Prove that the US funded rapists and terrorists and that this was the stated aim of the US funding.
As to the statistics on Nicaragua, you keep saying that the sites are flawed and that the information is incorrect but you have given me nothing to prove that they are. When you post something that shows that those statistics are wrong, then I will believe you. Until then, I think you are just talking out of your ass.
Of course the US situation in Iraq is “perilous”. Its a war. Wars are usually “perilous”.
The elections will be held soon and it is beginning to look as though even the Sunnis will vote in higher numbers than originally expected. It is vital that the Iraqis embrace this election and exercize their democratic rights.
The fact that the terrorists are so desperate to prevent the election is proof that we are doing the right thing in Iraq.
I don’t see how the US is “turning its back” on the Iraqi people.
So much for it being the big cakewalk full of rose petals spread for the U.S. “liberators”, as described by the neoconmen. The problem is that the U.S. situation is unnecessarily perilous through the utter mismanagement of the war. If you think of the U.S. military as being akin to a championship team of any sort, a finely tuned machine of might as it were, then why on earth did we handicap ourselves so much.
It’s a bit like that Bill Cosby bit in which he jokes about the results of coin tosses in football games and applies them to the American Revolutional War:
[quote]Now I was thinking that perhaps what would happen–suppose way back in history, if you had a referee before every war, and the guy called the toss? Let’s go to the Revolutionary War. OK.
Captain Harbords of the British, this is Captain Soberds of the settlers. Captain Soberds of the settlers, this is Captain Harbords of the British. Call the toss there, British. British called head. It’s tails. You lose the toss, British. The settlers win. What will you do, settlers?
All right. The settlers say that during the war they will wear any color clothes that they want to, shoot from behind the rocks, the trees and everywhere. Says that your team must wear red and march in a straight line. [/quote]
And if they don’t embrace the election, are we going to put 'em all in Abu Ghraib again? If they vote in a Shi’ite slate that pushes for an Islamic theocracy are we going to nullify the election?
Well, the fact that they don’t eat with their shit-encrusted left hands doesn’t mean we should start – the fact that the terrorists are in favor of clean water doesn’t mean we ought to drink from ditches. I don’t need any bogus reverse-psychology headgames.
If we use the “Salvador Option” on these people as apparently is currently being discussed, I feel that would be pretty un-reflective of my American values. Using death squads on anybody isn’t merely “turning our back”, it’s also taking a great big shit on them as well.
Should we have just nuked them?
I doubt it. What do you think will happen?
Didn’t you argue that Saddam and the Baathists could never would never cooperate with the terrorists?
If “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts, we could have a party.
So far, I’ve been lukewarm to cold on our strange little deal in Iraq, but you guys on the left are gonna fool around and get me to believe we’re making the right moves. 
Nicaragua:
[quote]The Associated Press
Updated: 1:15 p.m. ET Nov. 8, 2004
MANAGUA, Nicaragua - Nicaragua
Getting back to how Bush is doing, it’s interesting to look into what was being written nearly 30 years ago about voter turnout. Replace a few names, and it could have been printed this week…
[quote]U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 (1967)-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong 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 Vietcong.
…A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. 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 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.[/quote]
You can also find a full-text version at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/31/2335/87390[/quote]
A dulling of the senses?
Earlier in this very thread, mofangongren asked the following:
Well, the election seems to have been successful even beyond our best hopes. And it appears to have been embraced by the Iraqis, even with the threat of death over their heads.
Now mofangongren wants to suggest that the election, even if embraced by the Iraqis, really wasn’t a success after all.
[quote=“mofangongren”]Getting back to how Bush is doing, it’s interesting to look into what was being written nearly 30 years ago about voter turnout. Replace a few names, and it could have been printed this week…
[/quote]
Completely irrelevant.
That’s spelled “irreverant”.
Operative word here is “seems”. Of course, given the Bush administration track record on predictions (versus my own humble swamiesque skills), it would appear that pretty much whatever a GOPster says “seems” is going on is usually dead wrong. One might say that it seemed the Iraqis had WMDs, but they would be dead wrong. One could offer that it seemed we were offering the Iraqis freedom, until we started stripping, beating and sexually molesting them. One could also say that it seems to be successful beyond our best hopes…
Those Vietnamese sure seemed to embrace their election back in 1967, as well. I guess those who don’t care about history don’t learn from it.
Time will tell… but smart money ain’t on the Bushies to predict the right outcome on anything. I’m waiting for Bush to speak out on his Super Bowl picks so I know who’ll lose. [/i]
No mofa…in your case its still irrelevant.
[quote=“mofangongren”]Those Vietnamese sure seemed to embrace their election back in 1967, as well. I guess those who don’t care about history don’t learn from it.
[/quote]
gee maybe the fullscale invasion they were under was the reason that didn’t work out in the end. i know i read that in a history book somewhere. i guess those who don’t care about history will make the most half-baked comparisons imaginable.
gee maybe the fullscale invasion they were under was the reason that didn’t work out in the end. I know I read that in a history book somewhere. I guess those who don’t care about history will make the most half-baked comparisons imaginable.[/quote]
I guess those who don’t know about history or when lunar new years start will forget that the Tet Offensive (the closest thing to a “full scale invasion” right around then) did not happen until 1968.
Don’t worry, most people mess that up when they rely upon the horoscope placemats in Chinese restaurants for their knowledge of Asian culture. How’s the “egg-foo-young” and “chow main” where you’re at?
The elections in South Viet Nam in 1967 were a well-meaning concoction of the U.S. with little indigenous support and narrow choices hardly representative of Vietnamese society.
The elections in Iraq on Sunday on the other hand were a real, indigenous effort on the part of the Iraqi people to become a democratic society for the first time. They were the work of Ayatullah Sistani and not the Bush Administration but without the eventual full-scale midwifery of the U.S. government and military they never would have happened.
Other than Saddam’s ouster, they’re the best, most hopeful thing that’s happened in Iraq so far.
I have hopes for Iraq as well, but I’m not swallowing hook, line and sinker that this is a “magic pill” for the Iraqis. Based on the Bush administration track record on Iraq, I frankly trust their predictions and pronouncements of success about as far as I can throw Rush Limbaugh.
gee maybe the fullscale invasion they were under was the reason that didn’t work out in the end. I know I read that in a history book somewhere. I guess those who don’t care about history will make the most half-baked comparisons imaginable.[/quote]
I guess those who don’t know about history or when lunar new years start will forget that the Tet Offensive (the closest thing to a “full scale invasion” right around then) did not happen until 1968.
[/quote]
i think what tempo was trying to say is that the full scale invasion and takeover of their country by the communist north might have something to do with democracy never taking off after that election.
so what does this have to do with iraq besides the fact that elections happened in both locations?
i love it when pretentious white folk lecture other white folk about asian culture.
Well, I don’t love it when people invade countries full of their pretentions about why they did it.
WMDs? Unmitigated horseshit and a pack of lies from day one through the present.
Connections to terror? 
Liberation of Iraqis? 1) Abu Ghraib under new management; 2) the “Salvadorian Option”…
But as long as we’re on the subject of history, let’s administer a quick little quiz, to check up on historical wackiness espoused by neoconmen thus far:
The British experience in Iraq 80+ years ago was:
a) an unmitigated failure
b) a cautionary lesson
The “golden age” of Iraq happened
a) once the occupying Brits buggered off
b) long after the occupying Brits buggered off
the US entered World War II because of
a) our steely resolve to stand up for justice
b) because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany almost immediately declared war on us, using U-boats to sink nearly everything that moved on our East Coast
c) because Roosevelt was trying to distract Americans from his cozy deals with Halliburton
the US experience in Vietnam parallels that of Iraq in that (choose all that apply)
a) we rotated troops through in short stints
b) both were insurgency wars that top officials have admitted they thought we were losing
c) they both split the American public opinion
d) were conducted with complete disregard for the principles enunciated in the “Powell Doctrine”
e) they were widely considered endless quagmires
f) both feature U.S. puppet presidents
g) in both wars the “local” troops were worthless
the Latin phrase “Oderint dum metuant” is most closely linked (choose all that apply) to:
a) Gaius Caligula, possibly the nuttiest Roman emperor of the whole lead-eating, inbred bunch
b) neocons inspired by the translation: “Let them hate as long as they fear us” to follow in the steps of the nuttiest Roman emperor of the whole, lead-eating, inbred bunch.
c) protocons inspired by the translation: "M
i ask you what the similarities are between the two elections and you babble off a list of things that have nothing to do with the elections. mofan running off on a tangent and avoiding the question??? no, it can’t be!
mofan, you are posting on a board about taiwan where most of the other posters live or have lived in taiwan. knowing when chinese new years happens doesn’t really earn you any super special brownie points.
Yeah, I also thought it was pretty goofy that somebody posting on forumosa would think that lunar new years might happen in September. I don’t expect any special brownie points, but I might expect not to have to accept that the 1968 Tet Offensive was going on in the midst of the 1967 elections.
Of course, if that’s what passes for fact-gathering among the Bush supporters, then I’m not terribly surprised. Hence, I provided the helpful quiz. Most questions relate to historical whoppers presented on forumosa’s IP forum by our resident neoconmen. My sense is that if we don’t know history then we’re doomed to repeat it.