Iraqi Election....

Destructo6,

The analogy is not mine; the lingo in the whole article somewhat mirrors reports about the "election success" in Iraq.

In a direct comparison with Iraq the most significant paragraph might be ...

" ...... The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta."

Iraq was, is and is going to remain, nothing more than a client state. The "election" is nothing more than an exercize, to give legitimacy to the Baghdad government .... founded on coups and powerplays since the end of WW1.

Glad we settled that.
 
joab,

There were indeed, and still are, many Vietnamese people who have been some of the most active opponents of communism. But it does not appear to be the case that any of the competing political factions in the running at any time during the war were any less corrupt than the other. Most of the people I have known that were there during the conflict, both Vietnamese and American, have mixed feelings over the political backdrop. The fighting aspect of the war itself was perhaps much clearer than what the geo-political forces represented.

And "communism" was really no more than a political front for a competing geo-political force. The whole of SE Asia is going to wind up absorbed by the APEC bloc regardless of what flavor the tyrants are selling in any individual member country. A familiar pattern evident in the other "trade bloc" regions in the world.
 
It goes beyond a simple analogy; if you substitute the place names and political people in the 1967 article with those of recent discussion matter - and visa versa - they identical in all respects. They could have been composed by the same people.
 
Now you are saying that the analogy is yours? Make up your mind.

And that if you change the facts and names around, you still get an article?
by Peter Grose
Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 (1967)-- Soviet officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in Sudan's presidential election despite a Islamic terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Islamic.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in Sudan. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Khartoum Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta."
Click to expand...
Yep, adlib is fun, but isn't much in the way of evidence for a point.
 
the iraqi people did indeed show something when they came out to vote despite the serious threat of death. i think the same can be said of their daily lives in general.

heres an adlib:
How many shoppers in THIS country would be BRAVE enough to go the grocery store if there were a 90% chance that you could be killed for trying?
 
Destructo6,

It was you who brought up the context of analogy, not I. The analogy is yours - not mine.

It goes beyond analogy; it is a similar geo-political agenda, and the same m.o. at work using the same media propaganda - almost verbatum.
 
Analogy:
"Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar"
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

I contend that they are not dissimilar. They are one and the same in the context of discussion and my point. Your liar is in the WH. Like his father before him, and all their cronies.

And corralling the people of Iraq into the global plantation isn't perhaps the "help" they would want if they had a real choice. But then what are the people of just another client state to expect anyway.
 
I contend that they are not dissimilar. They are one and the same in the context of discussion and my point. Your liar is in the WH. Like his father before him, and all their cronies.
Click to expand...
Then you admit that the analogy is yours?
And corralling the people of Iraq into the global plantation isn't perhaps the "help" they would want if they had a real choice. But then what are the people of just another client state to expect anyway.
Click to expand...
So easy and idiotic to say. "They don't really want a say in their government, they want Saddam back," but it doesn't wash.
 
Destructo6,

You evidently do not know what an analogy is, or you did not read my post, or comprehend it. I stated that I do not see the two as dissimilar.

The average Iraqi person I am sure are like most other people in the world, and just want to be left alone. It is not a matter of "wanting Saddam back". This nonsense is bandied about in a fashion similar to those about the Bush administration, with the "well, would you rather have had Kerry??". The reason and logic basis for all these seems to be the idea that if two poisons are thrust in your face you must drink one of them, and can not have anything else.

And corralling the people of Iraq into the global plantation isn't perhaps the "help" they would want if they had a real choice. But then what are the people of just another client state to expect anyway.

So easy and idiotic to say. "They don't really want a say in their government, they want Saddam back," but it doesn't wash.
Click to expand...

Idiotic to juxtapose yours with mine; these two are not the same thing at all. But as to life under Saddam Hussein, I am sure a significant number of Iraqi people might well have preferred the stable and propsperous state of affairs to what has been allowed to transpire since he was removed - and the propect of being slaves on the Global Plantation in the future, their country just another client state.

A "say" in their government? Very amusing. Yes I am sure a few of them really believe they will no longer be a client state; maybe Christiane Amanpour can stick a GPN microphone under a few noses there on the street and ask them about this in front of the camera ;)
 
I am sure a significant number of Iraqi people might well have preferred the stable and propsperous state of affairs to what has been allowed to transpire since he was removed
Click to expand...
Yes, that group is known as "Baathists." Everyone else, less so.
You evidently do not know what an analogy is, or you did not read my post, or comprehend it. I stated that I do not see the two as dissimilar.
Click to expand...
You posted a portion of an article, then commented "nothing new under the sun", in a thread about Iraqi elections, implying the situations were analgous. Now, once and for all, how can you say that the analogy is not yours? I understand that being vague is your MO...
A "say" in their government? Very amusing. Yes I am sure a few of them really believe they will no longer be a client state;
Click to expand...
What's your proof to back this statement? Unless you have a crystal ball, you have nothing more than a bias, a seething hate of all things done by the US, which seems quite irrational.
 
The analogy was yours, you used the word - not me. I clearly stated that I do not see them as dissimilar. You do, I don't.

The rest will have to wait for the she-man herself to go and interview a carefully selec .. uh .. I mean random sample of people from all over Iraq in front of one of those Global Plantation News cameras ;)

A "seething hate of all things done by the US"? Spoken like a true liberal. It's not "the US" - it's your liberal cronies in the WH and their managers.

This transplanted idea that their geo-political agenda and building their global plantation is "conservative" or is anything inherently "American" is BS. So is the idea that anyone who does not support them sending our troops to die and spending our money to do so is somehow "unAmerican".
 
The analogy was yours, you used the word - not me. I clearly stated that I do not see them as dissimilar. You do, I don't.
Click to expand...
And according the definition that you posted, that fits. If not to imply an analogy, for what purpose did you post that portion of the article?
This transplanted idea that their geo-political agenda and building their global plantation is "conservative" or is anything inherently "American" is BS. So is the idea that anyone who does not support them sending our troops to die and spending our money to do so is somehow "unAmerican".
Click to expand...
Again, what, other than your propensity to blame America first, is the basis for your gloom and doom predictions for Iraq?

Is not "...all men are created equal..." an American ideal? "All men," of course, also applies to those not currently residing in the US.
 
The article is a stark illustration of the same old propaganda used in a geo-political agenda, the m.o. of which has varied little since WW2.

It is not "America" to blame in the literal sense; it is our leadership and their cronies whose loyalties lie elsewhere.

"All men are created equal" in our Declaration of Independence is an expression of what is part of our founding national ideology and culture. But we are still a nation, and our government jurisdiction ends at our borders.

In any case, attempting to apply such thing to our projected international doctrine by the current adminstration is the height of hypocracy; having given people like William J Clinton a free pass after the murder of thousands of Serbian soldiers and citizens, and things like their ongoing trade with one of the world's most murderous regimes in China.

You can not compartmentalize such things and attempt to take such a moral view of the agenda in Iraq at the same time. Of course people like George Bush, just as Clinton, their cronies and others in their political upline have no consistant morally based ideology - and therefore they can. ;)
 
Looking from the outside

It's comforting to see that the old machine hasn't lost its edge. The Corporate Administration of America, otherwise known as the "Republican Party" has done a superb job of snowing every patriot in the USA. The agenda in Iraq is about having an army in the Middle East, not WMD's not "freedom" not "democracy" or any other high minded ideal. Government by the "Corporation" for the "Corporation" has been in place since David Lee Preston Bush (Dubyas Great Grandaddy) helped to finance Hitler and the Nazis into power for his profit. Did you have a relative die in WW2? Don't believe me. do a Google search on it. I don't want to upset any of you guys over there in the 'States but for the sake of a balanced world view, I have to bring these things up. What is happening now is the maturation of the "Carter Doctrine" from 1980. Put basically, it asserts that anyone who threatens the oil supply to the USA will be whacked. No matter if its a sovereign nation or a rogue state. Iraq hasn't got the most oil but it's close to a nation that has, Saudi Arabia. Your army and mine are in Iraq to be a ready force and create a drop zone for reinforcement. I am not proud of this, I voted so hard against the incumbent Government it hurt.
The sad thing for the Iraquis is that the more they resist, the more reason there is to increase the force already occupying their country. The pincer is completed by the Isralies who can come in from the West in case of heavy duty action. I hear the voices of you wonderful patriots over there in the US and I'm really sad for you. Dubya and his pack of corporate criminals have stolen your country from you and are in the process of dirtying its name in the history books. These people will be looked back on with hate and scorn and sadly, those of you who believe in a great and free America will be taken down with them. Every one of you is now subject to "The Patriot Act" which has effectively rescinded most of your first amendment rights (as I understand it) As far as I know, it was passed through your senate without any resistance. Politicians have abandoned us, lied to us and done so while lining their pockets with gold. Were they ever on our side?.
 
Benonymous said:
Government by the "Corporation" for the "Corporation" has been in place since David Lee Preston Bush (Dubyas Great Grandaddy) helped to finance Hitler and the Nazis into power for his profit.
Click to expand...
But why go back 3 generations when you need only go back one....to Ted Kennedy's father, Joe. He lobbied for the US to enter the war on Hitler's side. Failing that, he used his position as Ambassador to build the family fortune...off kickbacks from the import of Scotch to the US.

I'm certain, if we checked enough sources, we'd find that Joe, David Lee and J. Edgar shared a private love nest somewhere. They probably plotted World Domination over High Tea. :rolleyes:

History is rife with people taking the wrong side at the wrong time. Corporations,too (IBM and the Nazis). Sometimes it's with knowledge; sometimes of ignorance of the future. Regardless, it's History's job to judge.

I doubt the current Left's tendency to confuse Al Qaeda with "Muslim" will suffer a better fate in history.
Rich
 
Benon,

Maybe you missed on the news that with the latest troop rotation in Iraq that's going on right now, there are going to be roughly 10,000 FEWER American troops on the ground?

Since you seem to be British, don't forget that your own King and Queen (George and Mary) were very favorably inclined towards Hitler when he came to power and, Mary at least, was a great fan of Chamberlain's appeasement policies.

Story goes that after he returned from Munich with his "peace in our time" roll of toilet paper that she was so happy she gave him a quick snog.

I'll also remind you that your nation is rife with examples of people (Lords Beaverbrook and... crap, the newspaper magnet, Rothermere?) who enriched themselves by supporting German industry, and who adamantly opposed Winston Churchill's calls for stronger military forces because it would, in part, make their business connections with Germany harder and possibly less profitable.

Ultimately, though, what's your point of bringing up the President's grandfather''s ties to Nazi Germany?

Are you somehow saying that the sins of the grandfather are to be visited on a man who wasn't even born until after the Nazis had been removed from power?

If that's the case, what ancestor of yours committed what unsavory act/crime for which you are to be held accountable?
 
I'm amused that any serf in England has the brass to publicly castigate the US for anything after two centuries of raping the world's resources and murdering millions of its inhabitants just to keep the British Empire afloat. Arrogance, thy name is Brittania.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top