First Afghan Free Elections

With all of the opposition candidates agreed on boycotting the results, the elections indeed sound far from “perfect”.

:noway: Does this in some way put me in your corner Vannyel?

The opposition candidates were talking about boycotting the election results because the ink used to prevent repeat votes was washable. It was a mistake that was corrected. Most international organizations called the elections fairly democratic and fair. Most boycotters are since reversing their calls to accept the results. Be of good cheer. The results were very very successful. The naysayers in the media said they would not happen at all because of the threat of violence and how Bush and America were wrong etc etc. Now, that the elections have taken place, they cannot admit they were wrong and praise them they have to make washable ink the main headline in a country where elections have never taken place. Witness the different treatment the media gave Chavez’s show in Venezuela. Ah but Carter approved that one. Yeah right. See the difference?

Do you have links Fred? A request, not a challenge.

Well Fred, I would venture to say with a gun stuck in your back you might perform some ‘miraculous’ feats…let’s see what happens when the guns go home. :wink:
Democracy at gunpoint is not very impressive. Or very meaningful.

Afghan Poll Dispute Eases

[quote=“Vannyel”]Well Fred, I would venture to say with a gun stuck in your back you might perform some ‘miraculous’ feats…let’s see what happens when the guns go home. :wink:
Democracy at gunpoint is not very impressive. Or very meaningful.[/quote]

The people of Afghanistan were forced to vote at gunpoint? :unamused:

Thanks Tigerman for the link.

Also V:

Listen to yourself. We are blamed because people like you said Bush would never be able to hold elections. When do it’s like well what happens when you are not there to protect the people? Christ. Determine what it is the hell you people want and then admit when we have delivered. We have. We are in Iraq and I hope like hell the American people recognize this and deliver for Bush “the doer” in November. After all, these problems have been around since Carter… funny that huh? And we finally have someone who is doing something about solving them and instead of congratulating and praising us we get “well what about after your troops leave?” F*** you and I mean that.

[quote=“Vannyel”]
Well Fred, I would venture to say with a gun stuck in your back you might perform some ‘miraculous’ feats…let’s see what happens when the guns go home. :wink:
Democracy at gunpoint is not very impressive. Or very meaningful.[/quote]

… such talk is even me angry, and Tigerman and Fred would consider me a european left wing commie (pah, I am not!).

So many people pitied Afghanistan, being attacked by USA. But hell, they atttacked first. A first class maniac country slaughtering its own women, actively supporting Bin Laden on his attack on USA. This made them a war party against USA and thus USA only did, backed by almost everyone, a counterstrike to end this dangerous insanety.

And now a lot of countries helped, USA carried most of the burden by far, to try to build up a normal civil life there. No idea if it can be done and UN almost screwed the election by messing up damned ink, but the only chance is to try to give them democracy now and their own governement. This was done right.

Iraq is another theme, was discussed somewhere else, so Fred, Tigerman, do not say it is the same :s

should correct myself:

… not maniac country, but country with a maniac governement.

[quote=“bob_honest”]
But hell, they atttacked first. A first class maniac country slaughtering its own women, actively supporting Bin Laden on his attack on USA. [/quote]
Attacked first? WTF?
And in case you missed the newsflash, Bin Laden was not the leader of Afghanistan at any point in your revisionist story.

And yes, when the U.S. invades a sovereign nation, replaces it’s leaders with puppets and forces the nation to hold an election to make sure the puppets are recognized by the international community I call that an election at gun-point.

… right, and the pope is a protestant :smiley:

… by the way, my own country once was also an insane, but nevertheless sovereign country (Germany). I am glad someone “replaced” its leaders by force, otherwise I must march along mainstreet now praising some idiot in a brown dress.

I know Afghanistan was not the same, but “sovereign” does not mean they (the governement) have the right to exist forever, if they host warlords attacking others.

It was a NATO defense case, so if you do not share NATO’s opinion, it is your peace of cake. But certainly not mine.

Some right wing guys call me a leftie, lefties call me a revisionist, so “the middle is my turf”

:raspberry:

[quote=“Vannyel”][quote=“bob_honest”]
But hell, they atttacked first. A first class maniac country slaughtering its own women, actively supporting Bin Laden on his attack on USA. [/quote]
Attacked first? WTF?
And in case you missed the newsflash, Bin Laden was not the leader of Afghanistan at any point in your revisionist story.

And yes, when the U.S. invades a sovereign nation, replaces it’s leaders with puppets and forces the nation to hold an election to make sure the puppets are recognized by the international community I call that an election at gun-point.[/quote]
You really are an idiot, Vannyel.

Yes, bin Laden was tightly tied with the Taliban. He bought sanctuary for al Qaeda in Afghanistan by paying off the Talib leaders, and he married one of Mullah Omar’s daughters. Oh yeah, since you’re probably incapable of understanding what that means, Mullah Omar was one of the official heads of what the Taliban considered their ruling council, i.e., their “government”.

Was bin Laden the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan? Nope. Was bin Laden the single most significant power in Afghanistan in 2001? Yep.

If you can’t understand and acknowledge that, then you’re hopeless. Go live there and report back. But do check out the warlord-controlled sections – with any luck they’ll catch you and stone you to death.

[quote=“bob_honest”]… right, and the pope is a protestant :smiley:

… by the way, my own country once was also an insane, but nevertheless sovereign country (Germany). I am glad someone “replaced” its leaders by force, otherwise I must march along mainstreet now praising some idiot in a brown dress.

[quote]
There was this little thing called a declaration of war involved BEFORE someone ‘replaced’ its leaders by force, wasn’t there?
Regardless of all the arguments there is NEVER justification for a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation. Until recently this was normally referred to as an act of war or an illegal invasion.

[quote=“Vannyel”]
Regardless of all the arguments there is NEVER justification for a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation. [/quote]

Kind of sums up your debating style. Doesn’t matter how good or logical or right the other arguments are, you can just ignore them because you are, well, Vannyel, and if people don’t accept that as absolute proof of the perfectness of the positions you take then they must be dumb.

PS why do some many people hold the ‘sovereign nation’ concept in such high regard? It’s a human contruct and like most human contsructs it has flaws. And what defines a geographic area as a ‘sovereign nation’? Come on now, we all yap about the legitimacy of certain invasions of ‘sovereign nations’ so define why those nations should be legitimately called sovereign.

[quote=“butcher boy”][quote=“Vannyel”]
Regardless of all the arguments there is NEVER justification for a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation. [/quote]

Kind of sums up your debating style. Doesn’t matter how good or logical or right the other arguments are, you can just ignore them because you are, well, Vannyel, and if people don’t accept that as absolute proof of the perfectness of the positions you take then they must be dumb.

PS why do some many people hold the ‘sovereign nation’ concept in such high regard? It’s a human contruct and like most human contsructs it has flaws. And what defines a geographic area as a ‘sovereign nation’? Come on now, we all yap about the legitimacy of certain invasions of ‘sovereign nations’ so define why those nations should be legitimately called sovereign.[/quote]
Sorry I never said my position on any issue was perfect.
There are no ‘good or logical or right’ arguments for invading another country without provocation or a declaration of war. Why is this so hard to understand?
Why is ‘sovereign’ a hard thing to understand, too? The dictionary definition seems to work just fine…

[quote]sov

Care do define provocation? You could have an oil tanker drive through your argument with out even scratching the sides, if this argument is meant to condemn the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan.

[quote]Why is ‘sovereign’ a hard thing to understand, too? The dictionary definition seems to work just fine…

[quote]sov

Vannyel:

Yes, I have heard that argument before. All about declarations of war and sovereignty but the simple fact is that there is no such utopia existing presently on the earth nor has there. It is a cute perfection model that is used to berate the US but I can give you dozens of examples of how it has been routinely flouted by almost every major nation in the past 50 years.

As to Iraq, you are forgetting that Saddam was treatybound to prove he had disarmed. We now know that he could not rearm but that he had every intention of doing so. Ergo you are criticizing us for arresting a murderer before he actually murdered someone. WTF?

Once everyone including the UN (17 times no less) called on Saddam to comply, they too recognized that he was breaking the terms of the ceasefire. Er once a ceasefire is broken that means the war is not over. Ergo, rather than going to the UN for permission to invade, unwise given the bribery that coopted the leaders of France, Russia, China and the UN, we should have just said the ceasefire is over and the war continues. Let’s just call the whole thing Gulf I and force all the original signatories to defend their actions of not joining. See, we can play the same kind of sophistry games if you want to go down this road.

Fuggetabout it. Iraq is better off and no Michael Moore or Chomsky will convince anyone with a brain that the opposite is true, nebulous concepts of international law and sovereignty be damned.

This is hilarious. You do realize the only difference between a murderer and someone who isn’t a murderer is a dead body right? Every person, given the right motivation, etc. could become a murderer. :wink:
So yes, I am criticizing you for arresting a criminal before the crime has been committed (commonly referred to as innocent in the U.S. legal system, I think).

[quote=“Vannyel”][quote=“fred smith”]
As to Iraq, you are forgetting that Saddam was treatybound to prove he had disarmed. We now know that he could not rearm but that he had every intention of doing so. Ergo you are criticizing us for arresting a murderer before he actually murdered someone. WTF?
[/quote]
This is hilarious. You do realize the only difference between a murderer and someone who isn’t a murderer is a dead body right? Every person, given the right motivation, etc. could become a murderer. :wink:
So yes, I am criticizing you for arresting a criminal before the crime has been committed (commonly referred to as innocent in the U.S. legal system, I think).[/quote]
Saddam had already murdered quite a few people, both personally and through proxies. Or do you think that his death camps were a culturally-acceptable practice?

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … /afghan_dc

[quote]With counting due to begin Wednesday, several rivals of President Hamid Karzai have abandoned their boycott of the landmark poll over what they said were fraud and irregularities. Another, a powerful general, was in Kabul for talks over his position.

President Hamid Karzai’s chief rival, Yunus Qanuni, said on Monday he and several other candidates had decided to withdraw the call to boycott Saturday’s landmark election issued after suspicions emerged of illegal multiple voting. “We want unity in this election, not a boycott,” Qanuni told reporters. “The people want it and we appreciate their feelings,” said the ethnic Tajik commander, a hero of the resistance to Soviet occupation and the hardline Taliban regime.[/quote]
Oops. I guess that means the election wasn’t a debacle after all. It appears to be the will of the people.

Does this mean that Vannyel is going to issue a statement of apology and retraction, or is he going to continue to insist that the Taliban (who had nothing whatsoever to do with Osama bin Laden, no sirree!) are the only rightful rulers of Afghanistan?