Iraq votes for freedom... congrats President Bush!

First, no you don't. You have a choice. Troll or discuss. You chose to troll.

Then, in your subsequent post, you trolled some more.... without responding to Billy's response.

Good work.

Back to my question. The whole point of the election was Iraq getting self determination, a chance to decide their own futures without Saddam. I simply asked if Bush deserved credit if they chose not to fall in line behind him. Again, the election is about Iraq, not about Bush looking good or his legacy. I was not trolling. I was asking a valid question.

Nope. You prefaced it as "devil's advocate" a well-known distraction tactic in forums... and coupled with your previous responses and posts, I stand by the label you earned yourself. Troll.

My questions were valid too. What if the sky really was falling and what if the moon was really made of Swiss cheese.

Sorry Teeny, I will not play the "what if" game. I could just as easily made some very rosy "what ifs" and asked for you to respond but I fail to see any point in going back and forth like that.

That said, I will give you a very short answer. Can bad things happen? Yep. Can good things happen too? Yep. Is there any point in dreaming up the worst and best case scenarios and answering questions about them? Nope.

Billy's first response was evasive. He chose not to answer the question. He tried make an irrelevant comparison to my question with two hypothetical analogies. Responding to his "what if" comments would take the discussion off topic.

So far, neither of you have answered my question. Do you even have an opinion that remotely comes anywhere near sticking with the topic? All I have seen is spin, evasion and name calling.

Teeny... against my better judgment, I did address your question in my last post. Is there REALLY any point in continuing with the "what if" game?

I have many opinions. One of them is that no matter what I say you will argue...not discuss...but argue with it. So, I chose to call you on your argumentative tactic and lack of topicality.

Billy's already doing a good job with calling you on the ridiculousness of your "what if".

The sky cannot fall, and the moon is not made of swiss cheese. Your "what ifs" are not valid because they have been proven false.

It is now obivious that I will not get a straight answer to my question from the starter of this thread. Unlike the sky and moon analogies, a highly secular Iraqi government is very plausible. As much as the Bush administration has tried to discourage such a government, it could happen. If it did happen, can I expect to see Billy proudly post that the Iraqis chose Wahabism over Democracy? Bush did give the Iraqis self determination.

I really hope the Iraqis do the right things and prosper. As much as I dislike Bush, I will get no joy from seeing Iraq hit rock bottom due to his policies.

Plenipotientiary, You brought nothing to the debate. You chose to call names. Having a difference of opinion does not make one a troll. Calling names does.

sec·u·lar·ism adj. 1. Religious skepticism or indifference. 2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

wahabism n. 1. a conservative and intolerant form of Islam that is practiced in Saudi Arabia

-Kiamat Dusk
'nuff said

From the CIA world factbook:

0-14 years: 40.3% (male 5,198,966; female 5,039,173)
15-64 years: 56.7% (male 7,280,167; female 7,094,68
65 years and over: 3% (male 357,651; female 404,046) (2004 est.)

Just more numbers to throw into the pot.

Can't we all just...


















































...FUCKING DIE?

Um.. Wih comments like he above, there is no debate. You staked out a position, you refuse to budge. I merely named the tactic that you were using. Stating my own position, political persuasion, or even "adding information" that you would (and have yourself willing to dispute based on your stated position) dispute does not suggest that I should waste my time or energy debating anything with you.

Lablelling an activity or strategy used by someone is not trollish behavior. It's merely descriptive. Asking unanswerable questions, rhetorical questions, and questions which distract from the central theme of a thread is trollish.

A debate is about winning and losing. A discussion is about identifying and clarifying one another's positions. A conversation allows for the possibility that one or the other person might change positions. I chose not to engage in the first two and see no chance that the third is what is actually going on here.

I clearly used the word secular instead of non-secular. However, Wahabism is not unique to Saudi Arabia.

My question was not trollish. I merely sought to show that the situation is far more complex than partisans on either side believes it to be. The election is not the end solution. There is still alot of work to be done, and pretending that it will all go smoothly is just plain naive. My question did not stray from the central theme of the post. I offered as food for thought. Im sorry if I shattered your narrow view of reality.

Now, let's go back to the original post:



The tone of Billy's post was that democracy was a done deal. He assumed that they will all fall in line and bow to the wishes of Bush the Liberator. The main problem with this view is that he assumes too much. Again I say that it is too soon to call it a done deal. The change Bush claims to seek will take generations. If democracy does spread throughout the Middle East, it will probably be a done deal long after we are all dead and buried. You just don't move into the modern world overnight.

Alright then. Reread what you yourself cut and pasted and you might be able to see your own illustration of ignorance on your post..... (ignorance is lack of knowledge, not intelligence...and you DO seem to lack self-awareness here). Note Billy's use of "one day"? Note his use of the fuuture tense? That does not indicate "done deal" does it? He doesn't imply that things are "over" once and for all does he?

So why your second paragraph (above)? To say that he assumes anything is also rather presumptuous of you, isn't it? Where does he give any indication of his own assumptions? You may infer from his statements, but you certainly cannot derive his assumptions on your own unless you are omniscient or telepathic.

Unlike your name, my posts are not hypocritical or oxymoronic (and I am not saying that you are... merely pointing out what is evident in your posts).

Perhaps a better question would be what are the potential positive and negative results of the election? Does this administration (and country) have any preferences in election outcome.

I think the answer is obviously yes. I don't think they want one particular religion over another, but they do want to prevent a civil war.

Some people think it would also be nice if the Kurds had decent representation in the government. This would prevent the desire for a Kurdish state which would make Pakistan happy. Most people want Pakistan to be happy.

There is still a lot to happen in the coming months. If you are interested I recommend reading as much as you can. Don't just watch the news, dig around for some reading material. Civil war or civil unrest are the immediate concerns of most people (and I assume the administration as well) following the election.

The other concern is insurgent attacks. It is more of a constant concern I suppose.

Keeping the peace while drafting the constitution is the next big hurdle and probably first in the minds of the Administration. If the constitution is crap (they decide to elect a President for life as an extreme example) or they cannot draft one to establish a government, then the election loses purpose.

Some information is just information.

Some people's agendas are simply to report facts. Ya wanna know where I get most of my news? The Guardian.

For clarification -- I see nothing wrong with being a liberal. I, however, am not one. Neither am I a Democrat. I'm certainly not a conservative or a republican either, as I find the republican and conservative positions bereft of morality.

The closest political defintion you would find for me is. as I have said on numerous occasions -- a Socialist.

As for your thoughts regarding my self-examination -- why don't you break out some lube and self-examine yourself.

All I have to say is Congrats to the Iraqi people!

Billy, President Bush didn't personally wrestle Saddam Hussein to the ground, nor was he the one that single-handledly freed the world of a dictator (there are plenty more you know). He went to war for all the wrong reasons, and is grasping for some kind of warm and fuzzy reason to justify the war. I'm very happy for the Iraqi people that they now have free elections and a fledgling democracy. I give all my hopes and prayers to them.

But Bush went to war for many different reasons, and none of them centered around what you are now praising him for. Why you had to drag Bush into the celebration of the birth of democracy in their country is just pure partisan politics.

Wee haw... We wrestled one despicable tyrant to the ground. We only have a dozen or so more to deal with.

Let's invade Burma next.

- Ace

And after that -- Myanmar!

I vote for France and or Canada they need proper governing

Call me old school... I still spell the capital of China "Peking".

Besides... "Mission of Burma" was the greatest band out of Boston after Aerosmith.

- Ace

OMG! WTF??? U R TEH J. P3T3RM4N!!!!! LOL!!!

kthxbye

That's when I reach for my revolver.

- Ace