Photos you won't see on NBC, CBS, ABC, or CNN

[ChumpDumper]

"Let's say you tried to have an election," mused Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "and you could have it in three quarters or four fifths of the country, but some places you couldn't because the violence was too great. So be it. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."

The problem is this: under current rules, eligible voters will cast ballots as though Iraq is a single national cons uency. The system is designed to encourage national parties and to reduce ethnic tensions. But if Sunni areas are excluded, the Sunnis will be disenfranchised, and they're already the most alienated group in the country.

Rumsfeld's blunt remarks drew quick retorts—from within the U.S. government. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage publicly contradicted Rumsfeld by reaffirming the administration's policy of wanting to hold elections "in all parts of Iraq." State Department officials, who did not want to be named, were flabbergasted. They fear that elections that exclude the Sunni heartland are a formula for civil war. Iraq's most prominent (and moderate) Sunni, President Ghazi al-Yawar, lashed out at the proposal: "It is very appalling, and if somebody tries to shove it down our throats, we'll throw it out," he told CNN.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6161104/site/newsweek/

[whottt]

If you can't answer just say so, skippy.

I'm not trying to change the subject...your point was irrelevant, and I showed why...I also pointed out how that line of thinking has ed you in an argument previously.


I know the answer...if you read this forum you will see I have answered that question before..but for a change I figured it'd be better if you backed your position up for once rather than just asking circular quesions. .

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not trying to change the subject.

Bull . Not letting you get away with it.

I know the answer.

Then ing answer it without trying to change the subject, weasel.

[whottt]

The other countries who have or are pulling troops out of Iraq, you idiot.http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinci...9909662.htm?1c

Barely over 50% of Americans vote. I guess that means we hate Americans as well.

We aren't going to hold elections in areas we don't control...voter turn out will not be an indicator of Antiamerican sentiment. I gurantee you more people will vote than are actively resisting.

[ididnotnothat]

I'm not trying to change the subject...your point was irrelevant, and I showed why...I also pointed out how that line of thinking has ed you in an argument previously.


I know the answer...if you read this forum you will see I have answered that question before..but for a change I figured it'd be better if you backed your position up for once rather than just asking circular quesions. .

Your use of profanity is another sign of your deep anger.
Please find another release and don't take it out on innocent posters in this forum.

[ChumpDumper]

Barely over 50% of Americans vote. I guess that means we hate Americans as well.

No one is preventing them from voting.

We aren't going to hold elections in areas we don't control.

So we'll just disenfranchise ALL the people living in those areas and give them NO say in the new cons ution? I'd rather control the entire country first. If that is inevitable, why the rush?

[whottt]

Your use of profanity is another sign of your deep anger.
Please find another release and don't take it out on innocent posters in this forum.

Please stop making personal attacks on me... head...we are here to talk politics.

I use profanity because it is allowed here and it gets a rise out stupid judgemental people. I enjoy it because it's a luxury offered here offered at no other board.

So you.

[whottt]

No one is preventing them from voting.So we'll just disenfranchise ALL the people living in those areas and give them NO say in the new cons ution?

WTF is your solution? We are already encouraging them to join the political process...The terrorists don't want a political process.

I'd rather control the entire country first. If that is inevitable, why the rush?

Then we would be occupiers...America has never done that. And the rush is to shut up the antiwar protestors.

[ChumpDumper]

WTF is your solution?

I just said bring the entire country under control.

Then we would be occupiers.

We ARE occupiers, skippy.

America has never done that.

That's a load of . We occupied Japan for six years and WROTE their cons ution.

And the rush is to shut up the antiwar protestors.

That's a pussy stance. Whoever says that lacks a spine.

We're there, so finish the job. Do it right.

[whottt]

I just said bring the entire country under control.

May not be entirely possible...and the best way to do it is to establish rule of law in the parts of the country that aren't resisting. Improved quality of life is the #1 weapon of America against terrorism.

We ARE occupiers,

One mans occupier is another man's liberator.

We occupied Japan for six years and WROTE their cons ution.

The Japanese were a real . We also encouraged their return to self rule and even self defense. During that so called occupation we had to rebuild their country and economic system. I'd call it a success.

Whoever says that lacks a spine.

We're there, so finish the job. Do it right.

Then shut the up, vote for Bush, support the war effort and stop being critical of what we are doing over there after a year and a half. Cynicism isn't the answer.

[ChumpDumper]

May not be entirely possible.

Then why are we there? You're saying we can't win?

One mans occupier is another man's liberator.

Spin it any way you like, the US is occupying Iraq.

The Japanese were a real . We also encouraged their return to self rule and even self defense.

After occupying them for six years, writing their cons ution, dismantling their army and executing their war criminals.

Then shut the up, vote for Bush, support the war effort and stop being critical of what we are doing over there after a year and a half.

Not if he's going to up the peace after getting all those people killed.

Cynicism isn't the answer.

Neither is disenfranchising a sizeable amount of the population merely to meet an arbitrary deadline. I hope they'd prove me wrong, but it's not looking that way at all.

[ididnotnothat]

Please stop making personal attacks on me... head...we are here to talk politics.

I use profanity because it is allowed here and it gets a rise out stupid judgemental people. I enjoy it because it's a luxury offered here offered at no other board.

So you.

I am not making personal attack on you, just making an honest observation and from your response, I must have hit close to home.

It is sad that you have to use profanity to get a rise out of people and your views cannot stand on their own.

Now STFU!!!!

[SpursWoman]

Please find another release and don't take it out on innocent posters in this forum.

Innocent? In this forum?!?

your views cannot stand on their own.

Huh? Whether you agree with him or not, whottt does a great job backing up his point of view. What forum have you been reading?

[mysterious_elf26]

I'm not even just talking about the war. It pisses me off that Bush continues to blind his own country from the truth. He attacks Iraq, insisting he went after the people that attacked our country. Wake up, it was Osama!!!

He said the did it because of WMD. OK, I could live with that. But, wait. There was NONE!! And it pisses me off that he continues to say that U.S. is not going to be in Iraq for the long-term. What is he going to do, leave the country in complete chaos just like he did to Afghanastan?

He never thinks ahead. He does not realize the growing problem in Korea, Iran, or Pakistan. He does not realize that there will actually be a war between China and Taiwan in a few years. Wake up people. Bush says things that the majority wants to hear, just to get another term.

He opposes gay marriage and stem cell research to please religion. Since when could you do away with giving someone another chance in life for religion? He opposes the gun ban to gain the support of the NRA. Guess what? He succeeded. The only real thing he did was lower taxes. But hey, have you noticed that we have been giving those savings back through the higher prices of everything? Oh, and a real break for students by increasing tuition each year making U.S. #1 at having the most unaffordable education to its citizens, I should know, I'm in college. He widens ethnic and gender income margin, increases our already record breaking deficit, and is continuing to deal with unemployment by outsourcing jobs. Oh and so called employment increase. Did you realize those are minimum wage jobs that people do not deserve. My friend for example. He spent 5 yrs of his life in college to become and Electrical Engineer only to find himself driving taxis for a living as he waits for an employer to offer him a job.

Can someone please tell me why so many still love Bush? Besides that he speaks well because he got his ass beat in the debate.

**What's going on in Bush's head most of the time**

[Useruser666]

He said the did it because of WMD. OK, I could live with that. But, wait. There was

Was there evidence to support the notion that there were WMD in Iraq? Yes there was. That's hind sight now.

And it pisses me off that he continues to say that U.S. is not going to be in Iraq for the long-term.

I have no idea where you got this from. I watched the debates and saw exactly where Bush said we need to stick this out in Iraq. I have never ever seen Bush say we were going to leave Iraq in chaos.

leave the country in complete chaos just like he did to Afghanastan?

Maybe you just don't know this, but there are thousands upon thousands of US troops in Afghanistan right now keeping the peace. The US has not left Afghanistan in chaos at all. Sure there are still scurmishes on a daily basis with what's left of terrorist sympathizers, but that is to be expected under such a fledgling goverment.

[Useruser666]

He opposes gay marriage and stem cell research to please religion.

I do not believe Bush has banned stem cell research. He simply cut goverment funding for it.

He opposes the gun ban to gain the support of the NRA.

Have you really read the gun bill that was dropped? It was ridiculous. It really banned nothing when it comes down to it. If a new bill that made sense and actually did something about gun crime in the US came along I would support it.

My friend for example. He spent 5 yrs of his life in college to become and Electrical Engineer only to find himself driving taxis for a living as he waits for an employer to offer him a job.

Your friend could easily find a job as Elictrical Engineer. He probabaly doesn't want to relocate and that may sevearly limit his opportunities. Has your friend taken his EIT exam? He still needs 4-5 years to apply for his PE. Just because you get a degree in something doesn't mean instant big bucks. If your friend is a capable person then he should put his resume on Monster.com or Hotjobs.com. Electrical Engineers are in high demand so it shouldn't take long to get a hit.

[mysterious_elf26]

I have no idea where you got this from. I watched the debates and saw exactly where Bush said we need to stick this out in Iraq. I have never ever seen Bush say we were going to leave Iraq in chaos.

Read this: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics...tion-headlines

I mean how could he see the things happening in Iraq and say we're not going to be there for these people we're supposedly trying to help for the long haul??

And as for evidence there was none. Well, where the evidence there was some. In fact if lacked so much evidence, that the WMD inspectors reached a conclusion that Saddam didn't have such intention since the ending of the Gulf War.

[Useruser666]

Read this: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics...tion-headlines

I mean how could he see the things happening in Iraq and say we're not going to be there for these people we're supposedly trying to help for the long haul??

And as for evidence there was none. Well, where the evidence there was some. In fact if lacked so much evidence, that the WMD inspectors reached a conclusion that Saddam didn't have such intention since the ending of the Gulf War.

Please read the first paragraph of the article you linked. Here it is.....

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE -- President Bush says he doesn't envision a longtime presence of U.S. troops in Iraq similar to post-World War II deployments in Europe and South Korea that continue today.

I think that may be a safe assumption. I think you are taking that article to mean we are going to leave Iraq well before it's goverment and people are able to stand on their own two feet. I don't believe that's what Bush's plan is, nor does the article state that intention. The situation in Iraq is much different than either the occupation of Europe, and Japan after WWII or the continued support of South Korea. The European occupation was just after a world war and had many complexities not present with the Iraqi situation. The continued presence in South Korea is due to there being a large volitile force of opposition to the north. I don't believe long term occupation in Iraq is necessary as was needed in the quoted instances. I believe the US needs to stay involved militarily until Iraq is stable enough to handle it's own internal disputes by itself. Other aid may be given after that, but not nearly as much as so as it is now.

[whottt]

I am not making personal attack on you, just making an honest observation and from your response, I must have hit close to home.

It is sad that you have to use profanity to get a rise out of people and your views cannot stand on their own.

Now STFU!!!!

you.

[whottt]

Innocent? In this forum?!?





Huh? Whether you agree with him or not, whottt does a great job backing up his point of view. What forum have you been reading?

LOL thanks SW, whew ! I was afraid I might have to start adding more words to my posts to make sure I am backing up my position .

[whottt]

Then why are we there? You're saying we can't win?

No but honestly you got to do more than just bomb the living out of them if you want to win the war. Bombing is a weapon but so is raising the living conditions and encouraging them to take a stake in the future of their country. Surely you know this. For this to work they have to embrace the movement themselves...and they are. If they weren't the terrorists wouldn't be targeting Iraqis.

Spin it any way you like, the US is occupying Iraq.

Spin it anyway you like, the US liberated them from a dictator and now they are fighting an Islamic based insurgency not embraced by the majority of the people. I don't know why you think those people are stupid.

After occupying them for six years, writing their cons ution, dismantling their army and executing their war criminals.

Geez you say those things like they were bad.

Not if he's going to up the peace after getting all those people killed.

He's not...what's going to extend this thing is Americans that give the terrorists hope they can win...like those who focus on the negative aspects of this war, and claim it's a wrong war that wee are losing, when in fact we are winning it and the Iraqi people are going to be better off than they have been in decades.

Neither is disenfranchising a sizeable amount of the population merely to meet an arbitrary deadline. I hope they'd prove me wrong, but it's not looking that way at all.

The object is to make sure the Iraqi people know we are trying to expedite the war recovery. Why drag it out? The longer we are there trying to maintain marshall law the more Americans will die. The Iraqis have to be given a chance to do this themselves....I don't think they're idiots incapable of doing it...but then what do I know...I'm a racist Bush supporter.