Some Aren't Thankful For Iraqi Freedom.

Transmission · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Aug 1 2004, 10:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Transmission @ Aug 1 2004, 05:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>if they're happy, they're the minority, they're not the common people, they're wrong, they don't represent the REAL iraqis..</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I don't understand this much. Try making sentences.

edit: typo </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
that's a perfectly good sentence lol

step 1: read
step 2: comprehend
step 3: post  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
It's far from a "perfectly good" sentence. Just humour me and reiterate in proper grammatical form rather than coming off with some joke. Also, how about you adress the rest of my post, instead of ignoring it? maybe you messed up on one of your steps. I suggest you try reading and comprehending again, and then move on to post. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

MedHead · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Aug 1 2004, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You can't be free when you have an occupying army in your country! Thats not free! For them to actually become free, we would have to completely leave Iraq. So stop saying Iraq is now free when it fact it ISN'T BECAUSE WE ARE OCCUPYING IT.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
So American soldiers are muzzling Iraqi citizens? Shooting innocent people in the streets? Paying terrorist to bomb buildings? Or are they there to protect the people? I'm thinking the latter.

If the soldiers left now, Bush would never hear the end of it.

Jim_has_Skillz · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 1 2004, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Aug 1 2004, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You can't be free when you have an occupying army in your country! Thats not free! For them to actually become free, we would have to completely leave Iraq. So stop saying Iraq is now free when it fact it ISN'T BECAUSE WE ARE OCCUPYING IT. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
So American soldiers are muzzling Iraqi citizens? Shooting innocent people in the streets? Paying terrorist to bomb buildings? Or are they there to protect the people? I'm thinking the latter.

If the soldiers left now, Bush would never hear the end of it.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
It doesn't matter, they still aren't free. They can have soldiers break into their homes to search for weapons or random people, etc. It seems a lot like what the British did with us before we broke off except we invaded Iraq for oil and now we are trying to cover our tracks by saying we are giving them freedom when they don't even have freedom.

To truly have freedom, we need to leave the country and your right, if we left the country it would revert straight back to what it was before. But its really inevitable because when we do leave the same thing is going to happen, just look at the Vietnam War.

Zig · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (transmission)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It's far from a "perfectly good" sentence. Just humour me and reiterate in proper grammatical form rather than coming off with some joke. Also, how about you adress the rest of my post, instead of ignoring it? maybe you messed up on one of your steps. I suggest you try reading and comprehending again, and then move on to post. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
*rolleyes*

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (transmission)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You said in your title that the iraqis are happy for freedom, suggesting that the majority are, while in fact, as has been shown, the vast majority consider it an occupation. If you stated this in a clearer way, there wouldn't "always be something."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Read: "iraqis are"

that phrase does not = "100% of iraqis, or >51% of iraqis, or the iraqis with beards, or the iraqis who are bald"

it only means "iraqis". there are "iraqis" out there who are happy about the progress in their nation.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Transmission)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>if they're happy, they're the minority, they're not the common people, they're wrong, they don't represent the REAL iraqis..</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I don't understand this much. Try making sentences.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

*sigh*

<b>if they[iraqis]'re happy, they[the happy iraqis]'re the minority, they[the happy iraqis]'re not the common people, they[the happy iraqis]'re wrong, they [the happy iraqis] don't represent the REAL iraqis..</b>

BloodySloth · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Aug 1 2004, 10:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It doesn't matter, they still aren't free. They can have soldiers break into their homes to search for weapons or random people, etc. It seems a lot like what the British did with us before we broke off except we invaded Iraq for oil and now we are trying to cover our tracks by saying we are giving them freedom when they don't even have freedom.

To truly have freedom, we need to leave the country and your right, if we left the country it would revert straight back to what it was before. But its really inevitable because when we do leave the same thing is going to happen, just look at the Vietnam War.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
You're complaining about a necessary evil, and by your post, it seems you KNOW it's a necessary evil already, so what are you trying to accomplish?

Vietnam was completely different, we didnt leave when the job was done. We pulled out and, to put it bluntly, gave up on the situation.

MedHead · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Aug 1 2004, 10:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> if we left the country it would revert straight back to what it was before.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Doesn't that describe the definition of "protection"? Iraqi citizens may not want any Americans in there, because they want to be free. But would they rather the alternative - terrorist regimes taking over? I'm thinking no. I'm sure every American soldier and many Iraqi people would like to have America out of Iraq, because both sides are excited to have Iraq take care of itself. But at the moment, that's not possible. Iraq just got a new government, have to give it time to fortify itself.

Necrosis · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I'm sure every American soldier and many Iraqi people would like to have America out of Iraq, because both sides are excited to have Iraq take care of itself.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Whining.

Hey, this is fun, you just quote someone and if they disagree, you call them a whiner!

Yet, strangely, my higher brain functions don't enjoy the same buzz, its almost as if I'm dumbing myself down.

Weren't those American soldiers setting dogs on prisoners and making them perform degrading acts? Oh, that was different because they were suspected terrorists. Well golly gosh, does that mean I can fly to the US, go through the new bottom probe checkpoint for concealed propaganda, find the nearest American and then set a dog on him for funding terrorist activities in Northern Ireland and supporting a goverment which harboured terrorist fugitives? I can do that, because he's a suspected terrorist!

And I don't need to worry about any other countries prosecuting me in the ICC, because I've such an ego that I believe my own Supreme Court of Necrosis to be superior to any other legal system IN THE WORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRLD.

And I have to lol myself blind at "protection", what happened to Afghanistan once the "US led coalition" got bored with it, eh?

Special_K · August 2004

thanks for posting propaganda!

MedHead · August 2004

Necrosis, if you're so thickheaded that you can't discern between whining and debating, I don't think I want to bother writing to you any longer. It's pointless.

Geminosity · August 2004

you know... the fact that when they counted the polls it showed the other guy should've won and that bush was the first president not to walk the last few feet to his inauguration because crowds were pelting the car might be an indication that the americans not only aren't too chuffed with their government but didn't really want him there in the first place ^^;

(yes I watched fareheit 9/11 so sue me =P )

BloodySloth · August 2004

No, Bush DID win, or he wouldnt be in office. We don't go by popular vote, we go by electoral vote. Bush won.

Geminosity · August 2004

I'm not hot on politics... care to educate me on the differences between the two? =o

Invader_Scoot · August 2004

If you're stupid enough to think that Bush isn't a good president look at it this way. What would Al Gore have done? Al Gore probably would've blown up his own buildings in his stupidity. GG smacktard liberals.

Geminosity · August 2004

Wouldn't know... I'm not american, nor political, nor liberal nor democrat. I'm just curious about the election, why a film says bush didn't win but became president anyways (whether the film is right or not, I've <b>never</b> heard an accusation like that before which is pretty damning) and why he was the only president to ever have their car pelted by angry crowds to the point where they couldn't do the traditional walk to their acceptance <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

im_lost · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Aug 2 2004, 02:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> No, Bush DID win, or he wouldnt be in office. We don't go by popular vote, we go by electoral vote. Bush won.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
It's not even that simple. As everyone that paid any attention (in America) knows, there was quite a bit of dispute over who won in Florida. The initial results showed a difference of only a few thousand votes, with quite a few votes from Democrat-heavy districts not being counted for one reason or another. Then there's the fact that George W. Bush's brother is the governor there. Then there's the fact that the Supreme Court was involved. While Bush did win technically, there were many things that happened in the process that were questionable.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Invader Scoot)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If you're stupid enough to think that Bush isn't a good president look at it this way. What would Al Gore have done? Al Gore probably would've blown up his own buildings in his stupidity. GG smacktard liberals.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It's possible the attacks would never have happened. Bush drastically changed the foreign policy in ways that Gore would not have done.

Zig · August 2004

it's possible that Archduke Franz Ferdinand might not have been assassinated, thus preventing the first World War, if he had forgotten to eat his ham sandwich on the previous friday.

Jim_has_Skillz · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 1 2004, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Aug 1 2004, 10:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> if we left the country it would revert straight back to what it was before. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Doesn't that describe the definition of "protection"? Iraqi citizens may not want any Americans in there, because they want to be free. But would they rather the alternative - terrorist regimes taking over? I'm thinking no. I'm sure every American soldier and many Iraqi people would like to have America out of Iraq, because both sides are excited to have Iraq take care of itself. But at the moment, that's not possible. Iraq just got a new government, have to give it time to fortify itself.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Read everything I said please, even though this is not the same the exact same situation as Vietnam, the same thing is going to happen. As long as we are in that country, the government will have protection. The Government, not the people. When we do leave the country, the people will put whatever government they want in replace of the current one. Everyone has to realize that more than 90% of the population over there hates us for basically destroying their country. We bombed a POPULATED area, and yes people will say that they were smart bombs, guess what, they were still bombs and errors occur. There have already been over 10,000 Iraqi deaths due to the Invasion. They are mad at us for invading their country and they should be mad, we should be civilized enough not to attack a sovereign nation so bluntly.

Forlorn · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Aug 1 2004, 07:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Why don't you just watch recent polls carried out in Iraq, Zig?
Take for example this googled <a href='http://www.thebatt.com/news/2004/05/26/News/U.Credibility.In.Iraq.Said.To.Be.hanging.By.A.Thread-683298.shtml' target='_blank'>site</a>, the article is 2 months old, so the poll was carried out even <i>before</i> bombings of weddings and whatnot.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>According to a new public opinion poll conducted for the U.S. authority in Baghdad, 88 percent of Iraqis say they regard the Americans as occupiers, and only 7 percent view them as liberators.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"It means the coalition forces are now seen as part of the problem, not the solution," al Dulame said. "America's credibility in Iraq is hanging by a thread of 7 percent."
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I guess the 7 percent are in the olympic team?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
nice site, like how it doesn't tell you how it came up with those pretty numbers

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It's possible the attacks would never have happened. Bush drastically changed the foreign policy in ways that Gore would not have done.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You mean like attacking the world trade centers, right? [/dark sarcasm]

Seriously, people just look for things to whine to america about. If america had invaded, and not a single person had died, you would have seen people complaining America was just exploiting the oil resources. Had america given the oil to a non-american company, then people would complain America ran over a dog or stepped on too many ants.

seriously, the things people complain about just tick me off.

Looking at the invasion from a realists standpoint, America just lead one of the world's most succeful invasions in terms of casulties (in terms of inflicting casulities on enemy troops, civialian casulties, and american casulties), and on top of that America could have gone so much further with controling the country but hasn't, preferring to let the country try and become a democratic nation.

You can critize how things are in Iraq are right now, but just realize you aren't being practical at all.

Necrosis · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Necrosis, if you're so thickheaded that you can't discern between whining and debating, I don't think I want to bother writing to you any longer. It's pointless.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Whining.

Hey, this is fun, you just quote someone and if they disagree, you call them a whiner!

Yet, strangely, my higher brain functions don't enjoy the same buzz, its almost as if I'm dumbing myself down.

I find it funny that we go from "you're whining" to "you're a poopoo head and I don't want to play no more". On a less repetitive note, why dodge my questions Medhead? Whats happening in Afghanistan right now? Is torturing prisoners freedom? Is it freedom if your enforcers answer to noone but themselves? Hmm?

Anyone who's been following Bush knows how shady the route to power has been, as well as the support of most of his government for an "example war" to demonstrate US superiority. Or does noone find it odd he changed from an isolationist policy as senator to an aggressive interventionist policy as President?

Forlorn · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Necrosis @ Aug 2 2004, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Necrosis, if you're so thickheaded that you can't discern between whining and debating, I don't think I want to bother writing to you any longer. It's pointless.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Whining.

Hey, this is fun, you just quote someone and if they disagree, you call them a whiner!

Yet, strangely, my higher brain functions don't enjoy the same buzz, its almost as if I'm dumbing myself down.

I find it funny that we go from "you're whining" to "you're a poopoo head and I don't want to play no more". On a less repetitive note, why dodge my questions Medhead? Whats happening in Afghanistan right now? Is torturing prisoners freedom? Is it freedom if your enforcers answer to noone but themselves? Hmm?

Anyone who's been following Bush knows how shady the route to power has been, as well as the support of most of his government for an "example war" to demonstrate US superiority. Or does noone find it odd he changed from an isolationist policy as senator to an aggressive interventionist policy as President?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
He said you were whining about an institution

Then you came back and said he was whining about your whining

I'm sorry but he is definately the correct one in this case

Zig · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Aug 2 2004, 04:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> it's possible that Archduke Franz Ferdinand might not have been assassinated, thus preventing the first World War, if he had forgotten to eat his ham sandwich on the previous friday.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
nobody likes my hilarious and satirical parallel? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' />

MedHead · August 2004

I'm rusty on World War I facts, sorry Zig.

Jim_has_Skillz · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Aug 2 2004, 04:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Aug 2 2004, 04:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> it's possible that Archduke Franz Ferdinand might not have been assassinated, thus preventing the first World War, if he had forgotten to eat his ham sandwich on the previous friday. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
nobody likes my hilarious and satirical parallel? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Wolfowitz was already planning to invade Iraq before 9/11. The funny thing about that was that Iraq had <i>no connections </i>with 9/11. But that didn't stop the Republicans from using it as a premise to attack Iraq. If 9/11 didn't happen, we probably would have waited maybe another year before Wolfowitz would have found something to use as a scapegoat to attack Iraq. It was inevitable that we were going to attack Iraq, it was just a matter of when, just like the situation with the Arch Duke started WWI. It still was going to happen, it was just a matter of when.

Necrosis · August 2004

Yeah, they only delayed Judgement Day, and movies never lie.

Forlorn, he said I was whining, then I said his whining was whining, then he called me a poopy head, and then I called him calling me a poopy head whining. Please keep track.

Now, back to putting a pencil up my nose.

<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>You can tell I honestly don't care, it's just fun to see him ignore any valid point I make, his only comeback being that dissenters are whiners and supporters are true patriot followers of The One Bush</span>

MedHead · August 2004

Necrosis, what <b>is</b> your point? Where are your sources? If you're just complaining for the sake of complaining, begone with you. If you want to intelligently discuss something, I'm game. But please, learn to debate.

Necrosis · August 2004

Medhead, yet again, whats happening in Afghanistan? Still no answer?

What about torture of prisoners in Iraq?

Who watches the watchers, if the US consistently claims that its legal system is better than any other, ever, and thus they refuse to accept ICC legislation?

Are you ever going to answer, or just keep repeating that:

A) I'm whining
B) You don't understand
C) I'm a poopy head, and you're going to throw the toys out of the pram now

Cmon man, the world wants answers.

SoulSkorpion · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Aug 2 2004, 11:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You can't be free when you have an occupying army in your country! Thats not free! For them to actually become free, we would have to completely leave Iraq. So stop saying Iraq is now free when it fact it ISN'T BECAUSE WE ARE OCCUPYING IT.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<i>Bull****</i>.

Under that rationale, American soldiers and police shouldn't exist in <i>America</i>, nor should any other countries be allowed to maintain order-keeping forces.

Freedom does <i>not</i> mean "I've got a right to do whatever I damn well like". Iraq is presently riddled with terrorist organisations intent on sabotaging the new democratic Iraqi state. If you're seriously suggesting that the presence of international forces in Iraq is a <i>greater threat</i> to the freedom of average Iraqi citizens than the terrorist elements, then you're sadly mistaken.

Furthermore, it would be far worse to pull out now, leaving Iraq to spiral into anarchy (from which, I assure you, democracy would <i>not</i> arise). The new government cannot maintain order by itself yet; the local security forces simply aren't yet strong enough. Not long ago, a carbomb exploded outside an Iraqi recruiting station, killing people waiting to sign on for the new Iraqi forces; not only are ordinary Iraqis willing to defend their new government, as evidenced by the fact that tens of people were waiting in line, but insurgent elements want to destroy the new government as well - <i>not just the "occupying" international forces</i>!

And another thing - Iraqi citizens may well hate the international forces. But I guaruntee you, they hate the new government far less. Besides, for the first time in decades, they have the right to say that they don't like the government, or that they don't like the presence of foreign troops. <i>That's</i> freedom.

Finally, as it says in my sig, due process is paramount, and I acknowledge that it <i>has</i> been violated. The US had no right to attack Iraq with no evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, or connection with the World Trade Center attack. It's a ****y world we live in where there is no due process for international intervention in toppling dictators and preventing population abuse, but that means the answer is to legitimately change the process, not to go invading wherever you like. Unless things are done by the rules, the rules hold no meaning. Unless the rules are changed in a manner according to the rules, the rules hold no meaning. The ends do <i>not</i> justify the means.

MedHead · August 2004

1. I don't know what's going on in Afghanistan. Have they been taken over by terrorist forces again? I haven't been paying attention to them.

2. The "torture" of prisoners? You mean the naked pictures? That's not exactly torture, heh. But, as for the improper treatment of Iraqi prisoners, there was a court martial about that. Are you saying it's still going on?

3. What does this have to do with Iraqi freedom?! I don't think America needs to ask permission of other countries to try criminals.

4. Intentionally left blank.

Forlorn · August 2004

The torture was really small in the scheme of things, blow out of proportion

Yes the troops screwed up but it's nothing uncommon in war, sorry USA isn't a perfect angel

What's happening in afganistan?

<a href='http://www.aopnews.com/today.html' target='_blank'>Not much, except, you know, the usual</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>In northern Afghan valley, voters register in their tens of thousands</span>
Associated Press
August 2, 2004

PANJSHIR VALLEY, Afghanistan (AFP) - Sitting in a tiny chamber in the shadow of grey Hindu Kush mountains, Yasamin, a female electoral worker, struggles to keep up with the number of voters coming to register for Afghanistan's first presidential elections.

The Panjshir valley, a stronghold of resistance against the fundamentalist Taliban regime, has produced one of the strongest registration turnouts in the country and is a bastion of support for President Hamid Karzai's chief rival in the presidential race and former anti-Taliban commander, Yunus Qanooni.

"People are very interested to register themselves. People are coming from very remote villages, sometimes even walking for four hours to get to the registration," said the 21-year-old election worker who earns 12 dollars a day.

The United Nations estimated that as of July 29, around 90 percent of the 9.8 million estimated eligible voters had registered.

Afghanistan's population figures -- and numbers of registered voters -- are notoriously hazy and based on projections from the 1970s because there has never been a reliable census in the country.

But even if figures are wide by as much as a million voters -- as UN officials admit is possible -- it is clear from the sharp climb in registrations in recent weeks that the vast majority of Afghans are enthusiastic about voting.

In the Panjshir 110,414 eligible voters had signed on to electoral rolls by July 28 -- more than double the 49,573 eligible voters the United Nations had estimated lived in the province.

The valley was the stronghold of the late resistance leader Ahmad Shah Masood and most residents now back Masood's former stalwart Qanooni.

"I'm going to vote for Qanooni or anyone Qanooni recommends me to vote for," said Abdul Aziz, a butcher from the Panjshir's main city of Bazarak.

Qanooni rose to prominence in the Northern Alliance which banded together with US-led forces to oust the Taliban in 2001 after Masood's assassination by Al-Qaeda.

The ethnic Tajik stepped down as Karzai's education minister in July to challenge him in the presidential race, claiming the backing of powerful warlord Marshal Mohammed Qasim Fahim and other senior government leaders.

Thousands of his fellow ethnic Tajiks -- who make up between 12 and 25 percent of the population -- are putting their weight behind him.

"We know Qanooni best so we will vote for him -- he is our leader overall," said Sayed Jan, a white-bearded farmer sipping green tea in a roadside tea shop in the Panjshir.

In the last week, whole villages have been turning up in trucks and buses to register for voting cards, according to Panjshiri electoral workers.

"I think decisions in the Panjshir are collectively taken by the community -- if the community wants to move in a certain direction people move in that direction," Charlie O'Malley, a United Nations election worker told AFP.

Qanooni, along with the head of Afghanistan's national army, Marshal Fahim, and Karzai's foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah, formed the core of the Northern Alliance, and Qanooni claims to have backing of other former anti-Soviet mujahedin backed by private armies.

"Fahim, Qanooni and Abdullah, they are our leaders, whoever they decide we will support in the elections, if it's Qanooni or Karzai or anyone else," said schoolteacher Gul Marjan in the rocky village of Jangalak.

The Panjshiri community's enthusiastic turnout is in contrast to many provinces in the Taliban strongholds of south and southeastern Afghanistan, which have been hit by attacks on election workers.

We had "no trouble at all. They have been very cooperative," O'Malley said of his nearly five-month experience registering people in the valley.

Five election workers have been murdered in other parts of Afghanistan, the latest last week in a bomb blast at a voter registration center in the southeastern Afghan province of Ghazni.

Voter turnout has been noticeably lower in the south, with most southern provinces showing turnouts of around 60 percent of estimated eligible voters and Zabul province boasting only 15 percent of eligible voters on its electoral rolls by July 22, according to UN data.

In the conservative, ethnically Pashtun south, Karzai's home region, voter numbers have also been hit by the reluctance of southern men to allow their women to register.

By contrast, in the northern provinces women have turned out in their tens of thousands to register.

Nearly 50 percent of registered voters in the Panjshir valley were female, said an official from the UN-Afghan run Joint Electoral Management Body.

"Like everybody else I came to get voter registration cards," said Najiba -- who only uses only one name -- a woman wearing the traditional all-enveloping burqa.

But her fellow villager Kamela was more explicit about her reason for coming. "My husband told me to register -- I'm going to vote for anyone he asks me to," she said.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Fresh Militant Attacks Reported in Afghanistan</span>

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

KABUL, 2 Aug (RFE/RL) -- Fresh militant attacks were reported today in Afghanistan, news agencies reported.

A spokesman for the governor of southern Helmand province (Haji Mohammad Wali) says gunmen late yesterday opened fire from a motorcycle on a vehicle being used for voter registration, killing one government soldier. The attackers escaped.

In southeastern Afghanistan, a military post on the border with Pakistan came under attack overnight. Four soldiers were wounded in the skirmish that took place about 60 kilometers south of the city of Khost.

Violence is on the rise as Afghanistan prepares for the October 9 presidential elections. The former ruling Taliban militia has dismissed the election process as a sham organized by the United States. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Afghan troops clash with Taliban</span>

By Kamal Sadat
August 2, 2004

KHOST, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Afghan forces backed by American soldiers and attack helicopters have clashed with around 50 suspected Taliban fighters near the Pakistani border on Monday, and the U.S. military said the militants suffered "heavy losses".

In one of the biggest recent battles between Afghan and allied U.S. forces and Islamic militants opposed to the government in Kabul, at least two Afghan soldiers and two suspected Taliban fighters were killed, a local commander said on Monday.

Separately, an Afghan soldier was killed on Sunday night when suspected Taliban militants opened fire from a motorcycle on a car being used for voter registration in the southern province of Helmand, officials said.

The fighting south of Khost, in the district of Gurbuz a few kilometres (miles) from the Pakistan border, started at 2 a.m. (2130 GMT on Sunday) and continued for several hours.

"A B-1 bomber, two A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft and four AH-1 Cobra helicopters provided air support," said U.S. Major Rick Peat in an emailed response to questions about the clash.

"The militants retreated in panic and were pursued by the attack aircraft," he said.

Afghan forces backed by A-10 "tank buster" aircraft clashed with around 50 militants again four to five hours later.

"Again, the militants retreated after incurring heavy losses," Peat said. "One Khost Provincial Force (soldier) died and three were wounded in this second engagement."

However, General Khialbaz Sherzai, commander of the Afghan army's 25th Division in Khost, told Reuters a total of two Afghan soldiers were killed and two wounded, while two Taliban militants were also killed and one captured.

He said the captured fighter appeared to be a foreigner, possibly of Arab extraction.

Sherzai said his forces saw dozens of wounded militants crossing into Pakistan, where members of Afghanistan's ousted Taliban as well as foreign militants with links to al Qaeda are said to be active.

Pakistan denies Afghan accusations that its territory is being used as a sanctuary by militants.

The drive-by shooting near Helmand's provincial capital of Lashkar Gah was the latest in a series of attacks on election workers in Afghanistan.

The two gunmen carrying AK-47s escaped on a motorcycle, said Haji Mohammad Wali, spokesman for the Helmand governor.

The ousted Taliban and their allies have vowed to disrupt elections in October and April. More than 900 people have been killed in the past year amid the mounting violence in Afghanistan.

The Taliban were overthrown by a U.S.-led war in 2001 after they failed to hand over al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the September 11 attacks that year. There are around 18,000 troops in the U.S.-led force in Afghanistan. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Who watches the watchers, if the US consistently claims that its legal system is better than any other, ever, and thus they refuse to accept ICC legislation?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
ICC legistlation? Americans are the only ones who need to govern themselves, thanks.

MedHead · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Aug 2 2004, 11:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Violence is on the rise as Afghanistan prepares for the October 9 presidential elections. The former ruling Taliban militia has dismissed the election process as a sham organized by the United States. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That part made me smile.

Thanks for the articles, Forlorn. I've been focused on Iraq, so I haven't paid much atttention to Afghanistan. <b>But that's what the US government wants me to do!!111</b>

Some Aren't Thankful For Iraqi Freedom.

Comments