Michael Moore looses again!

[STING2]

Mr. Moore said it could not be done, just like he claimed he would send Bush back to Texas, but today all over Iraq, millions of people went to the polls to vote! Thanks to the Bush administration which made the decision to remove Saddam, and all the coalition military and civilian personal including Iraqi's that have worked so hard the past 18 months to make this day possible, 60% of registered Iraqi's have voted today in Iraq's first true democratic elections in modern times.

Congradulations to all who worked so hard to make this day possible despite all the criticism and attacks from all sides about the effort or who attempted, in some way, to remove the forces that made this day possible.

 

[trevster2k]

Moore did not lose anything. Opinions on what is going on in our world are not about winning or losing. Besides, the Bush adminstration has been wrong about many many things as well, just as Moore and many other pundits were wrong that this election would not take place. Criticism against an administration or plans is not a wish for failure but for alternative approaches which could lead to a better solution.
Although there are some who wish for failure but not many.

This election may have gotten a large turnout but it is a farce. It is just another ruse to justify the Iraq war. An election where no one knows the candidates, requires almost martial law to implement, no campaigning and voting in only parts of the country is far from a true democracy. The recent Ukraine elections was an example of true democracy at work where the people brought change. The problems over there are far from over and if anything this may lead to further strife in the country. I hope that it leads to peace, I hope it unites the country and people stop dying but I really doubt it.. I hope I "lose" too.

 

[drhark]

A baby's first step is not a farce. It's just that- a first step. And Mr. Moore does lose when his pessimistic belief system suffers a blow such as this.

 

[speedracer]

Michael Moore has in the past compared the insurgency to the Minutemen.

I think he lost, big time.

 

[melon]

There seems to be separate standards for conservatives and liberals. Conservatives can be proven wrong dozens of times over (e.g., no WMDs were actually found), but if liberals are wrong once? Boy, we never heard the end of it.

Michael Moore probably did have a right to be pessimistic. The Bush Administration does not have a reputation for being very forthright or truthful. For the sake of the Iraqi people, I'm glad he was wrong.

Do note, though, that observers worry about the Sunni Muslim turnout. It was lower than expected, due to boycott calls and violence, etc. Sunni Muslims also form the largest block of resistance, so if they feel even more isolated, expect them to lash out even more.

The election is only the first step.

Melon

 

[STING2]

Moore did not lose anything. Opinions on what is going on in our world are not about winning or losing. Besides, the Bush adminstration has been wrong about many many things as well, just as Moore and many other pundits were wrong that this election would not take place. Criticism against an administration or plans is not a wish for failure but for alternative approaches which could lead to a better solution.
Although there are some who wish for failure but not many.

This election may have gotten a large turnout but it is a farce. It is just another ruse to justify the Iraq war. An election where no one knows the candidates, requires almost martial law to implement, no campaigning and voting in only parts of the country is far from a true democracy. The recent Ukraine elections was an example of true democracy at work where the people brought change. The problems over there are far from over and if anything this may lead to further strife in the country. I hope that it leads to peace, I hope it unites the country and people stop dying but I really doubt it.. I hope I "lose" too.

Michael Moore made a movie with the purpose of defeating Bush in the November election and getting US troops withdrawn from Iraq which would have prevented the Iraqi election which took place on Sunday from happening. His attempts at seeing both efforts stopped have failed. So yes, Michael Moore has indeed been defeated for the second time.

Michael Moore's only solution for Iraq was to withdraw American forces. He had no solution for what to do about Saddam before the war, just blind opposition to war period. His criticism has nothing to do with finding an alternative solution to the problem, its simply a poor attempt to bash and discredit people that have different political views than he does.


Its false the Iraqi's don't know any of the candidates and that there has been no campaigning at all. I have Marine friends who just returned to the USA after a full tour of duty there over the past 8 months. They were in the Sunni area's and they did an excellant job at setting up the first free election in Iraq in over 50 years despite threats of terrorism. This was the area of the country where you claim there was no voting which is simply BS. Its true that voting in the Sunni area's was light, but overall, more Iraqi's voted in this election then in any American election of the past 50 years percentage wise.

The people in the Ukraine did not go to the polls under the threat of Rocket and Bomb attacks, the Iraqi's did and many of them brought their childern with them. In light of that, this is a far more profound statement of support for true democracy than the election held in the Ukraine!

The problems in Iraq are far from over, but that does not mean the election is a "farce" or that everything is doomed. Most of Iraq's 18 provinces are peaceful and have less violence than your average American city. It continues to be the four Sunni provinces where nearly all the problems from the terrorist continue to be. Fighting a terrorist insugency and doing nation building at the same time, takes time and patience.

The Iraq war was justified and long overdue because of Saddam's refusal to Verifiably disarm of all WMD and his refusal to comply with the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire Agreement and 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations. Saddam during his reign had invaded and attacked four different countries, threatened the planets energy supply with siezure and sabotage, murdered over 1.7 million people, and used WMD more times than any leader in history. His constant violations of the terms he agreed to comply with, his black market wealth which had grown to 4 Billion dollars a year as well as his past behavior and failure to comply with the most serious UN resolutions, made his removal a necessity.

With his removal, the Persian Gulf Region is far more secure now than it has been in decades, and now the Iraqi people are forming a democracy! Sunday was huge step and huge victory for everyone that has tried to bring this day about. Sure some people will always be cynical no matter what the circumstance are, but Sunday was a clear victory of Democracy and 8 million did not let a bunch of terrorist or cynics tell them otherwise.

 

[speedracer]

Do note, though, that observers worry about the Sunni Muslim turnout. It was lower than expected, due to boycott calls and violence, etc. Sunni Muslims also form the largest block of resistance, so if they feel even more isolated, expect them to lash out even more.

Boycott calls? So they boycott the vote, and as a result they become even more marginalized than they would otherwise have been. Whose fault is that? (It is my hope that the new Iraqi government can find a way to protect their interests, of course.)

Threats of violence? Shia and Kurds had the same problems.

The election is only the first step.

Agreed, but it is a huge step.

 

[melon]

Boycott calls? So they boycott the vote, and as a result they become even more marginalized than they would otherwise have been. Whose fault is that? (It is my hope that the new Iraqi government can find a way to protect their interests, of course.)

I know. I know. I really wish they would have realized how self-defeating that was to boycott it.

Threats of violence? Shia and Kurds had the same problems.

I think it's a bit different, though, when you hear reports of how unstable and violent the Sunni regions are.

Agreed, but it is a huge step.

It is. And a positive one. I just hope that the new government is aware that this is not just a mere "election," and nor is it as simple as finding an elected successor to Saddam Hussein. We're talking a hegemony shift, from the Sunnis to the Shi'ites. Going from feeling like a majority to being a vulnerable "minority" may not be handled well by the Sunnis, if not done gracefully. After all, even here in America, the Religious Right is certainly not in a mood to be conciliatory, after feeling that they're "in power."

Both in Iraq and the U.S. likewise, it is going to be very important to protect the rights of the "minority" from the potential for the tyranny of the majority.

Melon

 

[Rono]

everyone who enjoy that someone is a looser is one itself,... Sting,..you are the best.


i hope you will feel the winner because that would be the best for the Iraqi people,.....

 

[Zoomerang96]

check mate for rono.

sting

 

[joyfulgirl]

60% of registered Iraqi's have voted today in Iraq's first true democratic elections in modern times.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0207-26.htm

Published on Monday, February 7, 2005 by the Guardian/UK

Out With the Old, In With the New: The Iraqi Elections Were Designed Not to Preserve the Unity of Iraq but to Re-Establish the Unity of the West
by Tariq Ali

...
The 2004 Afghan elections, even according to some pro-US commentators, were a farce, and the much vaunted 73% turnout was a fraud. In Iraq, the western media were celebrating a 60% turnout within minutes of the polls closing, despite the fact that Iraq lacks a complete register of voters, let alone a network of computerized polling stations. The official figure, when it comes, is likely to be revised downwards (according to Debka, a pro-US Israeli website, turnout was closer to 40%).

The "high" turnout was widely interpreted as a rejection of the Iraqi resistance. But was it? Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's many followers voted to please him, but if he is unable to deliver peace and an end to the occupation, they too might defect.

The only force in Iraq the occupiers can rely on are the Kurdish tribes. The Kurdish 36th command battalion fought alongside the US in Falluja, but the tribal chiefs want some form of independence, and some oil. If Turkey, loyal Nato ally and EU aspirant, vetoes any such possibility, then the Kurds too might accept money from elsewhere. The battle for Iraq is far from over. It has merely entered a new stage.

Despite strong disagreements on boycotting the elections, the majority of Iraqis will not willingly hand over their oil or their country to the west. Politicians who try to force this through will lose all support and become totally dependent on the foreign armies in their country.
...
The triumphalist chorus of the western media reflects a single fact: the Iraqi elections were designed not so much to preserve the unity of Iraq but to re-establish the unity of the west. After Bush's re-election the French and Germans were looking for a bridge back to Washington. Will their citizens accept the propaganda that sees the illegitimate election (the Carter Center, which monitors elections worldwide, refused to send observers) as justifying the occupation?

 

[joyfulgirl]

from a talk by Noam Chomsky that I attended a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0203-22.htm

Published on Thursday, February 3, 2005 by the International Relations Center

The Future of Iraq and U.S. Occupation
by Noam Chomsky

Let’s just imagine what the policies might be of an independent Iraq, independent, sovereign Iraq, let’s say more or less democratic. What are the policies likely to be?

Well there’s going to be a Shiite majority, so they’ll have some significant influence over policy. The first thing they’ll do is reestablish relations with Iran. Now they don’t particularly like Iran, but they don’t want to go to war with them so they’ll move toward what was happening already even under Saddam, that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with Iran.

That’s the last thing the United States wants. It has worked very hard to try to isolate Iran. The next thing that might happen is that a Shiite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happen to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare—a Shiite region which controls most of the world’s oil and is independent. Furthermore, it is very likely that an independent, sovereign Iraq would try to take its natural place as a leading state in the Arab world, maybe the leading state. And you know that’s something that goes back to biblical times.

What does that mean? Well it means rearming, first of all. They have to confront the regional enemy. Now the regional enemy, overpowering enemy, is Israel. They’re going to have to rearm to confront Israel—which means probably developing weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. So here’s the picture of what they must be dreaming about in Washington—and probably 10 Downing street in London—that here you might get a substantial Shiite majority rearming, developing weapons of mass destruction, to try to get rid of the U.S. outposts that are there to try to make sure that the U.S. controls most of the oil reserves of the world. Is Washington going to sit there and allow that? That’s kind of next to inconceivable.

What I’ve just read from the business press the last couple of days probably reflects the thinking in Washington and London: “Uh well, okay, we’ll let them have a government, but we’re not going to pay any attention to what they say.” In fact the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we’re keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow.

 

[deep]

sting, this is for you

 

[drhark]

That billboard is so bad. I love it although I don't know how productive it is to gloat.

 

[deep]

they put one on sunset blvd. in the heart of hollywood

i heard some guy on the street interviewed

he said he looked up and thought it was a joke

there we two birds on top of W's head - it looked like devil horns.






gloating, they are!

 

[BVS]

Oh the modest moral right...

 

[STING2]

check mate for rono.

sting

What are you trying to say?

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Michael Moore looses again!

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0207-26.htm

Published on Monday, February 7, 2005 by the Guardian/UK

Out With the Old, In With the New: The Iraqi Elections Were Designed Not to Preserve the Unity of Iraq but to Re-Establish the Unity of the West
by Tariq Ali

...
The 2004 Afghan elections, even according to some pro-US commentators, were a farce, and the much vaunted 73% turnout was a fraud. In Iraq, the western media were celebrating a 60% turnout within minutes of the polls closing, despite the fact that Iraq lacks a complete register of voters, let alone a network of computerized polling stations. The official figure, when it comes, is likely to be revised downwards (according to Debka, a pro-US Israeli website, turnout was closer to 40%).

The "high" turnout was widely interpreted as a rejection of the Iraqi resistance. But was it? Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's many followers voted to please him, but if he is unable to deliver peace and an end to the occupation, they too might defect.

The only force in Iraq the occupiers can rely on are the Kurdish tribes. The Kurdish 36th command battalion fought alongside the US in Falluja, but the tribal chiefs want some form of independence, and some oil. If Turkey, loyal Nato ally and EU aspirant, vetoes any such possibility, then the Kurds too might accept money from elsewhere. The battle for Iraq is far from over. It has merely entered a new stage.

Despite strong disagreements on boycotting the elections, the majority of Iraqis will not willingly hand over their oil or their country to the west. Politicians who try to force this through will lose all support and become totally dependent on the foreign armies in their country.
...
The triumphalist chorus of the western media reflects a single fact: the Iraqi elections were designed not so much to preserve the unity of Iraq but to re-establish the unity of the west. After Bush's re-election the French and Germans were looking for a bridge back to Washington. Will their citizens accept the propaganda that sees the illegitimate election (the Carter Center, which monitors elections worldwide, refused to send observers) as justifying the occupation?

More pathetic attempts to marginalize what 8 million people did in Iraq two weeks ago and what coalition troops including my best friend who just got back from Iraq, have accomplished.

Tariq Ali can join Michael Moore in the looser column. Iraq is going to succeed in becoming a strong democracy, so both should be prepared for more disappointment in the years to come.

 

[STING2]

from a talk by Noam Chomsky that I attended a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0203-22.htm

Published on Thursday, February 3, 2005 by the International Relations Center

The Future of Iraq and U.S. Occupation
by Noam Chomsky

Let’s just imagine what the policies might be of an independent Iraq, independent, sovereign Iraq, let’s say more or less democratic. What are the policies likely to be?

Well there’s going to be a Shiite majority, so they’ll have some significant influence over policy. The first thing they’ll do is reestablish relations with Iran. Now they don’t particularly like Iran, but they don’t want to go to war with them so they’ll move toward what was happening already even under Saddam, that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with Iran.

That’s the last thing the United States wants. It has worked very hard to try to isolate Iran. The next thing that might happen is that a Shiite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happen to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare—a Shiite region which controls most of the world’s oil and is independent. Furthermore, it is very likely that an independent, sovereign Iraq would try to take its natural place as a leading state in the Arab world, maybe the leading state. And you know that’s something that goes back to biblical times.

What does that mean? Well it means rearming, first of all. They have to confront the regional enemy. Now the regional enemy, overpowering enemy, is Israel. They’re going to have to rearm to confront Israel—which means probably developing weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. So here’s the picture of what they must be dreaming about in Washington—and probably 10 Downing street in London—that here you might get a substantial Shiite majority rearming, developing weapons of mass destruction, to try to get rid of the U.S. outposts that are there to try to make sure that the U.S. controls most of the oil reserves of the world. Is Washington going to sit there and allow that? That’s kind of next to inconceivable.

What I’ve just read from the business press the last couple of days probably reflects the thinking in Washington and London: “Uh well, okay, we’ll let them have a government, but we’re not going to pay any attention to what they say.” In fact the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we’re keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow.

Naom Chomsky, perhaps a greater looser than even Michael Moore.

Its interesting some of the extrapolations Chomsky makes with the Shia's. He forgets that most of the Iraqi's who fought and died against Iran in the 1980s, were Shia. He fails to recognize that Iraq has a culture and society of its own and Iraqi Shia does not = Iranian Shia. In addition, for any government to succeed in Iraq, even a Shia dominated one, its going to need the financial support and services of the United States as well as the United States military. The biggest Ally of any new Iraqi government is not Iran, or another middle eastern country, but the United States. For any Iraqi government to succeed, its going to be dependent upon the United States for years to come and the relationships that are formed over such time will not suddenly end once Iraq is less dependent on foreign aid. Both Germany and Japan still have US troops on their soil 60 years after the United States removed dicatorships there and started democratic development. Despite political disagreements with Germany lately, Germany, Japan and the United States are economically interdependent and still have very strong relationships.

Most Arab governments realize today that Israel is not an overpowering enemy. Only those that have opposition to Israel based on religion or historical points, view Israel as a threat. The threat to any government in Iraq is not from another country, but from the remainder of Saddam's regime which forms the main part of the terrorist insurgency.

 

[drhark]

St. Chomsky must derive pleasure from being so wrong so often

 

[God Part III]

You're making it sound like Moor didn't want Iraqis to vote.

Isn't the important thing that it this may finally get the US out of Iraq?

 

[BVS]

No, no, no the important part is to point fingers and call people losers.

 

[STING2]

You're making it sound like Moor didn't want Iraqis to vote.

Isn't the important thing that it this may finally get the US out of Iraq?

Michael Moore did not support the removal of Saddam from power, which was necessary in order for there to be democratic elections.

 

[STING2]

No, no, no the important part is to point fingers and call people losers.

At least thats what Michael Moore feels is important based on his work.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? ~ Michael Moore

enough said, he isn't a looser, he is a goulish entertainer.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

What the f is the matter with that guy?

 

[all_i_want]

frankly, i can not say fighting to kick out invaders out of your country is wrong. ijust cant blame a nation under occupation for fighting back. the problem arises from the methods they use. kidnappings, bombings of civilian targets etc.

but then, just to play the devil's advocate here, how far would YOU go if US was under occupation, say, by iraq ?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

If we were under a brutal dictatorship, fed into woodchippers, had to watch our wives being raped, and gassed by our own government, I'd be grateful for any country who is willing to end our oppression, and protect our lives. If the US was Iraq, and Iraq was the US, I would want their protection as long as we need it.

Glad to see that the Iraqi voters are optimistic about women's rights, ending rampant violence (TOP PRIORITY for Al-jaafari), and yes, even allowing US occupation as long as necessary.

 

[deep]

That billboard is so bad. I love it although I don't know how productive it is to gloat.

 

[drhark]

Sometimes it's devilish fun to be a divider