| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fester" |
| Date: |
24 Oct 2004 10:20:24 AM |
| Object: |
Karzai Wins! |
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent has
conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and Iraq will soon
be shining examples of new *elected* democracies born out of the ruins of
theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed by the attention that these
victories over fundamentalism have received here in AA. We of all people
should be enthusiastically supportive and glad about the despise of
religious despotism! We tend to complain, justifiably, about the most minor
invasions of religion into our governments, but tend to ignore momentous
events elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I am thrilled to see these inroads
into both the end of Islamic facism, defeat against terror-sponsoring
nations and the beginnings of new and free economies based upon the secular
prinicples of popular representation.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle that
governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed! We
threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian doctrine that power
is the divine right of the few. With the help of the West in liberating
these nations, we are once again witnessing the birth of nations, predicated
on the same priniples that we cherish. If not the best of times, I have to
say that we live in very good times to be able to witness (and participate
in) such positive historical events.
--
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and
he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion"
Edmund Burke
.
|
|
| User: "Woden wodencharternet" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
24 Oct 2004 10:48:26 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com:
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent
has conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and Iraq
will soon be shining examples of new *elected* democracies born out of
the ruins of theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed by the
attention that these victories over fundamentalism have received here
in AA. We of all people should be enthusiastically supportive and
glad about the despise of religious despotism! We tend to complain,
justifiably, about the most minor invasions of religion into our
governments, but tend to ignore momentous events elsewhere. Speaking
for myself, I am thrilled to see these inroads into both the end of
Islamic facism, defeat against terror-sponsoring nations and the
beginnings of new and free economies based upon the secular prinicples
of popular representation.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle that
governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed!
We threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian doctrine
that power is the divine right of the few. With the help of the West
in liberating these nations, we are once again witnessing the birth of
nations, predicated on the same priniples that we cherish. If not the
best of times, I have to say that we live in very good times to be
able to witness (and participate in) such positive historical events.
Damn, you actually believe the ***** coming out of Washington...
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
24 Oct 2004 11:36:57 AM |
|
|
"Woden" <wodencharternet> wrote in message
news:Xns958C785B41988wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com:
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent
has conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and Iraq
will soon be shining examples of new *elected* democracies born out of
the ruins of theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed by the
attention that these victories over fundamentalism have received here
in AA. We of all people should be enthusiastically supportive and
glad about the despise of religious despotism! We tend to complain,
justifiably, about the most minor invasions of religion into our
governments, but tend to ignore momentous events elsewhere. Speaking
for myself, I am thrilled to see these inroads into both the end of
Islamic facism, defeat against terror-sponsoring nations and the
beginnings of new and free economies based upon the secular prinicples
of popular representation.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle that
governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed!
We threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian doctrine
that power is the divine right of the few. With the help of the West
in liberating these nations, we are once again witnessing the birth of
nations, predicated on the same priniples that we cherish. If not the
best of times, I have to say that we live in very good times to be
able to witness (and participate in) such positive historical events.
Damn, you actually believe the ***** coming out of Washington...
I know that this may come as a surprise to you, but even CNN and CBS have
reported that Afghanistan held an election. No really, it's even in the NY
Times. But I guess you know better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden wodencharternet" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
24 Oct 2004 12:44:18 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:JSQed.3877$YL.251079@twister.southeast.rr.com:
"Woden" <wodencharternet> wrote in message
news:Xns958C785B41988wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com:
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent
has conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and
Iraq will soon be shining examples of new *elected* democracies
born out of the ruins of theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed
by the attention that these victories over fundamentalism have
received here in AA. We of all people should be enthusiastically
supportive and glad about the despise of religious despotism! We
tend to complain, justifiably, about the most minor invasions of
religion into our governments, but tend to ignore momentous events
elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I am thrilled to see these inroads
into both the end of Islamic facism, defeat against
terror-sponsoring nations and the beginnings of new and free
economies based upon the secular prinicples of popular
representation.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle
that governments derive their authority from the consent of the
governed! We threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian
doctrine that power is the divine right of the few. With the help
of the West in liberating these nations, we are once again
witnessing the birth of nations, predicated on the same priniples
that we cherish. If not the best of times, I have to say that we
live in very good times to be able to witness (and participate in)
such positive historical events.
Damn, you actually believe the ***** coming out of Washington...
I know that this may come as a surprise to you, but even CNN and CBS
have reported that Afghanistan held an election. No really, it's even
in the NY Times. But I guess you know better.
Which wasn't my point. But then you knew that didn't you.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
24 Oct 2004 01:30:12 PM |
|
|
"Woden" <wodencharternet> wrote in message
news:Xns958C8C13B9AA0wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:JSQed.3877$YL.251079@twister.southeast.rr.com:
"Woden" <wodencharternet> wrote in message
news:Xns958C785B41988wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com:
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent
has conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and
Iraq will soon be shining examples of new *elected* democracies
born out of the ruins of theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed
by the attention that these victories over fundamentalism have
received here in AA. We of all people should be enthusiastically
supportive and glad about the despise of religious despotism! We
tend to complain, justifiably, about the most minor invasions of
religion into our governments, but tend to ignore momentous events
elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I am thrilled to see these inroads
into both the end of Islamic facism, defeat against
terror-sponsoring nations and the beginnings of new and free
economies based upon the secular prinicples of popular
representation.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle
that governments derive their authority from the consent of the
governed! We threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian
doctrine that power is the divine right of the few. With the help
of the West in liberating these nations, we are once again
witnessing the birth of nations, predicated on the same priniples
that we cherish. If not the best of times, I have to say that we
live in very good times to be able to witness (and participate in)
such positive historical events.
Damn, you actually believe the ***** coming out of Washington...
I know that this may come as a surprise to you, but even CNN and CBS
have reported that Afghanistan held an election. No really, it's even
in the NY Times. But I guess you know better.
Which wasn't my point. But then you knew that didn't you.
Who could posiibly tell what your point was from such incoherent ramblings?
Near as I can tell, your point was to try to embarass me somehow, even going
so far as to misquote me. You haven't yet figured out that you are of no
significance to me, and so any pathetic insults coming from you mean less
than nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden wodencharternet" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
24 Oct 2004 01:42:32 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:UwSed.8329$hr3.354574@twister.southeast.rr.com:
"Woden" <wodencharternet> wrote in message
news:Xns958C8C13B9AA0wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:JSQed.3877$YL.251079@twister.southeast.rr.com:
"Woden" <wodencharternet> wrote in message
news:Xns958C785B41988wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com:
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's
opponent has conceded defeat in the Afghan elections.
Afghanistan is and Iraq will soon be shining examples of new
*elected* democracies born out of the ruins of theocracy. I've
been rather underwhelmed by the attention that these victories
over fundamentalism have received here in AA. We of all people
should be enthusiastically supportive and glad about the despise
of religious despotism! We tend to complain, justifiably, about
the most minor invasions of religion into our governments, but
tend to ignore momentous events elsewhere. Speaking for myself,
I am thrilled to see these inroads into both the end of Islamic
facism, defeat against terror-sponsoring nations and the
beginnings of new and free economies based upon the secular
prinicples of popular representation.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle
that governments derive their authority from the consent of the
governed! We threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the
Christian doctrine that power is the divine right of the few.
With the help of the West in liberating these nations, we are
once again witnessing the birth of nations, predicated on the
same priniples that we cherish. If not the best of times, I
have to say that we live in very good times to be able to
witness (and participate in) such positive historical events.
Damn, you actually believe the ***** coming out of
Washington...
I know that this may come as a surprise to you, but even CNN and
CBS have reported that Afghanistan held an election. No really,
it's even in the NY Times. But I guess you know better.
Which wasn't my point. But then you knew that didn't you.
Who could posiibly tell what your point was from such incoherent
ramblings? Near as I can tell, your point was to try to embarass me
somehow, even going so far as to misquote me. You haven't yet figured
out that you are of no significance to me, and so any pathetic insults
coming from you mean less than nothing.
sounds like I hit a nerve....
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
24 Oct 2004 02:18:07 PM |
|
|
"Woden" <wodencharternet> wrote in message
news:Xns958C95C8E3915wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:UwSed.8329$hr3.354574@twister.southeast.rr.com:
"Woden" <wodencharternet> wrote in message
news:Xns958C8C13B9AA0wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:JSQed.3877$YL.251079@twister.southeast.rr.com:
"Woden" <wodencharternet> wrote in message
news:Xns958C785B41988wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com:
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's
opponent has conceded defeat in the Afghan elections.
Afghanistan is and Iraq will soon be shining examples of new
*elected* democracies born out of the ruins of theocracy. I've
been rather underwhelmed by the attention that these victories
over fundamentalism have received here in AA. We of all people
should be enthusiastically supportive and glad about the despise
of religious despotism! We tend to complain, justifiably, about
the most minor invasions of religion into our governments, but
tend to ignore momentous events elsewhere. Speaking for myself,
I am thrilled to see these inroads into both the end of Islamic
facism, defeat against terror-sponsoring nations and the
beginnings of new and free economies based upon the secular
prinicples of popular representation.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle
that governments derive their authority from the consent of the
governed! We threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the
Christian doctrine that power is the divine right of the few.
With the help of the West in liberating these nations, we are
once again witnessing the birth of nations, predicated on the
same priniples that we cherish. If not the best of times, I
have to say that we live in very good times to be able to
witness (and participate in) such positive historical events.
Damn, you actually believe the ***** coming out of
Washington...
I know that this may come as a surprise to you, but even CNN and
CBS have reported that Afghanistan held an election. No really,
it's even in the NY Times. But I guess you know better.
Which wasn't my point. But then you knew that didn't you.
Who could posiibly tell what your point was from such incoherent
ramblings? Near as I can tell, your point was to try to embarass me
somehow, even going so far as to misquote me. You haven't yet figured
out that you are of no significance to me, and so any pathetic insults
coming from you mean less than nothing.
sounds like I hit a nerve....
LOL!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
24 Oct 2004 03:36:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:48:26 +0000, Woden wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com:
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent has
conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and Iraq will
soon be shining examples of new *elected* democracies born out of the
ruins of theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed by the attention that
these victories over fundamentalism have received here in AA. We of all
people should be enthusiastically supportive and glad about the despise
of religious despotism! We tend to complain, justifiably, about the
most minor invasions of religion into our governments, but tend to
ignore momentous events elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I am thrilled
to see these inroads into both the end of Islamic facism, defeat against
terror-sponsoring nations and the beginnings of new and free economies
based upon the secular prinicples of popular representation.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle that
governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed! We
threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian doctrine that
power is the divine right of the few. With the help of the West in
liberating these nations, we are once again witnessing the birth of
nations, predicated on the same priniples that we cherish. If not the
best of times, I have to say that we live in very good times to be able
to witness (and participate in) such positive historical events.
Damn, you actually believe the ***** coming out of Washington...
Interesting "victory over fundamentalism" given that it's the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan where the constitution forbids any law
contradicting Islam.
"'The draft is based on Islamic principles and recognises that no law can
be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam,' the [Constitutional
Committee] said in a statement."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3236389.stm
We'll have to see where *that goes...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
24 Oct 2004 05:57:34 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com:
Subject: Karzai Wins!
....as if there was ever any doubt. viva la revolucion, and all that.
--
Dr. Smartass -- BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
The Fundamentalist
== Knows no greater joy than the sound of his own voice.
== Knows no greater terror than the god he creates in his own image.
== Knows no greater evil than an unfettered mind.
== Knows no greater blasphemy than being told "NO."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raptor514" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
24 Oct 2004 12:24:49 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com...
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent has
conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and Iraq will
soon
be shining examples of new *elected* democracies born out of the ruins of
theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed by the attention that these
victories over fundamentalism have received here in AA. We of all people
should be enthusiastically supportive and glad about the despise of
religious despotism! We tend to complain, justifiably, about the most
minor
invasions of religion into our governments, but tend to ignore momentous
events elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I am thrilled to see these inroads
into both the end of Islamic facism, defeat against terror-sponsoring
nations and the beginnings of new and free economies based upon the
secular
prinicples of popular representation.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle that
governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed! We
threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian doctrine that power
is the divine right of the few. With the help of the West in liberating
these nations, we are once again witnessing the birth of nations,
predicated
on the same priniples that we cherish. If not the best of times, I have
to
say that we live in very good times to be able to witness (and participate
in) such positive historical events.
I do hope that not all of the White House spin is b.s. But I have to say
that the only part of Afghanistan that Karzai has actual authority over is
Kabul. Essentially, he's a mayor, not a president. We need to commit
ourselves fully to the rebuilding of Afghanistan, hunting down al-Qaeda, and
capturing OBL. The best thing we could do to clean out terrorism would be to
clear the land mines out of Afghanistan, rebuild their infrastructure, and
get a modern education system up and running.
But we are literally unable to do that ever since Bush betrayed the real war
on terror with his unnecessary invasion of a completely neutered country
that was irrelevent to 9-11.
I'm afraid our gains in Afghanistan will be temporary because we're so badly
undercomitted there. Hopefully, I'm completely wrong about that.
Raptor514
--
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement;
and
he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion"
Edmund Burke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
24 Oct 2004 05:13:26 PM |
|
|
"Raptor514" <Raptor514@SPAMSUCKS.com> wrote in message
news:BzRed.3132$LT1.2286@trnddc09...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com...
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent has
conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and Iraq will
soon
be shining examples of new *elected* democracies born out of the ruins
of
theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed by the attention that these
victories over fundamentalism have received here in AA. We of all
people
should be enthusiastically supportive and glad about the despise of
religious despotism! We tend to complain, justifiably, about the most
minor
invasions of religion into our governments, but tend to ignore momentous
events elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I am thrilled to see these
inroads
into both the end of Islamic facism, defeat against terror-sponsoring
nations and the beginnings of new and free economies based upon the
secular
prinicples of popular representation.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle that
governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed! We
threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian doctrine that
power
is the divine right of the few. With the help of the West in liberating
these nations, we are once again witnessing the birth of nations,
predicated
on the same priniples that we cherish. If not the best of times, I have
to
say that we live in very good times to be able to witness (and
participate
in) such positive historical events.
I do hope that not all of the White House spin is b.s. But I have to say
that the only part of Afghanistan that Karzai has actual authority over is
Kabul. Essentially, he's a mayor, not a president. We need to commit
ourselves fully to the rebuilding of Afghanistan, hunting down al-Qaeda,
and
capturing OBL. The best thing we could do to clean out terrorism would be
to
clear the land mines out of Afghanistan, rebuild their infrastructure, and
get a modern education system up and running.
But we are literally unable to do that ever since Bush betrayed the real
war
on terror with his unnecessary invasion of a completely neutered country
that was irrelevent to 9-11.
I'm afraid our gains in Afghanistan will be temporary because we're so
badly
undercomitted there. Hopefully, I'm completely wrong about that.
Your hopes are granted. Would that all life's problems were so easily
solved 8-)
We *are* hunting down Al Qaeda and UBL. Don't take my word for it, nor that
of the WH. The man who was in charge of planning and implementing the
strategy which we are following has said so, in no uncertain terms. I am
referring , of course, to Tommy Franks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DJ Nozem" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
25 Oct 2004 06:38:07 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent has
conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and Iraq will soon
be shining examples of new *elected* democracies born out of the ruins of
theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed by the attention that these
victories over fundamentalism have received here in AA. We of all people
should be enthusiastically supportive and glad about the despise of
religious despotism! We tend to complain, justifiably, about the most minor
invasions of religion into our governments, but tend to ignore momentous
events elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I am thrilled to see these inroads
into both the end of Islamic facism, defeat against terror-sponsoring
nations and the beginnings of new and free economies based upon the secular
prinicples of popular representation.
Afghanistan's government only really controls the area around Kabul.
It still has to be seen how stable it will remain, and how secular.
I'm happy that the Taliban is no longer in power (though still
active), but excuse me for being cautious before proclaiming it a
resounding success. Iraq wasn't a theocracy before it was invaded. On
the other hand, it will soon be, if we are to believe Bush.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle that
governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed! We
threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian doctrine that power
is the divine right of the few. With the help of the West in liberating
these nations, we are once again witnessing the birth of nations, predicated
on the same priniples that we cherish. If not the best of times, I have to
say that we live in very good times to be able to witness (and participate
in) such positive historical events.
Viva Boooosh!
Viva la Muerte!
( http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_03.php#003631
)
--
We give meaning to each other
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
25 Oct 2004 05:30:58 PM |
|
|
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410250338.185c2726@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent has
conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and Iraq will
soon
be shining examples of new *elected* democracies born out of the ruins
of
theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed by the attention that these
victories over fundamentalism have received here in AA. We of all
people
should be enthusiastically supportive and glad about the despise of
religious despotism! We tend to complain, justifiably, about the most
minor
invasions of religion into our governments, but tend to ignore momentous
events elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I am thrilled to see these
inroads
into both the end of Islamic facism, defeat against terror-sponsoring
nations and the beginnings of new and free economies based upon the
secular
prinicples of popular representation.
Afghanistan's government only really controls the area around Kabul.
It's a lot greater than the Libs would like to admit. I say admit, because
they're playing politics with international affairs in a way which is
unconsciounable.
It still has to be seen how stable it will remain, and how secular.
I'm happy that the Taliban is no longer in power (though still
active), but excuse me for being cautious before proclaiming it a
resounding success. Iraq wasn't a theocracy before it was invaded.
While predominantly secular, under Saddam Iraq had far more religious
involvement in government than any of us would consider acceptable in a
truly free state.
On
the other hand, it will soon be, if we are to believe Bush.
Spin, spin, spin.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle that
governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed! We
threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian doctrine that
power
is the divine right of the few. With the help of the West in liberating
these nations, we are once again witnessing the birth of nations,
predicated
on the same priniples that we cherish. If not the best of times, I have
to
say that we live in very good times to be able to witness (and
participate
in) such positive historical events.
Viva Boooosh!
Viva la Muerte!
whatever
.
|
|
|
| User: "DJ Nozem" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
26 Oct 2004 07:05:32 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<C8ffd.25341$Jb.323527@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410250338.185c2726@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent has
conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and Iraq will
soon
be shining examples of new *elected* democracies born out of the ruins
of
theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed by the attention that these
victories over fundamentalism have received here in AA. We of all
people
should be enthusiastically supportive and glad about the despise of
religious despotism! We tend to complain, justifiably, about the most
minor
invasions of religion into our governments, but tend to ignore momentous
events elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I am thrilled to see these
inroads
into both the end of Islamic facism, defeat against terror-sponsoring
nations and the beginnings of new and free economies based upon the
secular
prinicples of popular representation.
Afghanistan's government only really controls the area around Kabul.
It's a lot greater than the Libs would like to admit. I say admit, because
they're playing politics with international affairs in a way which is
unconsciounable.
(Looks over at Irony-O-Meter)
<mild zoom>
*DJ smiles*
The new version's strong!
It still has to be seen how stable it will remain, and how secular.
I'm happy that the Taliban is no longer in power (though still
active), but excuse me for being cautious before proclaiming it a
resounding success. Iraq wasn't a theocracy before it was invaded.
While predominantly secular, under Saddam Iraq had far more religious
involvement in government than any of us would consider acceptable in a
truly free state.
But then Iraq was not a free state, of course.
On
the other hand, it will soon be, if we are to believe Bush.
Spin, spin, spin.
"I would be disappointed, but democracy is democracy," Bush said in an
Associated Press interview, when asked whether Iraqis might prefer an
Islamic government to secular rule. "If that's what the people choose,
that's what the people choose." (Source: Reuters)
Spin? A bit perhaps. But when you put the twin realities in front a:
the people _will_ vote for an Islamic government and b: Bush says he
will accept this, although he would be "disappointed", you can see
that, well, he is sort of preparing the ground for the inevitable.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle that
governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed! We
threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian doctrine that
power
is the divine right of the few. With the help of the West in liberating
these nations, we are once again witnessing the birth of nations,
predicated
on the same priniples that we cherish. If not the best of times, I have
to
say that we live in very good times to be able to witness (and
participate
in) such positive historical events.
Viva Boooosh!
Viva la Muerte!
whatever
I just don't see how you can be happy when the actual developments are
so worrying. One of the things that I used to think Rebublicans were
better at than Dems was foreign-policy thinking; it used to be based
upon a profound realism. It would always take the pessimistic scenario
as the operational baseline, which I thought to be healthy. This
healthy thinking has been turned around completely by a bunch of
ex-liberals, and in fact the most optimistic (cakewalk) scenario was
taken as the basis for planning and operations in Iraq. It's bad
enough to try to _sell_ a war as easy, but to actually to go in and
continue on a sunshine scenario is just criminal, in my mind.
That's what happens when the people in power are a bunch of dangerous
revolutionaries who cheer at the prospect of war and death. Your above
paragraph echoes their sentiment well.
--
We give meaning to each other
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
26 Oct 2004 04:33:36 PM |
|
|
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410260405.437f1765@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<C8ffd.25341$Jb.323527@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410250338.185c2726@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent
has
conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and Iraq
will
soon
be shining examples of new *elected* democracies born out of the
ruins
of
theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed by the attention that
these
victories over fundamentalism have received here in AA. We of all
people
should be enthusiastically supportive and glad about the despise of
religious despotism! We tend to complain, justifiably, about the
most
minor
invasions of religion into our governments, but tend to ignore
momentous
events elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I am thrilled to see these
inroads
into both the end of Islamic facism, defeat against
terror-sponsoring
nations and the beginnings of new and free economies based upon the
secular
prinicples of popular representation.
Afghanistan's government only really controls the area around Kabul.
It's a lot greater than the Libs would like to admit. I say admit,
because
they're playing politics with international affairs in a way which is
unconsciounable.
(Looks over at Irony-O-Meter)
<mild zoom>
*DJ smiles*
The new version's strong!
It still has to be seen how stable it will remain, and how secular.
I'm happy that the Taliban is no longer in power (though still
active), but excuse me for being cautious before proclaiming it a
resounding success. Iraq wasn't a theocracy before it was invaded.
While predominantly secular, under Saddam Iraq had far more religious
involvement in government than any of us would consider acceptable in a
truly free state.
But then Iraq was not a free state, of course.
On
the other hand, it will soon be, if we are to believe Bush.
Spin, spin, spin.
"I would be disappointed, but democracy is democracy," Bush said in an
Associated Press interview, when asked whether Iraqis might prefer an
Islamic government to secular rule. "If that's what the people choose,
that's what the people choose." (Source: Reuters)
Spin? A bit perhaps. But when you put the twin realities in front a:
the people _will_ vote for an Islamic government and b: Bush says he
will accept this, although he would be "disappointed", you can see
that, well, he is sort of preparing the ground for the inevitable.
Those are the "realities" of your deluded mind.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle
that
governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed!
We
threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian doctrine that
power
is the divine right of the few. With the help of the West in
liberating
these nations, we are once again witnessing the birth of nations,
predicated
on the same priniples that we cherish. If not the best of times, I
have
to
say that we live in very good times to be able to witness (and
participate
in) such positive historical events.
Viva Boooosh!
Viva la Muerte!
whatever
I just don't see how you can be happy when the actual developments are
so worrying. One of the things that I used to think Rebublicans were
better at than Dems was foreign-policy thinking; it used to be based
upon a profound realism. It would always take the pessimistic scenario
as the operational baseline, which I thought to be healthy. This
healthy thinking has been turned around completely by a bunch of
ex-liberals, and in fact the most optimistic (cakewalk) scenario was
taken as the basis for planning and operations in Iraq. It's bad
enough to try to _sell_ a war as easy, but to actually to go in and
continue on a sunshine scenario is just criminal, in my mind.
It's a hell of a lot better than it was. Yeah, yeah, some warlords still
control parts of Afghanistan. Boo hoo. I'll bet that when the rovers sent
us those pictures from Mars, you bitched because the planet wasn't
terraformed yet! The fact is that we have made great progress towards
creating a ME that is dominated by free and democratic institutions. We are
seeing the consent of the governed gaining ground over theocracy and
despotism. Are we there yet? No, but we're moving on the right road.
Sorry that full gratifiaction isn't instant.
That's what happens when the people in power are a bunch of dangerous
revolutionaries who cheer at the prospect of war and death. Your above
paragraph echoes their sentiment well.
I've read imbecilic ramblings aplenty on AA, but this is right up there.
The fact of the matter is that *we are at war*. We were at war on 9/12/01,
if not before. The choice is to win or to be the perpetual victims of
random violent death.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DJ Nozem" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
27 Oct 2004 04:36:51 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<Qozfd.19362$hr3.608485@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410260405.437f1765@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<C8ffd.25341$Jb.323527@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410250338.185c2726@posting.google.com...
(...)
Iraq wasn't a theocracy before it was invaded.
While predominantly secular, under Saddam Iraq had far more religious
involvement in government than any of us would consider acceptable in a
truly free state.
But then Iraq was not a free state, of course.
On
the other hand, it will soon be, if we are to believe Bush.
Spin, spin, spin.
"I would be disappointed, but democracy is democracy," Bush said in an
Associated Press interview, when asked whether Iraqis might prefer an
Islamic government to secular rule. "If that's what the people choose,
that's what the people choose." (Source: Reuters)
Spin? A bit perhaps. But when you put the twin realities in front a:
the people _will_ vote for an Islamic government and b: Bush says he
will accept this, although he would be "disappointed", you can see
that, well, he is sort of preparing the ground for the inevitable.
Those are the "realities" of your deluded mind.
Funny Fester. You come up with an overstated response, Fester tries to
sound reasonable and convince you. You, thinking that _just maybe_
it's possible to have a debate, moderate and state the facts upfront.
Fester (blinders always on) refuses to engage and goes for the flame.
But you have nothing to back your flames up, silly little Fester...
(...)
Viva Boooosh!
Viva la Muerte!
whatever
I just don't see how you can be happy when the actual developments are
so worrying. One of the things that I used to think Rebublicans were
better at than Dems was foreign-policy thinking; it used to be based
upon a profound realism. It would always take the pessimistic scenario
as the operational baseline, which I thought to be healthy. This
healthy thinking has been turned around completely by a bunch of
ex-liberals, and in fact the most optimistic (cakewalk) scenario was
taken as the basis for planning and operations in Iraq. It's bad
enough to try to _sell_ a war as easy, but to actually to go in and
continue on a sunshine scenario is just criminal, in my mind.
It's a hell of a lot better than it was. Yeah, yeah, some warlords still
control parts of Afghanistan. Boo hoo. I'll bet that when the rovers sent
us those pictures from Mars, you bitched because the planet wasn't
terraformed yet! The fact is that we have made great progress towards
creating a ME that is dominated by free and democratic institutions. We are
seeing the consent of the governed gaining ground over theocracy and
despotism. Are we there yet? No, but we're moving on the right road.
Sorry that full gratifiaction isn't instant.
On Afghanistan you are also overjoyed and overoptimistic, but I was
talking about Iraq. Once more you refuse to engage in discussion,
instead babbling some rhetoric you think elevates you to great moral
heights and damns me. But you have come up with both a strawman
version of yourself and of me. It's just silly.
That's what happens when the people in power are a bunch of dangerous
revolutionaries who cheer at the prospect of war and death. Your above
paragraph echoes their sentiment well.
I've read imbecilic ramblings aplenty on AA, but this is right up there.
The fact of the matter is that *we are at war*. We were at war on 9/12/01,
if not before. The choice is to win or to be the perpetual victims of
random violent death.
We were not at war with Iraq, besides, my criticism pertains to how
the war was waged, not to the choice to wage it. If you're in too deep
and don't understand what I'm saying, just say so, I'll try to be more
simple.
--
We give meaning to each other
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
27 Oct 2004 05:18:52 AM |
|
|
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410270136.7bba59fb@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<Qozfd.19362$hr3.608485@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410260405.437f1765@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<C8ffd.25341$Jb.323527@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410250338.185c2726@posting.google.com...
(...)
Iraq wasn't a theocracy before it was invaded.
While predominantly secular, under Saddam Iraq had far more
religious
involvement in government than any of us would consider acceptable
in a
truly free state.
But then Iraq was not a free state, of course.
On
the other hand, it will soon be, if we are to believe Bush.
Spin, spin, spin.
"I would be disappointed, but democracy is democracy," Bush said in an
Associated Press interview, when asked whether Iraqis might prefer an
Islamic government to secular rule. "If that's what the people choose,
that's what the people choose." (Source: Reuters)
Spin? A bit perhaps. But when you put the twin realities in front a:
the people _will_ vote for an Islamic government and b: Bush says he
will accept this, although he would be "disappointed", you can see
that, well, he is sort of preparing the ground for the inevitable.
Those are the "realities" of your deluded mind.
Funny Fester. You come up with an overstated response, Fester tries to
sound reasonable and convince you. You, thinking that _just maybe_
it's possible to have a debate, moderate and state the facts upfront.
Fester (blinders always on) refuses to engage and goes for the flame.
But you have nothing to back your flames up, silly little Fester...
LOL! Your "analysis" of what was said is hilarious.
That was no flame. It was simply a statement that your premises are so
FUBAR it is no wonder htat your conclusions are FOS. Do you get it yet?
Viva Boooosh!
Viva la Muerte!
whatever
I just don't see how you can be happy when the actual developments are
so worrying. One of the things that I used to think Rebublicans were
better at than Dems was foreign-policy thinking; it used to be based
upon a profound realism. It would always take the pessimistic scenario
as the operational baseline, which I thought to be healthy. This
healthy thinking has been turned around completely by a bunch of
ex-liberals, and in fact the most optimistic (cakewalk) scenario was
taken as the basis for planning and operations in Iraq. It's bad
enough to try to _sell_ a war as easy, but to actually to go in and
continue on a sunshine scenario is just criminal, in my mind.
It's a hell of a lot better than it was. Yeah, yeah, some warlords
still
control parts of Afghanistan. Boo hoo. I'll bet that when the rovers
sent
us those pictures from Mars, you bitched because the planet wasn't
terraformed yet! fact is that we have made great progress towards
creating a ME that is dominated by free and democratic institutions. We
are
seeing the consent of the governed gaining ground over theocracy and
despotism. Are we there yet? No, but we're moving on the right road.
Sorry that full gratifiaction isn't instant.
On Afghanistan you are also overjoyed and overoptimistic, but I was
talking about Iraq. Once more you refuse to engage in discussion,
instead babbling some rhetoric you think elevates you to great moral
heights and damns me. But you have come up with both a strawman
version of yourself and of me. It's just silly.
Unless you thiink that Iraq was not ruled by despotism, then I was quite
obviously speaking of both:
"The fact is that we have made great progress towards creating a ME that is
dominated by free and democratic institutions. We are seeing the consent of
the governed gaining ground over theocracy and despotism."
That's what happens when the people in power are a bunch of dangerous
revolutionaries who cheer at the prospect of war and death. Your above
paragraph echoes their sentiment well.
I've read imbecilic ramblings aplenty on AA, but this is right up there.
The fact of the matter is that *we are at war*. We were at war on
9/12/01,
if not before. The choice is to win or to be the perpetual victims of
random violent death.
We were not at war with Iraq, besides, my criticism pertains to how
the war was waged, not to the choice to wage it. If you're in too deep
and don't understand what I'm saying, just say so, I'll try to be more
simple.
We were and are at war with terrorists and their state sponsors. Saddam was
one of them. Do you ever tire of the repetition of the same old BS? I sure
as hell am weary of correcting idiots like you on the same points.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DJ Nozem" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
27 Oct 2004 01:43:14 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<gCKfd.7102$YL.917187@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410270136.7bba59fb@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<Qozfd.19362$hr3.608485@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410260405.437f1765@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<C8ffd.25341$Jb.323527@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410250338.185c2726@posting.google.com...
(...)
Spin, spin, spin.
"I would be disappointed, but democracy is democracy," Bush said in an
Associated Press interview, when asked whether Iraqis might prefer an
Islamic government to secular rule. "If that's what the people choose,
that's what the people choose." (Source: Reuters)
Spin? A bit perhaps. But when you put the twin realities in front a:
the people _will_ vote for an Islamic government and b: Bush says he
will accept this, although he would be "disappointed", you can see
that, well, he is sort of preparing the ground for the inevitable.
Those are the "realities" of your deluded mind.
Funny Fester. You come up with an overstated response, Fester tries to
sound reasonable and convince you. You, thinking that _just maybe_
it's possible to have a debate, moderate and state the facts upfront.
Fester (blinders always on) refuses to engage and goes for the flame.
But you have nothing to back your flames up, silly little Fester...
LOL! Your "analysis" of what was said is hilarious.
That was no flame.
Just because it was so lame doesn't mean it wasn't a flame.
It was simply a statement that your premises are so
FUBAR it is no wonder htat your conclusions are FOS. Do you get it yet?
I'm sorry, you were saying something?
Fester still shows that he has not the faintest idea of how a debate
works. He takes issue with my 'premises', apparently thinking he can
just point and laugh at my 'premises' and that will do fine. No, silly
little Fester, that's not how a debate works. You have to actually
show that your opponent is wrong. OMG!? Yes!
Viva Boooosh!
Viva la Muerte!
whatever
I just don't see how you can be happy when the actual developments are
so worrying. One of the things that I used to think Rebublicans were
better at than Dems was foreign-policy thinking; it used to be based
upon a profound realism. It would always take the pessimistic scenario
as the operational baseline, which I thought to be healthy. This
healthy thinking has been turned around completely by a bunch of
ex-liberals, and in fact the most optimistic (cakewalk) scenario was
taken as the basis for planning and operations in Iraq. It's bad
enough to try to _sell_ a war as easy, but to actually to go in and
continue on a sunshine scenario is just criminal, in my mind.
It's a hell of a lot better than it was. Yeah, yeah, some warlords
still
control parts of Afghanistan. Boo hoo. I'll bet that when the rovers
sent
us those pictures from Mars, you bitched because the planet wasn't
terraformed yet! fact is that we have made great progress towards
creating a ME that is dominated by free and democratic institutions. We
are
seeing the consent of the governed gaining ground over theocracy and
despotism. Are we there yet? No, but we're moving on the right road.
Sorry that full gratifiaction isn't instant.
On Afghanistan you are also overjoyed and overoptimistic, but I was
talking about Iraq. Once more you refuse to engage in discussion,
instead babbling some rhetoric you think elevates you to great moral
heights and damns me. But you have come up with both a strawman
version of yourself and of me. It's just silly.
Unless you thiink that Iraq was not ruled by despotism, then I was quite
obviously speaking of both:
"The fact is that we have made great progress towards creating a ME that is
dominated by free and democratic institutions. We are seeing the consent of
the governed gaining ground over theocracy and despotism."
OK, point granted, you're more delusional than I gave you credit for.
You still did not address anything in the paragraph you responded to,
instead spewing some mindless rhetoric about how everything is going
just fine that no doubt made you feel good about being on the right
side of history.
The 'fact' you talk about is not a fact, it's an assessment on your
part. An assessment that is overjoyed and overoptimistic. As for the
'consent of the governed', the last polls in Iraq showed support for
the interim government dropping. By 19%.
That's what happens when the people in power are a bunch of dangerous
revolutionaries who cheer at the prospect of war and death. Your above
paragraph echoes their sentiment well.
I've read imbecilic ramblings aplenty on AA, but this is right up there.
The fact of the matter is that *we are at war*. We were at war on
9/12/01,
if not before. The choice is to win or to be the perpetual victims of
random violent death.
We were not at war with Iraq, besides, my criticism pertains to how
the war was waged, not to the choice to wage it. If you're in too deep
and don't understand what I'm saying, just say so, I'll try to be more
simple.
We were and are at war with terrorists and their state sponsors. Saddam was
one of them. Do you ever tire of the repetition of the same old BS? I sure
as hell am weary of correcting idiots like you on the same points.
Fester still falls for the Bush line that the war on Iraq was part of
the war on terror. No small feat, keeping faith in that completely
discredited notion after one and a half years worth reporting that
shows it just ain't so. Let me spell this out to you: there was no
collaborative operational relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
And those are not my words, they're the words of the september 11
Commission. Other than that, you still miss the point: my criticism
pertains to the way the war was waged, not to the choice to wage it.
Is that sentence too hard to understand?
--
We give meaning to each other
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
27 Oct 2004 05:13:13 PM |
|
|
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410271043.58b3ee35@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<gCKfd.7102$YL.917187@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410270136.7bba59fb@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<Qozfd.19362$hr3.608485@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410260405.437f1765@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<C8ffd.25341$Jb.323527@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410250338.185c2726@posting.google.com...
(...)
Spin, spin, spin.
"I would be disappointed, but democracy is democracy," Bush said
in an
Associated Press interview, when asked whether Iraqis might prefer
an
Islamic government to secular rule. "If that's what the people
choose,
that's what the people choose." (Source: Reuters)
Spin? A bit perhaps. But when you put the twin realities in front
a:
the people _will_ vote for an Islamic government and b: Bush says
he
will accept this, although he would be "disappointed", you can see
that, well, he is sort of preparing the ground for the inevitable.
Those are the "realities" of your deluded mind.
Funny Fester. You come up with an overstated response, Fester tries to
sound reasonable and convince you. You, thinking that _just maybe_
it's possible to have a debate, moderate and state the facts upfront.
Fester (blinders always on) refuses to engage and goes for the flame.
But you have nothing to back your flames up, silly little Fester...
LOL! Your "analysis" of what was said is hilarious.
That was no flame.
Just because it was so lame doesn't mean it wasn't a flame.
It was simply a statement that your premises are so
FUBAR it is no wonder htat your conclusions are FOS. Do you get it yet?
I'm sorry, you were saying something?
Fester still shows that he has not the faintest idea of how a debate
works. He takes issue with my 'premises', apparently thinking he can
just point and laugh at my 'premises' and that will do fine. No, silly
little Fester, that's not how a debate works. You have to actually
show that your opponent is wrong. OMG!? Yes!
Viva Boooosh!
Viva la Muerte!
whatever
I just don't see how you can be happy when the actual developments
are
so worrying. One of the things that I used to think Rebublicans
were
better at than Dems was foreign-policy thinking; it used to be
based
upon a profound realism. It would always take the pessimistic
scenario
as the operational baseline, which I thought to be healthy. This
healthy thinking has been turned around completely by a bunch of
ex-liberals, and in fact the most optimistic (cakewalk) scenario
was
taken as the basis for planning and operations in Iraq. It's bad
enough to try to _sell_ a war as easy, but to actually to go in
and
continue on a sunshine scenario is just criminal, in my mind.
It's a hell of a lot better than it was. Yeah, yeah, some warlords
still
control parts of Afghanistan. Boo hoo. I'll bet that when the
rovers
sent
us those pictures from Mars, you bitched because the planet wasn't
terraformed yet! fact is that we have made great progress towards
creating a ME that is dominated by free and democratic institutions.
We
are
seeing the consent of the governed gaining ground over theocracy and
despotism. Are we there yet? No, but we're moving on the right
road.
Sorry that full gratifiaction isn't instant.
On Afghanistan you are also overjoyed and overoptimistic, but I was
talking about Iraq. Once more you refuse to engage in discussion,
instead babbling some rhetoric you think elevates you to great moral
heights and damns me. But you have come up with both a strawman
version of yourself and of me. It's just silly.
Unless you thiink that Iraq was not ruled by despotism, then I was quite
obviously speaking of both:
"The fact is that we have made great progress towards creating a ME that
is
dominated by free and democratic institutions. We are seeing the
consent of
the governed gaining ground over theocracy and despotism."
OK, point granted, you're more delusional than I gave you credit for.
You still did not address anything in the paragraph you responded to,
instead spewing some mindless rhetoric about how everything is going
just fine that no doubt made you feel good about being on the right
side of history.
The 'fact' you talk about is not a fact, it's an assessment on your
part. An assessment that is overjoyed and overoptimistic. As for the
'consent of the governed', the last polls in Iraq showed support for
the interim government dropping. By 19%.
That's what happens when the people in power are a bunch of
dangerous
revolutionaries who cheer at the prospect of war and death. Your
above
paragraph echoes their sentiment well.
I've read imbecilic ramblings aplenty on AA, but this is right up
there.
The fact of the matter is that *we are at war*. We were at war on
9/12/01,
if not before. The choice is to win or to be the perpetual victims
of
random violent death.
We were not at war with Iraq, besides, my criticism pertains to how
the war was waged, not to the choice to wage it. If you're in too deep
and don't understand what I'm saying, just say so, I'll try to be more
simple.
We were and are at war with terrorists and their state sponsors. Saddam
was
one of them. Do you ever tire of the repetition of the same old BS? I
sure
as hell am weary of correcting idiots like you on the same points.
Fester still falls for the Bush line that the war on Iraq was part of
the war on terror. No small feat, keeping faith in that completely
discredited notion after one and a half years worth reporting that
shows it just ain't so. Let me spell this out to you: there was no
collaborative operational relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
And those are not my words, they're the words of the september 11
Commission. Other than that, you still miss the point: my criticism
pertains to the way the war was waged, not to the choice to wage it.
Is that sentence too hard to understand?
I tried to have a civil discussion with you, but I won't tolerate your
entirely unjustified condescending and patronizing BS. If you had anything
remotely interesting, novel or insigthful to say I'd consider putting up
with even that for a little longer. But ... <PLONK>
.
|
|
|
| User: "DJ Nozem" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
28 Oct 2004 04:08:34 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<Z3Vfd.22946$hr3.722258@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410271043.58b3ee35@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<gCKfd.7102$YL.917187@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410270136.7bba59fb@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<Qozfd.19362$hr3.608485@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410260405.437f1765@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<C8ffd.25341$Jb.323527@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"DJ Nozem" <nanne@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:94fb8ae.0410250338.185c2726@posting.google.com...
(...)
Spin, spin, spin.
"I would be disappointed, but democracy is democracy," Bush said
in an
Associated Press interview, when asked whether Iraqis might prefer
an
Islamic government to secular rule. "If that's what the people
choose,
that's what the people choose." (Source: Reuters)
Spin? A bit perhaps. But when you put the twin realities in front
a:
the people _will_ vote for an Islamic government and b: Bush says
he
will accept this, although he would be "disappointed", you can see
that, well, he is sort of preparing the ground for the inevitable.
Those are the "realities" of your deluded mind.
Funny Fester. You come up with an overstated response, Fester tries to
sound reasonable and convince you. You, thinking that _just maybe_
it's possible to have a debate, moderate and state the facts upfront.
Fester (blinders always on) refuses to engage and goes for the flame.
But you have nothing to back your flames up, silly little Fester...
LOL! Your "analysis" of what was said is hilarious.
That was no flame.
Just because it was so lame doesn't mean it wasn't a flame.
It was simply a statement that your premises are so
FUBAR it is no wonder htat your conclusions are FOS. Do you get it yet?
I'm sorry, you were saying something?
Fester still shows that he has not the faintest idea of how a debate
works. He takes issue with my 'premises', apparently thinking he can
just point and laugh at my 'premises' and that will do fine. No, silly
little Fester, that's not how a debate works. You have to actually
show that your opponent is wrong. OMG!? Yes!
Viva Boooosh!
Viva la Muerte!
whatever
I just don't see how you can be happy when the actual developments
are
so worrying. One of the things that I used to think Rebublicans
were
better at than Dems was foreign-policy thinking; it used to be
based
upon a profound realism. It would always take the pessimistic
scenario
as the operational baseline, which I thought to be healthy. This
healthy thinking has been turned around completely by a bunch of
ex-liberals, and in fact the most optimistic (cakewalk) scenario
was
taken as the basis for planning and operations in Iraq. It's bad
enough to try to _sell_ a war as easy, but to actually to go in
and
continue on a sunshine scenario is just criminal, in my mind.
It's a hell of a lot better than it was. Yeah, yeah, some warlords
still
control parts of Afghanistan. Boo hoo. I'll bet that when the
rovers
sent
us those pictures from Mars, you bitched because the planet wasn't
terraformed yet! fact is that we have made great progress towards
creating a ME that is dominated by free and democratic institutions.
We
are
seeing the consent of the governed gaining ground over theocracy and
despotism. Are we there yet? No, but we're moving on the right
road.
Sorry that full gratifiaction isn't instant.
On Afghanistan you are also overjoyed and overoptimistic, but I was
talking about Iraq. Once more you refuse to engage in discussion,
instead babbling some rhetoric you think elevates you to great moral
heights and damns me. But you have come up with both a strawman
version of yourself and of me. It's just silly.
Unless you thiink that Iraq was not ruled by despotism, then I was quite
obviously speaking of both:
"The fact is that we have made great progress towards creating a ME that
is
dominated by free and democratic institutions. We are seeing the
consent of
the governed gaining ground over theocracy and despotism."
OK, point granted, you're more delusional than I gave you credit for.
You still did not address anything in the paragraph you responded to,
instead spewing some mindless rhetoric about how everything is going
just fine that no doubt made you feel good about being on the right
side of history.
The 'fact' you talk about is not a fact, it's an assessment on your
part. An assessment that is overjoyed and overoptimistic. As for the
'consent of the governed', the last polls in Iraq showed support for
the interim government dropping. By 19%.
That's what happens when the people in power are a bunch of
dangerous
revolutionaries who cheer at the prospect of war and death. Your
above
paragraph echoes their sentiment well.
I've read imbecilic ramblings aplenty on AA, but this is right up
there.
The fact of the matter is that *we are at war*. We were at war on
9/12/01,
if not before. The choice is to win or to be the perpetual victims
of
random violent death.
We were not at war with Iraq, besides, my criticism pertains to how
the war was waged, not to the choice to wage it. If you're in too deep
and don't understand what I'm saying, just say so, I'll try to be more
simple.
We were and are at war with terrorists and their state sponsors. Saddam
was
one of them. Do you ever tire of the repetition of the same old BS? I
sure
as hell am weary of correcting idiots like you on the same points.
Fester still falls for the Bush line that the war on Iraq was part of
the war on terror. No small feat, keeping faith in that completely
discredited notion after one and a half years worth reporting that
shows it just ain't so. Let me spell this out to you: there was no
collaborative operational relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
And those are not my words, they're the words of the september 11
Commission. Other than that, you still miss the point: my criticism
pertains to the way the war was waged, not to the choice to wage it.
Is that sentence too hard to understand?
I tried to have a civil discussion with you,
No, you didn't. Let me tell you what you did: You tried to let on that
you would have a civil discussion, but when I started to discuss in a
civil manner you went for a lame flame to play to the crowd. Luckily,
you suck at that (too), and now you're whining about being out-played.
but I won't tolerate your
entirely unjustified condescending and patronizing BS.
You are a dishonest little stupid ***** who deserves far worse than to
be treated with mere condescension. I'm happy to have gotten your
feelings hurted by it, though.
If you had anything
remotely interesting, novel or insigthful to say I'd consider putting up
with even that for a little longer. But ... <PLONK>
Tee-Hee.
--
We give meaning to each other
.
|
|
|
| User: "Godfrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
29 Oct 2004 02:18:43 AM |
|
|
On 28 Oct 2004 14:08:34 -0700, (DJ Nozem) wrote:
We give meaning to each other
Indeed you do.
Godfrey
* * * * *
The truth is a precious commodity. That's why I use it so sparingly.
- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "DJ Nozem" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
29 Oct 2004 11:19:16 AM |
|
|
Godfrey <No@Email.Provided> wrote in message news:<flr3o0lte9j4asrf035tfcufrb83t8f5gn@4ax.com>...
On 28 Oct 2004 14:08:34 -0700, (DJ Nozem) wrote:
We give meaning to each other
Indeed you do.
LOL! Good one.
--
We give meaning to each other
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
24 Oct 2004 10:53:11 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent has
conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and Iraq will soon
be shining examples of new *elected* democracies born out of the ruins of
theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed by the attention that these
victories over fundamentalism have received here in AA. We of all people
should be enthusiastically supportive and glad about the despise of
religious despotism! We tend to complain, justifiably, about the most minor
invasions of religion into our governments, but tend to ignore momentous
events elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I am thrilled to see these inroads
into both the end of Islamic facism, defeat against terror-sponsoring
nations and the beginnings of new and free economies based upon the secular
prinicples of popular representation.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle that
governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed! We
threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian doctrine that power
is the divine right of the few. With the help of the West in liberating
these nations, we are once again witnessing the birth of nations, predicated
on the same priniples that we cherish. If not the best of times, I have to
say that we live in very good times to be able to witness (and participate
in) such positive historical events.
Is "Karzai" "puppet" in Pashto?
Seriously, I'm glad they got a somewhat fair election. But right now it
does not mean much. It will take some time to see how Afghans accept the
new government.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
24 Oct 2004 03:18:56 PM |
|
|
In article <YKPed.3240$YL.244523@twister.southeast.rr.com>, Fester
<not@home.com> wrote:
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent has
conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and Iraq will soon
be shining examples of new *elected* democracies born out of the ruins of
theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed by the attention that these
victories over fundamentalism have received here in AA. We of all people
should be enthusiastically supportive and glad about the despise of
religious despotism! We tend to complain, justifiably, about the most minor
invasions of religion into our governments, but tend to ignore momentous
events elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I am thrilled to see these inroads
into both the end of Islamic facism, defeat against terror-sponsoring
nations and the beginnings of new and free economies based upon the secular
prinicples of popular representation.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle that
governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed! We
threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian doctrine that power
is the divine right of the few. With the help of the West in liberating
these nations, we are once again witnessing the birth of nations, predicated
on the same priniples that we cherish. If not the best of times, I have to
say that we live in very good times to be able to witness (and participate
in) such positive historical events.
What was he elected, President of Kabul? Someone better tell the
warlords who control 95 percent of the country they have a new leader.
Sean C
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Karzai Wins! |
24 Oct 2004 02:43:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:20:24 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
The result has not been officially announced, but Karzai's opponent has
conceded defeat in the Afghan elections. Afghanistan is and Iraq will soon
be shining examples of new *elected* democracies born out of the ruins of
theocracy. I've been rather underwhelmed by the attention that these
victories over fundamentalism have received here in AA. We of all people
should be enthusiastically supportive and glad about the despise of
religious despotism! We tend to complain, justifiably, about the most minor
invasions of religion into our governments, but tend to ignore momentous
events elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I am thrilled to see these inroads
into both the end of Islamic facism, defeat against terror-sponsoring
nations and the beginnings of new and free economies based upon the secular
prinicples of popular representation.
We in the US fought our revolution on the basis of the principle that
governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed! We
threw off a monarch who ruled based upon the Christian doctrine that power
is the divine right of the few. With the help of the West in liberating
these nations, we are once again witnessing the birth of nations, predicated
on the same priniples that we cherish. If not the best of times, I have to
say that we live in very good times to be able to witness (and participate
in) such positive historical events.
Iraq wasn't a theocracy.
And the election doesn't work over most of Afganistan. Much is not
under control of the 'elected government'. The same will be true of
Iraq. Warlords now control most of both countries.
Reality sux, doesn't it.
.
|
|
|
|
