"Ignoramus14327" wrote in message




I have to ask, the US has been occupying Iraq for 6 months
already. Quite a bit of time. Where are the elections?

Clearly no knowledge or grasp of history. Utterly clueless.

Disregard remaining blather.

On 7 Nov 2003 16:56:48 GMT, Ignoramus14327
wrote:

Bush said that he wants more democracy in Mideast.

He earlier said that he wanted democracy in Iraq and that's why he
went there and clusterbombed towns etc.

I have to ask, the US has been occupying Iraq for 6 months
already. Quite a bit of time. Where are the elections? Where are any
preparations for elections? You would think that if he really wanted
democracy in Iraq, at least some election process would be
underway. Maybe elections would be scheduled for, say, March and now
there would be political parties forming etc. No such thing is
happening. No effort to do that is apparent.

Where is democracy?

Now, obviously, I am aware that Bush is a liar least interested in
Mideast democracy. My questions were rhetorical.

So what was the point of his speech? And I think that it is a threat
to mideast governments to stay in line and not complain about
occupation of Iraq, etc. But this threat is hollow. The US no longer
has forces capable of occupying one more midsize country due to being
mired in Iraq.

We all talk about how getting out of Iraq would "destroy our
credibility". Which means that other countries will not be as afraid
of us as we would like them to be if we withdraw. Well, right now we
are very firmly stuck in Iraq with not much more forces to spare for
further military adventures. What does that do to our "credibility"?
Can we credibly threaten, say, Iran, when our reservists are doing
yearlong tours of duty in Iraq already?

No.

What does this mean?

That our credibility is already being ruined no matter what we do in
Iraq. Getting out is bad for "credibility", staying is not better
either, but maybe more expensive. Either way is bad. And winning in
Iraq does not seem like it will happen anytime soon.

I expect the dumbest members of these newsgroups to attack my posting
alias (saying your alias Ignoramus fits you well), and the slightly
less stupid ones to dismiss me as a "liberal" (which I am not).

I invite the more intelligent posters to review my argument and see
where the fallacy lies, if you can find any.

i

When I had had my boat for six months, there was still a lot I didn't know about
it. I learned a lot about risers and headers when I pulled mine to check them
out. Some things just take time. Every year I learn more. As time goes by, you
will learn more too.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

When I had had my boat for six months, there was still a lot I didn't know
about
it. I learned a lot about risers and headers when I pulled mine to check
them
out. Some things just take time. Every year I learn more. As time goes by,
you
will learn more too.

You won't learn a lot about headers or anything else from Rush Limbaugh,
Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:59:48 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

When I had had my boat for six months, there was still a lot I didn't know
about
it. I learned a lot about risers and headers when I pulled mine to check
them
out. Some things just take time. Every year I learn more. As time goes by,
you
will learn more too.

You won't learn a lot about headers or anything else from Rush Limbaugh,
Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.

One can learn from almost any experience. The information may not be relevant,
but simply new. I learned that remounting the manifolds on a 5.7L engine while
on hands and knees hanging over the engine compartment all by myself was a
bitch! Just today I learned that you must spend way too much time listening to
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly if you are so knowledgeable about
their broadcasts.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"JohnH" wrote

When I had had my boat for six months, there was still a lot I didn't know
about
it. I learned a lot about risers and headers when I pulled mine to check
them
out. Some things just take time. Every year I learn more. As time goes by,
you
will learn more too.

The difference being, of course, that you were interested in finding out,
and not so
afraid that you wouldn't try anything for fear of failing (again).

Dan

"Ignoramus14327" wrote in message
...
Bush said that he wants more democracy in Mideast.

He earlier said that he wanted democracy in Iraq and that's why he
went there and clusterbombed towns etc.

I have to ask, the US has been occupying Iraq for 6 months
already. Quite a bit of time. Where are the elections? Where are any
preparations for elections? You would think that if he really wanted
democracy in Iraq, at least some election process would be
underway. Maybe elections would be scheduled for, say, March and now
there would be political parties forming etc. No such thing is
happening. No effort to do that is apparent.

Where is democracy?

Now, obviously, I am aware that Bush is a liar least interested in
Mideast democracy. My questions were rhetorical.

So what was the point of his speech? And I think that it is a threat
to mideast governments to stay in line and not complain about
occupation of Iraq, etc. But this threat is hollow. The US no longer
has forces capable of occupying one more midsize country due to being
mired in Iraq.

We all talk about how getting out of Iraq would "destroy our
credibility". Which means that other countries will not be as afraid
of us as we would like them to be if we withdraw. Well, right now we
are very firmly stuck in Iraq with not much more forces to spare for
further military adventures. What does that do to our "credibility"?
Can we credibly threaten, say, Iran, when our reservists are doing
yearlong tours of duty in Iraq already?

No.

What does this mean?

That our credibility is already being ruined no matter what we do in
Iraq. Getting out is bad for "credibility", staying is not better
either, but maybe more expensive. Either way is bad. And winning in
Iraq does not seem like it will happen anytime soon.

I expect the dumbest members of these newsgroups to attack my posting
alias (saying your alias Ignoramus fits you well), and the slightly
less stupid ones to dismiss me as a "liberal" (which I am not).

I invite the more intelligent posters to review my argument and see
where the fallacy lies, if you can find any.

i

Its obvious you havent been around a lot of politicians
The first order of the day is to eliminate the oppisition , then when that
is done , the victors are deemed to be democraticaly elected .
Any dissenters are actualy labeled terrorists and shot.
Doing it like this actualy saves the voting public manymillions of dollars
by not needing elections , everyone knows that it doesnt matter who you vote
for , youre going to get screwed anyway .
When GB is finnished eliminating the terrorists and those who dont want his
troops around there will be exeedingly few people left to vte anyway .
What the problem ?