To all you ignorant..., page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 23-1-2003 @ 05:59 AM by Lupe_101
"Saddam, an elected leader ? You're playing with the words Lupe. Sure, he has been elected, you right. BUT HE WAS ALONE ON THE RUN AND IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE " VOTE 4 ME OR DIE " "

Your missing the point.

I can't prove that Bush got in to power democratically, I can't prove he didn't intimodate opposition, or voters or rig the elections. I can't prove blair didn't either.

Similarly, although its pretty obvious saddam did get elected unfairly, I can't prove this.
no one can.

The problem here is that a democratic election hinges on one very flimsy suposition. that the election is actually democratic.

If one starts suggesting that one countrys democratic election was rigged then we must also accept that other democratic elections may also have been rigged, This isn't a question of not liking who got into power or which party you support its a question of supporting the democratic process.

If we stop supporting the democratic process in one country, then it undermines the process in all other countrys allowing any loosing party to claim they did so due to foul play on the part of the other party.

If, instead of going home with their tail between their legs grumbling that the person they voted for didn't get into power, the voters of the loosing opposition rose up and shouted foul play, we would have anarchy on our hands, especially in the US where the election was so close it could split the country in two.

There is more at stake here than Saddam and Iraq, If we don't show parity in our dealings with the democracys of other countrys no matter how obvious it is that the democracy is a sham, we open up a huge can of worms both at home and abroad.

BTW there was an opposition to saddam, his name escapes me, he pulled out just before the vote, however I do remember him saying that he didn't mind.

his view was that he risked his life by staying in however no matter how rigged the election, the fact that there was one had introduced the concept of democracy to the people of Iraq, and that over time, this would lead to a more democratic system.

I believe he was right.

Unfortunately we're about to # that up by bombing any chance they had of evolving that wa back to the stone age...again.


reply posted on 23-1-2003 @ 11:28 AM by ultra_phoenix
Originally posted by Lupe_101

1) Similarly, although its pretty obvious saddam did get elected unfairly, I can't prove this.
no one can.

2) If one starts suggesting that one countrys democratic election was rigged then we must also accept that other democratic elections may also have been rigged, This isn't a question of not liking who got into power or which party you support its a question of supporting the democratic process.

3) If we stop supporting the democratic process in one country, then it undermines the process in all other countrys allowing any loosing party to claim they did so due to foul play on the part of the other party.

4) If, instead of going home with their tail between their legs grumbling that the person they voted for didn't get into power, the voters of the loosing opposition rose up and shouted foul play, we would have anarchy on our hands, especially in the US where the election was so close it could split the country in two.

5) There is more at stake here than Saddam and Iraq, If we don't show parity in our dealings with the democracys of other countrys no matter how obvious it is that the democracy is a sham, we open up a huge can of worms both at home and abroad.

6) BTW there was an opposition to saddam, his name escapes me, he pulled out just before the vote, however I do remember him saying that he didn't mind.

his view was that he risked his life by staying in however no matter how rigged the election, the fact that there was one had introduced the concept of democracy to the people of Iraq, and that over time, this would lead to a more democratic system.



1) This
link will help you.

2) Lupe, I agree with you. But I think that Bush won legally and didn't cheat. You, you think that he didn't have to win, but Gore had to win. That's where we don't agree.

3) I know and I agree.

4) Yes, the republicans won and the democrat are not happy. And of course, they do everything to split the country in 2 sides. They are not fair losers. Did you ever see republicans who were acting ( when they were not winning ) like the democrat acted when Bush won and Gore losed ?

5) " democracys of other countrys ". Wich others country ? Irak ? Iran? Cuba ? NK ?

6) He was probably a Saddam pupet, and if not, Saddam is not stupid. The guy knew that Saddam would never do anything against him, because the worldwide was looking at these so-called elections. Saddam had to prove that he is/was a " democrat ".

It's strange. We want the same thing ( peace, no more wars, no more terrorisms, no more fanatism ), but we don't agree on how to reach these points.

I wonder why.

Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Dumbing down reality
  Posted 5 days ago with 103 member flags
The 800 Pound Gorilla Everyone Ignores
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags
The Illusion of Choice and Truth
  Posted 10 days ago with 52 member flags
A chronical of the BANKSTER WARS
  Posted 7 days ago with 42 member flags
Conspiracy Theory:The Lost Episode
  Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags
666, NWO, Aliens and You!
  Posted 13 days ago with 36 member flags