Glad to see some progress is being made. And to see that I'm not the only Republican around...

Maybe in the next ten years our military won't be needed around in the Middle East. Maybe.

God bless the Iraqis, the United States military, and George W. Bush.
Man, get stuffed.

Man, get stuffed.

Please. Clarify what you mean by this.

Because if you mean that you wish worse things on Iraqis...I'm not gonna say what my new opinion of you is.

Quote:

---

I'm not the only Republican here? o.o

---

No. No you're not.

Hopefully, nothing horrible happens and Bush ends up trying to play it off like everything's going well.

Quote:

---

Man, get stuffed.

---

What? Just because I didn't happen to mention the troops or special forces of other countries doesn't mean I'm not thankful for them either. They all did their part (Which reminds me of the whole 'unilateral action' that some people decried the US for...makes me laugh. So ha ha ha.).

In any case...PICTURES!

Beautiful.

And here's a blog updated live on the election.

EDIT: Just heard on the news that there's actually a ballot SHORTAGE due to such a high turnout. XD

Quote:

---

Because if you mean that you wish worse things on Iraqis...

---

I really doubt that was what he meant.

Cycle, that made me laugh really loud but it was still naughty. And SX, don't put words in people's mouths. It makes you look more silly than the person you intend it on.

Sure, it's all good that Iraq is getting it's independence and all. But I seriousily think it shouldn't of happened at this point- period. I'm sick of America going into foreign countries and giving them independence despite the will of that country. Iraq didn't deserve this, sure- Saddam was a dictator, but that doesn't mean we could just go storming in there. A war has to have liable reasoning behind it. And a lie doesn't make it liable.

To put it simple, I'm sick of America as I aforementioned; going into other countries with established goverments and forcing independence down on them.

And you think the Iraqis themselves preferred Saddam over a government of their own choosing? Be serious and think about it.

As for the 'lie' bit...faulty intelligence does not mean he lied. If you were taught in school that 2 + 2 = 5, and later someone says it's actually 4, would they accuse you of lying?

The reasons for going to Iraq are manifold. If you really want to understand why we went to war, you must go to the text of the Joint Congressional resolution that authorized the President to take military action against Iraq. It was passed 296-133 by the House of Representatives and 77-23 by the Senate on October 10 and 11, 2002. It goes far beyond WMD or bad intelligence.

~Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.~

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in 'material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President 'to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President 'to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and 'constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-33 expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to 'work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to 'work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that 'the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to -

strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to -

defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that -

reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

So understand Mike, before you go off saying that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq, think about the pros. They far outweigh the cons. Besides, if you were an Iraqi who lived under the thumb of a brutal man your entire life, I don't think you'd frown upon someone's efforts to remove him from power (and done so they have).

I still don't agree on that matter Ultra. No matter what the feelings of the people of the country, or our opinions- Saddam had a right to have his goverment. Even how unhumantarian and evil it was. I mean we didn't go and kick Russia's dictator out, or Germany's before those vital wars. And even when it ended we never took him out.

You know why?

Because America is a bully. Picking on smaller countries no matter what anyone else thinks.

Didn't our neutrality encourage Hitler to continue his atrocities?

Not really Torn, even if we weren't neutral he would of kept doing his wrong-doings. Oh, you mean America could of stopped him. Yes? No? We will never know. And I miss that America, you know, the one that didn't impede on other nations affairs?

Yeah, that one. The one that wasn't a dictator in itself in techniquallity.

If Europe and the US had actually been awake during that time when Hitler began his atrocities, much of that MAY have not happened...it was a group effort.

Hitler is evil but he wasn't dumb either. He knew that Europe and the US were too busy trying to avoid another war to try and stop him.

Your opinion suxz, you smell funny, and I hat you! /noob joke

Seriousily,
The world didn't know what Hitler was doing until the Europe portion of the War really began. True, Hitler was evil- but that has nothing to do with that. America was also just getting over it's depression as well as having no cocern for things overseas. Good reason to do, too.

True, if we never joined- the world would probally only have three Powers. Meh.

Quote:

---

Because America is a bully. Picking on smaller countries no matter what anyone else thinks.

---

CORRECTION: The entire Bush administration are bullies. They're the ones who sent the troops over there for no real reason. And most of them aren't even much older than me and they're being told to shoot people.

And the bad thing is people are calling for the troops to pull out now, but Bush wants to keep them there.

Some news I saw yesterday at 5 o'clock said that he "took responsibility" to go to "war." I thought it was a bit late for that.

This whole Iraq thing isn't even a war. Bush just wanted an excuse to invade a country. And this country is beating the crap out of his political ego.

Quote:

---

Didn't our neutrality encourage Hitler to continue his atrocities?

---

Those sentiments would mean more if it meant invading every country that has "evil" leaders that commit massive atrocities--and many others have done worse but are ignored, usually due to having significant military power, actual WMD, or not having much "value" to business. ^_~

Given time and men, we'll probably go after Iran and NK too...>>

Iran is where we should of actually invaded- they actually have weapons of mass destruction. Go figure. Next thing were going to hear is Bush claiming the invasion was a typo. =P

Quote:

---

Given time and men, we'll probably go after Iran and NK too...>>

---

No, we won't--at least on NK. Iran supposedly doesn't have WMD yet so it's a possibility IF the people can be rallied to support it--and right now I seriously doubt it. Of course, I was also thinking about a few African leaders that kill off their own people without anyone seemingly caring and you forget China has its own issues. The U.S. will never attack a country it feels can really damage it or doesn't see some form of value. ^_~

Yeah well I'd like to see him go after Saudia Arabia personally...and Sudan...how is Saudia Arabia still an ally?

Yes I know the answer so anyone with a sarcastic remark gets a third degree beatdown.

Acrio: I'm not trying to "put words into his mouth", I'm simply asking if what I interpreted of his message was correct. Anyway, Cyc EzMessaged me about it and explained, so don't worry about it.

As for the WMDs: Are we forgetting just how many times Iraq has actually used chemical weapons? On Iran, on it's own people...Also, maybe something classified we don't know about?

Y'know what I think? Saddam himself thought they had WMDs. We know they HAD them. For one I wouldn't want to be the one to tell Saddam their stockpiles mysteriously dissapeared. Wasn't he known to kill the bearers of bad news?

As for invading: It is NOT an unprovoked attack. Remember what happened on 9/11? That's not an attack? We declared a war on terrorism because of 9/11, and we're following through with our promises. Unless you want Iraq to be the next 90's Afghanistan...

As for Bush: Good boy. Glad you're around and not Kerry.

As for pulling out: We couldn't just pull out of Iraq. If we did, it'd make the situation worse. All we'dve done is create a weak, shaky government and left them to fend off circling wolves.

And as for this: "or Germany's before those vital wars. And even when it ended we never took him out.": Watch the History Channel some more. Hitler comitted suicide when the Russians wer knocking at his door so to speak. He shot himself. We didn't get the chance to take him out because he took HIMSELF out.

One final thing: Do any of you know what "Godwin's Law" means?

Quote:

---

As for invading: It is NOT an unprovoked attack. Remember what happened on 9/11? That's not an attack? We declared a war on terrorism because of 9/11, and we're following through with our promises. Unless you want Iraq to be the next 90's Afghanistan...

---

We should worry about terrorism within our borders before we go overseas, Iraq would of never of been stupid enough to attack America for one. Theres a reason we are one of the world's powers. Meh.

Quote:

---

And as for this: "or Germany's before those vital wars. And even when it ended we never took him out.": Watch the History Channel some more. Hitler comitted suicide when the Russians wer knocking at his door so to speak. He shot himself. We didn't get the chance to take him out because he took HIMSELF out.

---

Theres no real proof of that. His body was really never found, and a lot of people including myself believe Hitler retreated somewhere. Though he'd be like old as hell if he were still alive. Probally dead if he did run. I bet he probally had "stunt doubles" aka imposters of himself to cover for him.

Quote:

---

One final thing: Do any of you know what "Godwin's Law" means?

---

Godwin's Law is a crock of crap.

Quote:

---

As for Bush: Good boy. Glad you're around and not Kerry.

---

One thing I probally agree on. Kerry would of probally did worse in Iraq anyway. I doubt a former Soldier would pull out of a war. =P

Quote:

---

As for the WMDs: Are we forgetting just how many times Iraq has actually used chemical weapons? On Iran, on it's own people...Also, maybe something classified we don't know about?

---

Yes, yes- we know that. But it was within Iraq's borders we shouldn't be worried about a foreign goverment. Meh.

We should worry about terrorism within our borders before we go overseas, Iraq would of never of been stupid enough to attack America for one. Theres a reason we are one of the world's powers. Meh.

Yup. And the terrorism in our borders comes from where? Magical pretty-color land? Nope. It comes from one place. The Middle East. So where do we go fto fight terrorism? Magical pretty-color land? No. We go to...guess what?...The Middle East.

Quote:

---

Yup. And the terrorism in our borders comes from where? Magical pretty-color land? Nope. It comes from one place. The Middle East. So where do we go fto fight terrorism? Magical pretty-color land? No. We go to...guess what?...The Middle East.

---

That is crock of crap. Terrorism isn't only in the middle-east and there are other orgins of it. In America is one of them, then there is the Middle-East, Mexico, The Asian Nations. Though the middle-east is categorized as terrorists because of a god damned bias. Just because Osama destorys TWC, we categorize Arabian's as terrorists. >>

Bias. So bad.

Try to steer clear of it.

Mike, I'm not biased against anyone, muslims included. While it is a fact that many terrorists are muslims, it is NOT true that many muslims are terrorists. And there are terrorists that are Catholi too, for one example. However, how many Mexican terrorists do you know have attacked in the past...forever? None. Yet Americans have been attacked by islamic extremists for decades. So who do we go after? Isn't tha tkinda obvious?

Also, I have no clue why you say Mexico houses terrorists. Could you please elaborate?

And it doesn't matter WHERE Iraq used chemical weapons. They did. And they used it on civilians. Saddam Hussein got what was coming. Win-wn.

Quote:

---

And it doesn't matter WHERE Iraq used chemical weapons. They did. And they used it on civilians. Saddam Hussein got what was coming. Win-wn.

---

This debate is interesting I have to say. But I didn't say you were biased, sorry. For clarification I meant America. And on this qoute. I still have the subject of us being bullies and going into smaller nations. Granted, Saddam was evil and a bast'. But Iraq in general didn't deserve to be invaded. Sure, it is good in some ways- but I don't like it when we give nations independence that don't want it. If they wanted it, they'd done what we did to the british. And I know that can be debated for awhile. ^^

Quote:

---

Mike, I'm not biased against anyone, muslims included. While it is a fact that many terrorists are muslims, it is NOT true that many muslims are terrorists. And there are terrorists that are Catholi too, for one example. However, how many Mexican terrorists do you know have attacked in the past...forever? None. Yet Americans have been attacked by islamic extremists for decades. So who do we go after? Isn't tha tkinda obvious?

---

I'll have to look it up, but I have seen it. In my opinion I see- I see, that gangs and drug selling a type of terrorism. So I think we should take seriousness to that and see that as terrorism and fight that.

We shouldn't of gone after Iraq just because Osama bin Moron bombed us. >>

Quote:

---

Also, I have no clue why you say Mexico houses terrorists. Could you please elaborate?

---

I saw it once, and refer to above.

Quote:

---

Yup. And the terrorism in our borders comes from where? Magical pretty-color land? Nope. It comes from one place. The Middle East.

---

Boy, Ol' Timmy McVeigh sure does look Arabic, doesn't he?

As for the election, good for them. Sooner they become autonomous, the sooner we can go take care of actual threats to America, like North Korea or that Bin Laden fellow. Anyone remember him? Anyone? Bueller?

Quote:

---

As for the election, good for them. Sooner they become autonomous, the sooner we can go take care of actual threats to America, like North Korea or that Bin Laden fellow. Anyone remember him? Anyone? Bueller?

---

North Korea's nukes can really only touch Japan. So America isn't threatened. In truth. But the theres that anime fanbase of American's that would threaten america. /poor joke

Hmm. Personally I don't see America as being biased either. I mean, who runs all of our 7-11's? /even worse joke

The hell they don't want freedom. Watch the news sometime, suicide bombers aren't the only people in Iraq y'know.

Actually, NK is believed to have ICBMs that can hit L.A. or San Fran. Now this isn't CONFIRMED, but it's plausible.

As for drug dealers, "War on Drugs" is a real war, I assure you. I used to live near Eglin AFB in Destin, FL, and Dad'd tell me how they'd send F-15s to intercept smuggling flights all the time. Being a DEA agent can be a very dangerous job...

And Cyc, finding Osama bin Dumbass is a priority, but finding him wouldn't make every extremist in the world shrug and give up. If anything, his death would rally people further. I mean, you're Joe Terrorist, and you see your great holy leader person killed at the hands of the infidels. What do you think?

Also, there are reports of a Middle Eastern man with McVeigh that surfaced long before 9/11. And I coulda sworn in that post I also said that there were terrorists all over the place. Didn't I? Coulda sworn I did...Also, how on earth are we supposed to defend ourselves from the random crackpot homemade terrorist who obvioously has issues?

Japan has been one of the US's closest allies during the last 50 years. To practically feed them to Kim Jong Il by not quelling the threat at hand would be outright traitorous. ANd even if you choose to ignore the ethical side, the economical side and the fact that a large number of US nationals and soldiers live there should be reason enough to step on this snake's head bites.

I was joking, Troy. You know, joking? The implorance of some sort of humour?

The humor was quickly intercepted by the internet, which is able to annihalate all but the most obvious sarcasm.

Wow, I figured the fact that it SAYS it's a joke would be enough...Any election results as of yet?

AP via FOX NEWS

Quote:

---

BAGHDAD, Iraq Final results in Iraq's parliamentary election may not be known for two weeks, but early indications show the Shiite tickets doing well in traditional Shiite strongholds, election officials said Friday.

In Mosul, capital of the predominantly Sunni Arab province of Nineveh, indications were that the Sunni coalition came in first, said a representative for the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, Hameed Shabaky.

He said the Shiite governing party apparently came in fourth behind the Sunni coalition, the Kurds and a bloc led by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite.

Turnout in what was a mostly peaceful election was overwhelming. Election officials estimated up to 11 million of the nation's 15 million registered voters took part in Thursday's vote, which would put overall turnout at more than 70 percent.

In the Shiite province of Najaf, as many as 80 percent of the voters cast ballots for the four-year parliament.

So many Sunni Arabs voted Thursday that ballots ran out in some places. Ira

The strong participation by Sunnis, the backbone of the insurgency, bolstered U.S. hopes that the election could produce a broad-based government capable of ending the daily suicide attacks and other violence that have ravaged the country since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Sunni Arabs make up about 20 percent of Iraq's 27 million people, compared to about 60 percent for Shiites.

Difficult times lie ahead, however. The coalition of religious Shiite parties that dominates the current government is expected to win the biggest portion of the 275 seats, but will almost certainly need to compromise with rival factions to form a government.

Although violence was reported light Thursday with only three people killed in bombings around Iraq, police said Friday that five bodies had turned up in the predominantly Shiite north Baghdad suburb of Kazimiyah.

Police Lt. Col. Riyad Abdulwahid said four of the bodies had been shot and were wearing Interior Ministry commando uniforms, a force accused by Sunni Arabs of taking part in the abuse and torture of detainees. The fifth body had been decapitated and was dressed in an Iraqi army uniform, Abdulwahid added.

Heavily armed Iraqi troops transported ballots in transparent boxes to central warehouses in each province, usually after the votes had been counted at polling stations around Iraq. A nationwide vehicle ban remained in effect, and most Iraqis walked to mosques for prayers as they had to polling stations on Thursday.

Streets were generally empty of cars, except for trucks carrying ballots, police, ambulances and a few others with permits.

Many Sunnis said they voted to register their opposition to the Shiite-led government and to speed the end of the U.S. military presence.

"What happened yesterday in Sunni areas and Iraq does not mean that the resistance is getting weaker," said Mohammed Abdelkarim, 42, a teacher in Ramadi, an insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad. "The resistance will not die till the withdrawal of the occupation forces."

Opposition to the American military presence runs deeper among Sunni Arabs, the minority group that enjoyed a privileged position under Saddam, than among any of Iraq's other religious and ethnic communities.

While Sunnis were defiant, Shiites and Kurds seemed hopeful the new government would be more successful than the outgoing one in restoring security.

A common theme, however, appeared to be a yearning for an end to the turmoil that has engulfed Iraq since the U.S.-led coalition invaded in March 2003 to topple Saddam's regime.

Officials said it could take at least two weeks until final results are announced.

Insurgent groups, as promised, generally refrained from attacks on polling stations. In Ramadi, masked gunmen provided by local sheiks guarded polling stations, frisking voters as they entered.

President Bush called the election "a major step forward in achieving our objective."

U.S. officials hope a broad-based government will be able to quell the bloodshed so that the United States can begin to bring troops home next year.

A successful election followed by an effective, broad-based government would also give the Bush administration a significant victory in its campaign to spread democracy through the Middle East. But many Shiite politicians have little interest in concessions to Sunnis on their key demands, including a greater share of power and allowing a role for Saddam loyalists in public life.

As a result, negotiations to create a new government including a prime minister could drag on for weeks just as they did following January's election, when many Sunnis stayed away from the polls because of threats of violence or to honor boycott calls. Another prolonged political struggle might worsen sectarian tensions.

Still, Iraqi leaders expressed relief that the election had passed relatively smoothly and U.S. officials saw the lack of violence as an encouraging sign.

---

Results will be known soon.

Quote:

---

Any election results as of yet?

---

It took about 8-9 days last time. They will be waiting at least 2 weeks this time.

Quote:

---

overall turnout at more than 70 percent.

---

And yet here in America, people can't be bothered to go pick who'll be the next leader of the country. What's that about things being taken for granted again?

Quote:

---

Just two years ago, women were raped at will, men were put in industrial shredding machines, children were in prison, and a monster could kill anyone or any group he wanted on a whim. This is absolutely remarkable.

---

Whereas now public services are at a shambles, there are weekly if not daily suicide bombings, car bombing and mass killings, the trial of Saddam is falling to pieces....

Anyways:
a) There were no WMD. The CIA agree. Senior US government officials and ambassadors agree. The entire UK government has accepted this fact. Learn, people, and stop believing your Republican-owned news services have a clue what they're talking about, or are anything other than biased, bought tools of a corrupt administration and the rich businessmen who support it.
b) There is and was no link, ever, between 9/11 and Iraq other than the Bush administration being crap and trying to connect them. See above.
c) I'm going to go even further. Since people have said "god bless america" and other such pieces of laughable naivete, I'm going to see if I can dig up a little article I read recently on US foreign policy over the last 50 years...

nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html
That is a lecture given by the man who won the Nobel Prize for Literature this year, Harold Pinter. It;s a little long, but do read the middle portion on US politics- it;s very illuminating.

To be quite frank, I'm more inclined to think this man has a point than the biased and corrupt propaganda of the US press.

Here's something I found on Yahoo! News.

If you don't feel like doing that, I'll quote it here, too.

Bush Says NSA Surveillance Necessary, Legal

WASHINGTON - President Bush brushed aside criticism over his decision to spy on suspected terrorists without court warrants Monday and said he will keep it up "for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens."

One of the principal provisions of the Patriot Act permitted the government to gain warrants in cases involving investigations into suspected terrorists in the United States an expansion of powers previously limited to intelligence cases.

EDIT: Anybody with opinions?

EDIT 2: Removed it. I just don't want to have the same link in two different places...

Quote:

---

Whereas now public services are at a shambles

---

LIES.

According to a Brookings Institution report, for all the insurgents' attempts to sabotage the Iraqi economy, per capita income has doubled since 2003 and is now 30% higher than it was before the war. The Iraqi economy is projected to grow 16.8% in 2006; there are five times as many cars on the streets than in Saddam Hussein's day, five times more telephone subscribers, and 32 times as many Internet users. While one independent media outlet existed in Iraq before 2003, there are now 44 commercial television stations, 72 radio stations, and more than 100 newspapers.

To all of this, writes Norman Podhoretz of Commentary, we can add the 3,404 public schools, 304 water and sewage projects, 257 fire and police stations, and 149 public-health facilities that had been built as of September 2005, with another 921 such projects currently under construction.

On the military front, a November report by the Committee on the Present Danger, cites a compelling example of what is being accomplished by American troops. In the recent Operation Steel Curtain on the Syrian border, our troops detained more than 1,000 suspected insurgents. One hundred weapons caches were found and cleared. The report also notes the steady strengthening of the Iraqi armed forces, and the increasing degree of responsibility they are assuming in the fight against the insurgency: Since July, Iraq's armed forces have added 22 new battalions, and 5,500 police-service personnel have been trained and equipped (as have some 2,000 special-police commanders). Coalition senior officers report that 80 Iraqi battalions now are able to fight alongside our troops and 36 are "generally able to conduct independent operations." More than 20 of the coalition's forward-operating bases have been turned over to the Iraqi army.

Oh, and there's been three elections.

Shambles? You jest.

Quote:

---

there are weekly if not daily suicide bombings, car bombing and mass killings,

---

MISINFORMATION.

Terror attacks have decreased by 70%. No one has been arrested on the Syrian border for over two weeks. Bombings are not as commonplace (anymore) as you make them out to be. Mass killings is actually something Saddam tended to do.

Quote:

---

the trial of Saddam is falling to pieces....

---

Because he's an arrogant scumbag who's acting like he's still President of Iraq. Do you honestly think the final decision won't be 'GUILTY!'?

Your line about WMDs is also incorrect. True, Bush's mistake was hinging the entire Iraq war on finding WMDs (instead of a different initial goal such as inserting democracy into the Middle East to stabilze the region), and now people are insisting that, despite all the good that's been done, the war wasn't worth it because there were no WMDs.

Even though the evidence that they were there was overwhelming. Even though it's very likely they were moved elsewhere (remember all the Russian trucks that rolled across the Syrian border from Iraq? And Israel's not the only one to think so.). Even though Saddam had plenty of time to hide the WMDs (and I remember very clearly from Colin Powell's presentation to the UN a side-by-side picture presentation of numerous facilities and vehicles being in the 'before investigators arrived' picture and the aforementioned vehicles and facilities being gone in the 'after investigators arrived' picture). Even though most of Saddam's WMD research and development took place OUTSIDE Iraq's borders, whereas the big focus has been INSIDE Iraq's borders in the WMD search. As a matter of fact, the charge that Bush lied is a lie itself.

Now...be reasonable. You have all the evidence beforehand that Saddam was developing WMDs and that he had them. You go in, and they're not there. What's the more logical conclusion; that they were moved, or that they didn't exist at all?

Your point that Iraq and Saddam were not linked to 9/11...who was behind 9/11? Al Qaeda.

Look at this video. Look at this. And this timeline. Oh, and this too.

To say the there were no ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda is simply dishonest.

As for Harold Pinter, let me give you an allegory on his opinions. He's a playright. Does he have any experience in global (particularly Cold War-related) politics or warfare? This is a guy who equates the Bush administration to 'Nazis' (and automatically loses a portion of his credibility as per Godwin's Law), calls Blair a 'mass murderer' for taking part in the Iraq war (apparently, he doesn't quite get the difference between military casualties and murdered civilians...and by his logic, what would he equate the terrorists {who actually target civilians intentionally} to? A bizarre fusion of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot combined?), calls the prison in Guantanamo a 'vast gulag' (*laughs* Gulag? Oh, you crack me up Pinter), and portrays Cuba as a democratic country (against all evidence to the contrary). How am I supposed to take this guy seriously? The equivalent of that would be taking Sean Penn's (who, by the way, is a high-school dropout) advice on the War in Iraq over that of military officials.

Since people have said "god bless america" and other such pieces of laughable naivete

Idiot, Democrat, or Osama Bin Laden?

You decide.

Well, I'm pissed at all you fascists/tools and ill end up cussing you all out.
Example of stupid fascists:
*yesterday in chat*
Me: Yea, I'm part iranian, and i hate people who misprounonce the names, yknow?
Me: It's pronounced "Ah-rah-nee-ahn"
Sx: No, it's "Eye-ray-nee-ahn"
Me: .... I know my own f**kin heritage, hick.

Yay.
So I'll just say this instead...

As for pulling out: We couldn't just pull out of Iraq. If we did, it'd make the situation worse. All we'dve done is create a weak, shaky government and left them to fend off circling wolves.

As for pulling out: Cheap form of protection.

Die.

It's funny how its ok when he jokes about other peoples heritage, but someone makes a crack about his they are "A stupid fascist".

~Rico

What? Nope. Fascist @ their "political beliefs" (Read: Whatever the news tells them too)
Or tool.

But, see, if I call someone a Whitey (Why-tee) and theyre like "No dude its whitey (way-tay)" id be like "Oh, alright then, doc." not "HELL I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU EVEN THOUGH I DONT HATE VERYONE WITH A DARKER SKIN TONE!"
Or something.

I had a point, i think, but I'll just quote call of duty 2 on this one
"YOU STUPID FASCISTS! YOU CAME ALL THE WAY HERE TO DIE!"

heeehehehehe... This is too good. Sx is doing to you what you do to everyone else and you can't stand it. Well I can only do to him what I do to you. Tell him its rude to be insensitive and slap his hand, then tell you to report it if he keeps it up.

And of course I have to tell you if you call anyone else on this board a facist you will recieve an offical warning.

Love,

~Rico

Oh, rico, your ears are so full of hate you cant listen past yoru hate-filled vision... Of hate... And prejudism.

Oh, and Rico, since I feel I shoudl explain more so ou can understand: I was referring to how he CORRECTED Me on facts about MY heritage, as if he knew more off watching fox. I never did that to him.
Kay?
Are we all nice and happy now?
Excellent.
/edit

Long story short: Girl friend in high school.

"He started it" is not an excuse. I told you both to cut it out and you kept on, so guess what. Well I may have to politely mocked you again instead of warning you, but you went and attacked me. You now have an official warning for repeatedly not listening to a mod and continued flamebaiting. If you want to dig your grave deeper, please feel free to do so.

~Rico