by the people of Iraq, which ran "mock" elections where the only candidate on the ballot was Saddam and whom freely tortured and killed anyone deemed to be opposing Saddam or the party.............

The interim government is not recognized by anyone but the US government and has as much legality as this forum.

The government has been recognized by some countries, and also the World Bank and other organizations.

Yeah, and 95% of those countries are dictatorships, Mongolia, Micronesia, woohooo wide supprt, the World Bank is just looking out for the economy, not the politics, but of course, you know that... or not.

Doesn't matter to me. I was just fixing your mistake. You're just completely clueless regarding history and current events.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: arsbanned

That is my point in it's entirity. IF the Baath party isn't allowed to run then the fight for democracy is gone.

How about the Nazis after WWII?

That's what I was going to say, too. Many European countries have outlawed Nazis (but Nazi-like parties still are popular)

Of course they are, we are all nazis in your eyes. Godwins invoked.

Now let's see if it's relevant to this conversation (since that is the use of Godwins Law). Yes, it is since you brought up the outlawing of political parties means no democracy.

And no democracy is related to Hitler? Why not pick anyone out of the multitude? Last time i looked Hitler wasn't explicitly known for not having a democracy.

Godwins is fair in this case. you lost.

 

[RabidMongoose]

It's really funny when Klixxer says one thing and when other people point out the same thing with regards to his own country, he goes crazy.

Stop being so blind. You cannot expect everything to go normal within such a short amount of time. You cannot make such a claim and then ignore it in your own part of the world. You're showing incredible bias again.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: arsbanned

That is my point in it's entirity. IF the Baath party isn't allowed to run then the fight for democracy is gone.

How about the Nazis after WWII?

That's what I was going to say, too. Many European countries have outlawed Nazis (but Nazi-like parties still are popular)

Of course they are, we are all nazis in your eyes. Godwins invoked.

Now let's see if it's relevant to this conversation (since that is the use of Godwins Law). Yes, it is since you brought up the outlawing of political parties means no democracy.

And no democracy is related to Hitler? Why not pick anyone out of the multitude? Last time i looked Hitler wasn't explicitly known for not having a democracy.

Godwins is fair in this case. you lost.

I'm just agreeing with arsbanned that the Nazi party is banned in many European countries yet they're still democracies. Therefore, it's appropriate to talk about it in this case.

You stated that any system that restricts political parties is not a democracy. Many European countries outlaw the Nazi party. Yet they're democracies. You were wrong.

BTW, nobody wins or loses in Godwins Law. You need to read up on it. I suggest you read the essays he wrote himself.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yes, I'm sure klixxer must support their right to be represented in elections in Germany.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's illegally a member 😀

Enough is enough. You have expressed your dislike of illegal immigration in the US, yet it would be far from me to even suggest that you like the idea of murdering all of them and burning their corpses, which is what you are suggesting.

I have told you this before, my grandparents on my mothers side barely escaped the nazis, still you keep calling me a nazi. Several of the people who would still be alive, friends and relatives were not so lucky, not that that matters to you though, to you it is just a word to throw around.

You little POS, you should be ashamed, i am sure your parents are.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yes, I'm sure klixxer must support their right to be represented in elections in Germany.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's illegally a member 😀

Enough is enough. You have expressed your dislike of illegal immigration in the US, yet it would be far from me to even suggest that you like the idea of murdering all of them and burning their corpses, which is what you are suggesting.

I have told you this before, my grandparents on my mothers side barely escaped the nazis, still you keep calling me a nazi. Several of the people who would still be alive, friends and relatives were not so lucky, not that that matters to you though, to you it is just a word to throw around.

You little POS, you should be ashamed, i am sure your parents are.

lol, I've posted several times on this forum that I support illegal immigration.

You've called me horrible words. You've wished for me to die. Told me to f*ck off and die. I don't mind.

Thanks for your personal history.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
It's really funny when Klixxer says one thing and when other people point out the same thing with regards to his own country, he goes crazy.

Stop being so blind. You cannot expect everything to go normal within such a short amount of time. You cannot make such a claim and then ignore it in your own part of the world. You're showing incredible bias again.

It could have something to do with my heritage, and it could have something to do with the fact that you have no idea what the Baathist party really stands for and comparing it to the NSP is like comparing Bush to Castro.

One is a member of a (now) free world, you have to realize that a Baath party in a democracy is different from a dictator ruling the country, i am sure even you can get that.

One is a party of specific racial discrimination, which i can say, come on, give it your best shot, it's kinda fun how they loose more and more votes every time.

 

[freegeeks]

I'm just agreeing with arsbanned that the Nazi party is banned in many European countries yet they're still democracies. Therefore, it's appropriate to talk about it in this case.

You stated that any system that restricts political parties is not a democracy. Many European countries outlaw the Nazi party. Yet they're democracies. You were wrong.

BTW, nobody wins or loses in Godwins Law. You need to read up on it. I suggest you read the essays he wrote himself.

bs

you are making all these threads about Europe and it's extreme right parties. Extreme right parties are not forbidden in Europe. NAZI symbols are forbidden in some European countries but not the parties representing some of their despicable policies (Vlaams Blok, FN, ...)

In Italy (the New Europe according to Bush) they are even member of the ruling coalition!!!!!!!!!

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I'm just agreeing with arsbanned that the Nazi party is banned in many European countries yet they're still democracies. Therefore, it's appropriate to talk about it in this case.

You stated that any system that restricts political parties is not a democracy. Many European countries outlaw the Nazi party. Yet they're democracies. You were wrong.

BTW, nobody wins or loses in Godwins Law. You need to read up on it. I suggest you read the essays he wrote himself.

bs

you are making all these threads about Europe and it's extreme right parties. Extreme right parties are not forbidden in Europe. NAZI symbols are forbidden in some European countries but not the parties representing some of their despicable policies (Vlaams Blok, FN, ...)

That's why I said there were still Nazi-like parties.

Also, didn't Spain ban a Basque-related political party?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
It's really funny when Klixxer says one thing and when other people point out the same thing with regards to his own country, he goes crazy.

Stop being so blind. You cannot expect everything to go normal within such a short amount of time. You cannot make such a claim and then ignore it in your own part of the world. You're showing incredible bias again.

It could have something to do with my heritage, and it could have something to do with the fact that you have no idea what the Baathist party really stands for and comparing it to the NSP is like comparing Bush to Castro.

One is a member of a (now) free world, you have to realize that a Baath party in a democracy is different from a dictator ruling the country, i am sure even you can get that.

One is a party of specific racial discrimination, which i can say, come on, give it your best shot, it's kinda fun how they loose more and more votes every time.

It doesn't matter. Your statement that if you ban one political party then that system is not a democracy has been shown to be wrong if you agree that many European countries are democratic.

Again, you can't expect everything to go smoothly or perfect in the beginning. Stop being so unreasonable.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33
Relax, they are letting Al-Sader run and he was a "terrorist" for months while he led the insurection and killed Amrican soldiers. They flip-flopped on that one.

Well i don't really care about that, i am not going to say that the left or the right is right, when it down to US internal politics i have no say in it, let them flip-flop or whatever is the buzz word this week, i really couldn't care less, what i DO care about though is what is going on in Iraq with the elections, if this isn't a democratic election where ALL parties are allowed, then this mission has been for NOTHING imo.

Um, that was Bremer, which had to come from the White House.

You don't get my stance though, i don't care who does what, left or right, i'm not American so i am not part of the left-right debate, whoever said what doesn't matter that much to me.

Actions speak for themselves, i'll hold my judgement until the rules are set, i am just saying IF, no matter who is deciding IF, then IF not all parties that are willing to run can run then it is wrong.

That is my point in it's entirity. IF the Baath party isn't allowed to run then the fight for democracy is gone.

OK, more directly, it seems all the members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party were deemed crimminals under the new Iraqi laws and thus will officially not be allowed to run by the law. I suppose someone outside Saddam's Baath party could run under the Baath Party nomer and in that way the party itself would be allowed to participate..................just none of the people affiliated with the Baath party under Saddam.

I don't think you can make laws without a valid elected government so who are to deem them illegal? The US officials or the current US invoked set of government (which changes constantly as some are deemed not friendly enough).

So who deems them criminals in the new Iraqi democracy if they are elected? Or is it so that pretty much anyone who would stand a chance won't enter the elections if they are not US friendly?

These are not questions for you, and neither you nor me will know until the elections are over but it seems to me that if they are not allowed to participate, the election has been fixed and must be declared illegal in a court of law in Iraq based on the rules of democracy (and surely the new constitution of Iraq, whoever gets to write it).

Um, the interim government is/was clear to set laws for Iraq as it saw/sees neccessary. A representative from each province was brought in and they appointed an interim "president".

I would also think that members of this new interim government would declare members of the party which was in dictatorship of Iraq for years, was feared by the people of Iraq, which ran "mock" elections where the only candidate on the ballot was Saddam and whom freely tortured and killed anyone deemed to be opposing Saddam or the party.............

The interim government is not recognized by anyone but the US government and has as much legality as this forum.

You want to pretend they have some legality, ok, go ahead, just don't call it a real election.

We ALL know about those elections, i don't think anyone is stupid enough to think that Saddams Iraq was truly democratic, so can it. What are you saying? "We are just doing the same thing"?

Is that an improvement? Let ALL parties be legal, who the FVCK are you to deem some illegal in THEIR country? I thought this was about freedom and liberation, if you are going to enforce the rules of the Baath party then WTF did you even bother.

Let's backtrack here, no threat, no WMD's no terrorists, torture continued and now no (real) democracy?

Yay for the 900+ dead for nothing, you want to tell their parents what they died for because in the eyes of the world, nothing has been accomplished.

The transfer of authority from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to the Iraqi Interim Government took place on 28 June. Iraqis now have full responsibility for governing Iraq. The occupation has come to an end, and the CPA has been dissolved. The UN Security Council unanimously approves the language of the Iraqi Interim Government and it's charter.

Members of the Iraqi Interim Government (IIG), including the President and two Vice-Presidents, assumed their positions immediately upon their inauguration on 28 June, and the Iraqi Governing Council declared itself dissolved. The IIG will continue until the formation of a Transitional Government, after elections have produced the Transitional Assembly by the end of January 2005.

We can now look ahead to seeing our vision for Iraq fulfilled, as set out by the Prime Minister in Spring 2003 and which is shared by the majority of Iraqis: a free, stable and prosperous Iraq at peace with itself, the region and the wider world. It is because we share this ultimate objective with most Iraqis that we believe that the Iraqi people, supported by the international community, can overcome the violent minority who seek to deprive Iraq of its opportunity for a better future.

Powers of the Iraqi Interim Government (IIG)?
The new Iraqi Interim Government (IIG) is sovereign and will enjoy full authority. It governs in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs) and the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), which was agreed by the former Iraq Governing Council (IGC) in February 2004. This includes a ?Bill of Rights?, which commits the IIG to respect the human rights of all Iraqi citizens. In accordance with the wishes expressed by many Iraqis, the Interim Government, is an un-elected body and therefore has limited powers in certain areas; e.g. it will be for the elected Iraqi Government to take decisions on the new Constitution.

The IIG?s main role is to provide security, promote economic development and prepare for elections. Pending the formation of the Transitional Assembly, the IIG has full powers and can enter into agreements with International Financial Institutions and on debt. However, by signing up to the Annex to the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), the IIG will not take decisions that prejudice the constitutional process due in 2005. This condition was not imposed by the CPA or the United Nations.

The establishment of the IIG is a major step towards a fully elected government. All Iraqi Ministries are under full Iraqi control.

The Iraqi Interim Government comprises a President (Sunni), two Vice Presidents (Shi'a and a Sunni Kurd), a Prime Minister (Shi'a), a Deputy Prime Minister (Sunni Kurd), and 31 Ministers (5 of which are entirely new posts). The cabinet comprises 15 Shi'a, 9 Sunnis, 5 Kurds, 1 Turkman, and 1 Yezidi, and includes 6 female Ministers. This is the most representative Iraqi government for decades and arises from intensive and wide-ranging consultations in Iraq by UN Secretary General?s Special Adviser, Mr Lakhdar Brahimi.





Now, as for the reasons for the war..............................

As for reasoning, as I said before, go back to the resolution created and passed by President Clinton in 1998 making "Regime Change" the official policy and goal of the USA at any/all costs including military invasion.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yes, I'm sure klixxer must support their right to be represented in elections in Germany.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's illegally a member 😀

Enough is enough. You have expressed your dislike of illegal immigration in the US, yet it would be far from me to even suggest that you like the idea of murdering all of them and burning their corpses, which is what you are suggesting.

I have told you this before, my grandparents on my mothers side barely escaped the nazis, still you keep calling me a nazi. Several of the people who would still be alive, friends and relatives were not so lucky, not that that matters to you though, to you it is just a word to throw around.

You little POS, you should be ashamed, i am sure your parents are.

lol, I've posted several times on this forum that I support illegal immigration.

You've called me horrible words. You've wished for me to die. Told me to f*ck off and die. I don't mind.

Thanks for your personal history.

Actually you have posted your opinion AGAINST illegal immigration several times, do i REALLY have to look it up?

You called me a racist, but i am no racist, you have called me a nazi, but i am no nazi, what have i called you?

 

[alchemize]

Let's backtrack here, no threat, no WMD's no terrorists, torture continued and now no (real) democracy?

Yay for the 900+ dead for nothing, you want to tell their parents what they died for because in the eyes of the world, nothing has been accomplished.

And what about the millions that died in WW2, and yet, no democracy in Germany (by your definition).

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33
Relax, they are letting Al-Sader run and he was a "terrorist" for months while he led the insurection and killed Amrican soldiers. They flip-flopped on that one.

Well i don't really care about that, i am not going to say that the left or the right is right, when it down to US internal politics i have no say in it, let them flip-flop or whatever is the buzz word this week, i really couldn't care less, what i DO care about though is what is going on in Iraq with the elections, if this isn't a democratic election where ALL parties are allowed, then this mission has been for NOTHING imo.

Um, that was Bremer, which had to come from the White House.

You don't get my stance though, i don't care who does what, left or right, i'm not American so i am not part of the left-right debate, whoever said what doesn't matter that much to me.

Actions speak for themselves, i'll hold my judgement until the rules are set, i am just saying IF, no matter who is deciding IF, then IF not all parties that are willing to run can run then it is wrong.

That is my point in it's entirity. IF the Baath party isn't allowed to run then the fight for democracy is gone.

OK, more directly, it seems all the members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party were deemed crimminals under the new Iraqi laws and thus will officially not be allowed to run by the law. I suppose someone outside Saddam's Baath party could run under the Baath Party nomer and in that way the party itself would be allowed to participate..................just none of the people affiliated with the Baath party under Saddam.

I don't think you can make laws without a valid elected government so who are to deem them illegal? The US officials or the current US invoked set of government (which changes constantly as some are deemed not friendly enough).

So who deems them criminals in the new Iraqi democracy if they are elected? Or is it so that pretty much anyone who would stand a chance won't enter the elections if they are not US friendly?

These are not questions for you, and neither you nor me will know until the elections are over but it seems to me that if they are not allowed to participate, the election has been fixed and must be declared illegal in a court of law in Iraq based on the rules of democracy (and surely the new constitution of Iraq, whoever gets to write it).

Um, the interim government is/was clear to set laws for Iraq as it saw/sees neccessary. A representative from each province was brought in and they appointed an interim "president".

I would also think that members of this new interim government would declare members of the party which was in dictatorship of Iraq for years, was feared by the people of Iraq, which ran "mock" elections where the only candidate on the ballot was Saddam and whom freely tortured and killed anyone deemed to be opposing Saddam or the party.............

The interim government is not recognized by anyone but the US government and has as much legality as this forum.

You want to pretend they have some legality, ok, go ahead, just don't call it a real election.

We ALL know about those elections, i don't think anyone is stupid enough to think that Saddams Iraq was truly democratic, so can it. What are you saying? "We are just doing the same thing"?

Is that an improvement? Let ALL parties be legal, who the FVCK are you to deem some illegal in THEIR country? I thought this was about freedom and liberation, if you are going to enforce the rules of the Baath party then WTF did you even bother.

Let's backtrack here, no threat, no WMD's no terrorists, torture continued and now no (real) democracy?

Yay for the 900+ dead for nothing, you want to tell their parents what they died for because in the eyes of the world, nothing has been accomplished.

The transfer of authority from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to the Iraqi Interim Government took place on 28 June. Iraqis now have full responsibility for governing Iraq. The occupation has come to an end, and the CPA has been dissolved. The UN Security Council unanimously approves the language of the Iraqi Interim Government and it's charter.

Members of the Iraqi Interim Government (IIG), including the President and two Vice-Presidents, assumed their positions immediately upon their inauguration on 28 June, and the Iraqi Governing Council declared itself dissolved. The IIG will continue until the formation of a Transitional Government, after elections have produced the Transitional Assembly by the end of January 2005.

We can now look ahead to seeing our vision for Iraq fulfilled, as set out by the Prime Minister in Spring 2003 and which is shared by the majority of Iraqis: a free, stable and prosperous Iraq at peace with itself, the region and the wider world. It is because we share this ultimate objective with most Iraqis that we believe that the Iraqi people, supported by the international community, can overcome the violent minority who seek to deprive Iraq of its opportunity for a better future.

Powers of the Iraqi Interim Government (IIG)?
The new Iraqi Interim Government (IIG) is sovereign and will enjoy full authority. It governs in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs) and the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), which was agreed by the former Iraq Governing Council (IGC) in February 2004. This includes a ?Bill of Rights?, which commits the IIG to respect the human rights of all Iraqi citizens. In accordance with the wishes expressed by many Iraqis, the Interim Government, is an un-elected body and therefore has limited powers in certain areas; e.g. it will be for the elected Iraqi Government to take decisions on the new Constitution.

The IIG?s main role is to provide security, promote economic development and prepare for elections. Pending the formation of the Transitional Assembly, the IIG has full powers and can enter into agreements with International Financial Institutions and on debt. However, by signing up to the Annex to the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), the IIG will not take decisions that prejudice the constitutional process due in 2005. This condition was not imposed by the CPA or the United Nations.

The establishment of the IIG is a major step towards a fully elected government. All Iraqi Ministries are under full Iraqi control.

The Iraqi Interim Government comprises a President (Sunni), two Vice Presidents (Shi'a and a Sunni Kurd), a Prime Minister (Shi'a), a Deputy Prime Minister (Sunni Kurd), and 31 Ministers (5 of which are entirely new posts). The cabinet comprises 15 Shi'a, 9 Sunnis, 5 Kurds, 1 Turkman, and 1 Yezidi, and includes 6 female Ministers. This is the most representative Iraqi government for decades and arises from intensive and wide-ranging consultations in Iraq by UN Secretary General?s Special Adviser, Mr Lakhdar Brahimi.





Now, as for the reasons for the war..............................

As for reasoning, as I said before, go back to the resolution created and passed by President Clinton in 1998 making "Regime Change" the official policy and goal of the USA at any/all costs including military invasion.

Let me condense that message for you "our vision for Iraq", because that is what it all comes down to, the appointees were made by the US, correct?

So basically, this is not a democracy and never will be, at least we can agree on that.

If you would have read my previous post you would realize that i don't give a FVCK if the idea is Clintons or Bushs, i just care about what is happening next.

From what i see it will just be another puppet regime of the US, it's the fifth one.

So stop the pussyfooting and just come out and say it, it wasn't about WMD's, liberation or freedom, it was about the US wanting another base in the ME.

We know it is true so why beat around the bush with it (no pun intended).

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yes, I'm sure klixxer must support their right to be represented in elections in Germany.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's illegally a member 😀

Enough is enough. You have expressed your dislike of illegal immigration in the US, yet it would be far from me to even suggest that you like the idea of murdering all of them and burning their corpses, which is what you are suggesting.

I have told you this before, my grandparents on my mothers side barely escaped the nazis, still you keep calling me a nazi. Several of the people who would still be alive, friends and relatives were not so lucky, not that that matters to you though, to you it is just a word to throw around.

You little POS, you should be ashamed, i am sure your parents are.

lol, I've posted several times on this forum that I support illegal immigration.

You've called me horrible words. You've wished for me to die. Told me to f*ck off and die. I don't mind.

Thanks for your personal history.

Actually you have posted your opinion AGAINST illegal immigration several times, do i REALLY have to look it up?

You called me a racist, but i am no racist, you have called me a nazi, but i am no nazi, what have i called you?

Then I guess I changed my mind. I've said why I can understand why people don't want it. My opinion even went more towards allowing illegal immigration ever since I read a report by USC that shows over 80% of illegal immigrants reach middle class and own a home, and that was months ago. I've posted about it several times in P&N and even OT. My ideal position would be no illegal immigration but massively increase legal immigration so people can live more freely in the US with no worries.

I believe you're a racist simply because you support ethnicity-based legislation. You basically agree with the politics of far-right racist political parties. You've called me plenty of fancy insults like "numbnuts." You've also called me a racist against a fictitious race, wished me to die, etc. Anyways, it was a joke and I didn't definitely call you a Nazi (just said I wouldn't be surprised based on your support for ethnicity-based legislation). Stop trying to become a martyr.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33
Relax, they are letting Al-Sader run and he was a "terrorist" for months while he led the insurection and killed Amrican soldiers. They flip-flopped on that one.

Well i don't really care about that, i am not going to say that the left or the right is right, when it down to US internal politics i have no say in it, let them flip-flop or whatever is the buzz word this week, i really couldn't care less, what i DO care about though is what is going on in Iraq with the elections, if this isn't a democratic election where ALL parties are allowed, then this mission has been for NOTHING imo.

Um, that was Bremer, which had to come from the White House.

You don't get my stance though, i don't care who does what, left or right, i'm not American so i am not part of the left-right debate, whoever said what doesn't matter that much to me.

Actions speak for themselves, i'll hold my judgement until the rules are set, i am just saying IF, no matter who is deciding IF, then IF not all parties that are willing to run can run then it is wrong.

That is my point in it's entirity. IF the Baath party isn't allowed to run then the fight for democracy is gone.

OK, more directly, it seems all the members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party were deemed crimminals under the new Iraqi laws and thus will officially not be allowed to run by the law. I suppose someone outside Saddam's Baath party could run under the Baath Party nomer and in that way the party itself would be allowed to participate..................just none of the people affiliated with the Baath party under Saddam.

I don't think you can make laws without a valid elected government so who are to deem them illegal? The US officials or the current US invoked set of government (which changes constantly as some are deemed not friendly enough).

So who deems them criminals in the new Iraqi democracy if they are elected? Or is it so that pretty much anyone who would stand a chance won't enter the elections if they are not US friendly?

These are not questions for you, and neither you nor me will know until the elections are over but it seems to me that if they are not allowed to participate, the election has been fixed and must be declared illegal in a court of law in Iraq based on the rules of democracy (and surely the new constitution of Iraq, whoever gets to write it).

Um, the interim government is/was clear to set laws for Iraq as it saw/sees neccessary. A representative from each province was brought in and they appointed an interim "president".

I would also think that members of this new interim government would declare members of the party which was in dictatorship of Iraq for years, was feared by the people of Iraq, which ran "mock" elections where the only candidate on the ballot was Saddam and whom freely tortured and killed anyone deemed to be opposing Saddam or the party.............

The interim government is not recognized by anyone but the US government and has as much legality as this forum.

The government has been recognized by some countries, and also the World Bank and other organizations.

Yeah, and 95% of those countries are dictatorships, Mongolia, Micronesia, woohooo wide supprt, the World Bank is just looking out for the economy, not the politics, but of course, you know that... or not.

Doesn't the UN also recognize the Iraqi Interim Government ? Seems decent enough to me at this point.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Let's backtrack here, no threat, no WMD's no terrorists, torture continued and now no (real) democracy?

Yay for the 900+ dead for nothing, you want to tell their parents what they died for because in the eyes of the world, nothing has been accomplished.

And what about the millions that died in WW2, and yet, no democracy in Germany (by your definition).

Yeah, what about them? It's not like the US gave a flying fvck until Germany and Italy declared war on them.

Thankfully some good men were fighting to rescue my forefathers long before the US did anything, remember Roosevelts words "Europes war is not OUR war".

I know you want to act like the US were all heroic back then but the truth is they didn't give a sh!t until they got attacked, and even then, Germany and Italy had to declare war for the US to get involved in Europe.

A Swede named Wallenberg rescued my grandparents, they were taken to Finland where they were left off with new identities, Wallenberg dissapeared somewhere in Russia a few years later, believed to have been imprisoned for a long time.

So by my definition, the US did diddly squat until they damn well had to, and we do have a democracy in Germany today. (actually, the nazi party regrouped and is the religious right party of today, you know, the same party that holds power in the US)

But maybe you know more about this than i do, if so, please explain.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Let me condense that message for you "our vision for Iraq", because that is what it all comes down to, the appointees were made by the US, correct?

You mean the Iraqi Interim Government.

So basically, this is not a democracy and never will be, at least we can agree on that.

If they get an election, then sure it's a democracy.

From what i see it will just be another puppet regime of the US, it's the fifth one.

I'm not sure, but I'm sure that the US is getting something out of it. A democratic and more benevolent 'puppet regime' is probably better than an oppressive dictatorship, IMO. Seems like the future of Iraq is most likely better, it'll just take some time. People are unreasonable to expect an overnight change.

So stop the pussyfooting and just come out and say it, it wasn't about WMD's, liberation or freedom, it was about the US wanting another base in the ME.

We know it is true so why beat around the bush with it (no pun intended).

It was all about money & power, just like much of the anti-war sentiment from certain countries.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Todd33
Relax, they are letting Al-Sader run and he was a "terrorist" for months while he led the insurection and killed Amrican soldiers. They flip-flopped on that one.

Well i don't really care about that, i am not going to say that the left or the right is right, when it down to US internal politics i have no say in it, let them flip-flop or whatever is the buzz word this week, i really couldn't care less, what i DO care about though is what is going on in Iraq with the elections, if this isn't a democratic election where ALL parties are allowed, then this mission has been for NOTHING imo.

Um, that was Bremer, which had to come from the White House.

You don't get my stance though, i don't care who does what, left or right, i'm not American so i am not part of the left-right debate, whoever said what doesn't matter that much to me.

Actions speak for themselves, i'll hold my judgement until the rules are set, i am just saying IF, no matter who is deciding IF, then IF not all parties that are willing to run can run then it is wrong.

That is my point in it's entirity. IF the Baath party isn't allowed to run then the fight for democracy is gone.

OK, more directly, it seems all the members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party were deemed crimminals under the new Iraqi laws and thus will officially not be allowed to run by the law. I suppose someone outside Saddam's Baath party could run under the Baath Party nomer and in that way the party itself would be allowed to participate..................just none of the people affiliated with the Baath party under Saddam.

I don't think you can make laws without a valid elected government so who are to deem them illegal? The US officials or the current US invoked set of government (which changes constantly as some are deemed not friendly enough).

So who deems them criminals in the new Iraqi democracy if they are elected? Or is it so that pretty much anyone who would stand a chance won't enter the elections if they are not US friendly?

These are not questions for you, and neither you nor me will know until the elections are over but it seems to me that if they are not allowed to participate, the election has been fixed and must be declared illegal in a court of law in Iraq based on the rules of democracy (and surely the new constitution of Iraq, whoever gets to write it).

Um, the interim government is/was clear to set laws for Iraq as it saw/sees neccessary. A representative from each province was brought in and they appointed an interim "president".

I would also think that members of this new interim government would declare members of the party which was in dictatorship of Iraq for years, was feared by the people of Iraq, which ran "mock" elections where the only candidate on the ballot was Saddam and whom freely tortured and killed anyone deemed to be opposing Saddam or the party.............

The interim government is not recognized by anyone but the US government and has as much legality as this forum.

You want to pretend they have some legality, ok, go ahead, just don't call it a real election.

We ALL know about those elections, i don't think anyone is stupid enough to think that Saddams Iraq was truly democratic, so can it. What are you saying? "We are just doing the same thing"?

Is that an improvement? Let ALL parties be legal, who the FVCK are you to deem some illegal in THEIR country? I thought this was about freedom and liberation, if you are going to enforce the rules of the Baath party then WTF did you even bother.

Let's backtrack here, no threat, no WMD's no terrorists, torture continued and now no (real) democracy?

Yay for the 900+ dead for nothing, you want to tell their parents what they died for because in the eyes of the world, nothing has been accomplished.

The transfer of authority from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to the Iraqi Interim Government took place on 28 June. Iraqis now have full responsibility for governing Iraq. The occupation has come to an end, and the CPA has been dissolved. The UN Security Council unanimously approves the language of the Iraqi Interim Government and it's charter.

Members of the Iraqi Interim Government (IIG), including the President and two Vice-Presidents, assumed their positions immediately upon their inauguration on 28 June, and the Iraqi Governing Council declared itself dissolved. The IIG will continue until the formation of a Transitional Government, after elections have produced the Transitional Assembly by the end of January 2005.

We can now look ahead to seeing our vision for Iraq fulfilled, as set out by the Prime Minister in Spring 2003 and which is shared by the majority of Iraqis: a free, stable and prosperous Iraq at peace with itself, the region and the wider world. It is because we share this ultimate objective with most Iraqis that we believe that the Iraqi people, supported by the international community, can overcome the violent minority who seek to deprive Iraq of its opportunity for a better future.

Powers of the Iraqi Interim Government (IIG)?
The new Iraqi Interim Government (IIG) is sovereign and will enjoy full authority. It governs in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs) and the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), which was agreed by the former Iraq Governing Council (IGC) in February 2004. This includes a ?Bill of Rights?, which commits the IIG to respect the human rights of all Iraqi citizens. In accordance with the wishes expressed by many Iraqis, the Interim Government, is an un-elected body and therefore has limited powers in certain areas; e.g. it will be for the elected Iraqi Government to take decisions on the new Constitution.

The IIG?s main role is to provide security, promote economic development and prepare for elections. Pending the formation of the Transitional Assembly, the IIG has full powers and can enter into agreements with International Financial Institutions and on debt. However, by signing up to the Annex to the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), the IIG will not take decisions that prejudice the constitutional process due in 2005. This condition was not imposed by the CPA or the United Nations.

The establishment of the IIG is a major step towards a fully elected government. All Iraqi Ministries are under full Iraqi control.

The Iraqi Interim Government comprises a President (Sunni), two Vice Presidents (Shi'a and a Sunni Kurd), a Prime Minister (Shi'a), a Deputy Prime Minister (Sunni Kurd), and 31 Ministers (5 of which are entirely new posts). The cabinet comprises 15 Shi'a, 9 Sunnis, 5 Kurds, 1 Turkman, and 1 Yezidi, and includes 6 female Ministers. This is the most representative Iraqi government for decades and arises from intensive and wide-ranging consultations in Iraq by UN Secretary General?s Special Adviser, Mr Lakhdar Brahimi.





Now, as for the reasons for the war..............................

As for reasoning, as I said before, go back to the resolution created and passed by President Clinton in 1998 making "Regime Change" the official policy and goal of the USA at any/all costs including military invasion.

Let me condense that message for you "our vision for Iraq", because that is what it all comes down to, the appointees were made by the US, correct?

Are you incouragable? The "appointees" were made by the inerim president after a council of Iraqi doctors and businessmen made referrals of people........it was all done by Iraqis including the appointment of the interim president.

So basically, this is not a democracy and never will be, at least we can agree on that.

It is, and will be as close as any other country including Germany and the USA!

If you would have read my previous post you would realize that i don't give a FVCK if the idea is Clintons or Bushs, i just care about what is happening next.

As does everyone elsel.................no point here...........

From what i see it will just be another puppet regime of the US, it's the fifth one.

Rose colored glasses are distorting your view then.................

So stop the pussyfooting and just come out and say it, it wasn't about WMD's, liberation or freedom, it was about the US wanting another base in the ME.

No, just as the world agreed, Iraq and the world is much better off with Saddam no longer in power...........that includes Germany and France...shall I quote what the respected leaders said word for word?

We know it is true so why beat around the bush with it (no pun intended).

Who is "we" and what do you know exactly? Have you sent the SS to spie on us???😉

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: alchemize

Let's backtrack here, no threat, no WMD's no terrorists, torture continued and now no (real) democracy?

Yay for the 900+ dead for nothing, you want to tell their parents what they died for because in the eyes of the world, nothing has been accomplished.

And what about the millions that died in WW2, and yet, no democracy in Germany (by your definition).

Yeah, what about them? It's not like the US gave a flying fvck until Germany and Italy declared war on them.

Thankfully some good men were fighting to rescue my forefathers long before the US did anything, remember Roosevelts words "Europes war is not OUR war".

I know you want to act like the US were all heroic back then but the truth is they didn't give a sh!t until they got attacked, and even then, Germany and Italy had to declare war for the US to get involved in Europe.

A Swede named Wallenberg rescued my grandparents, they were taken to Finland where they were left off with new identities, Wallenberg dissapeared somewhere in Russia a few years later, believed to have been imprisoned for a long time.

So by my definition, the US did diddly squat until they damn well had to, and we do have a democracy in Germany today. (actually, the nazi party regrouped and is the religious right party of today, you know, the same party that holds power in the US)

But maybe you know more about this than i do, if so, please explain.

He didn't single out US soldiers in his post. Way to show your bias.

Sorry, no democracy in Germany based on your definition.