Frank > It certainly will make it a sham for those refusing to participate > when they are opposed to the US imposing a government process upon > them, not of their own choosing. If we reversed this process, and the > Iraqis were occupying the US, and put in place an Islamic oriented > government, complete with confirmation elections essentially against > large segments of the US population that would not go along, > then that > too would be a sham, particularly more so in our own eyes. If we can > objectively make this switch, then the sham nature of the Iraqi > elections take on greater meaning.
The above repeats the claim that the elections are a sham. > Again, as above, the evidence is simple: Forced occupation by a > foreign power, and a process that did not originate with the Iraqi > people themselves. The forced regime change, occupation, and forced > election procedures are all the evidence that is necessary. This is modifying the claim. The claim was that the election was a sham. Proving that the regime change was forced is irrelevant. Back to the dictionary. Sham: A trick that deludes Which of the things quoted above is part of a trick that deludes? The Iraq people know that the regime change was forced. They are far from ignorant or deluded about it. They know all about it. Regards Tim Crusade - The Path of Sorrows Gideon: The stake's a hundred, call or fold. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
