I doubt it. Only Ds try to overturn elections where they don't like the
outcome. Count, recount and recount again until the numbers come out
right they say. <g>
Larry Miller
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Sutherland [mailto:gary At HarrowdenIT .DO.T co.uk]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 11:41 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] the Iraq election
I'm wondering what will happen if the Iraqis elect someone Bush doesn't
like or want elected. Will they declare it null and void and start
again? Will they just ignore the result? It'll be interesting to see
just how much democracy he's prepared to tolerate.
Cheers
Gary
Bill Arnold wrote:
>The whole thing is a sham, from soup to nuts.
>
>The unspoken part of it all is that gambit in the first place was for
>authority in the ME, with Iraq as the linchpin. There is no way that
the
>powers-that-be (the neocons who control the Pentagon and are pulling
>Bush's strings) are going to give up their entire gambit by allowing a
>non-puppet gov't to form that wants the 'occupier' to leave, and that's
>guaranteed because no puppet gov't in the occupied country can survive
>without the occupier.
>
>It's sort of like a business maneuver made famous by Sears & Roebuck,
>where the predator company builds up the victim company's business,
>dominates orders, and then threatens to pull out, which will collapse
>the victim company. Of course the victim company isn't going to tell
the
>predator to pull out, because that would ruin the victim company.
>
>But the offer was made, because it looks good in the press, but
everyone
>knows the victim isn't going anywhere.
>
>Didn't ANYBODY notice there were no names and no platforms?
>
>The real deal with Iraq is power and control in the ME. It has nothing
>to do with freedom and democracy in Iraq, which the string-pullers have
>absolutely no interest in - as evidenced by the mountain of people
>killed and the destruction of the country. It's all about power. It's
>been that way since day # 1, and all the BS in between isn't going to
>change that one bit.
>
>Before pooh-poohing me on this, think about this: if we really wanted
to
>spread freedom and democracy, we would first fix what's broken about it
>right here, and then spread it by showing off the wonders of it all.
>With modern communications, only available in the last decade or so,
>there is no way that people in other countries wouldn't see it and want
>something that great for themselves, and that would be enough to spark
>the changes needed. Sure, it would take time, but that's way better
then
>this charade. Today, we are so duped, we can't tell which way is up
>anymore.
>
>Oh, and there's the small matter of paying for all this. Even a simple
>accounting shows the gambit has cost a third of a TRILLION dollars SO
>FAR, undoubtedly much more once all related costs are factored in. The
>financial impact of this is going to reverberate here for a very long
>time. Soon we're going to hear about our "choices" on social security
>and other social programs, probably all of them. They will all be cut.
>Of course! The money's been siphoned off! How can we be so stupid as to
>not see the connection?
>
>
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2005 Larry Miller |
