Bush's failed foreign policy

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:00 am

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP149392.htm

YAY!

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:40 am

Wonder if the ink's worn off her hand yet?

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 7:05 am

The first woman to vote in Afghanistan's direct presidential election.

Pretty important day.

BD

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 7:23 am

"But some analysts and NGO workers fear the turnout will be as low as six million, given restrictions on women's rights and worries about Taliban threats."

Only 6 mil.? Out of a total pop. of 28 mil., I'd say that 6 million votes is as good a turnout percentage wise as we would have here.
Given a choice, the last thing the Afgans want is a taliban style govt.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:07 pm

Unfortunately, Bush's challenger agrees with the Afghan war. In fact, he is so concerned about Afghanistan that he thinks we should have spent more time and energy there in comparison to Iraq. You can't sit here and tell me that if we had taken the resources we invested in Iraq and put them in Afghanistan we wouldn't have a better turnout.

Regardless of the political discussion, it's great news. Hopefully we can get more than 1/4 of the country. It's hardly democratic (imagine only 1/4 of the US voting) but it's a step in the right direction.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:47 pm

imagine only 1/4 of the US voting

Yeah, I can't even imagine living in a country where less then half voted............

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:46 pm

Birdseye wrote:(imagine only 1/4 of the US voting) but it's a step in the right direction.

Well half of america is old enough to vote, half of the voting age people are registered and half of those registered bother to vote...you do the math.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:57 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Well half of america is old enough to vote...

Your telling me half of America is under 18? That's hard to believe.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:03 pm

nope.. only 1/4 of registered voters will actually vote.

It kinda like basing unemployment by how many claims filed for unemployement benifits. ... like that's real accurate.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:04 pm

ok, so x percent of America is old enough to vote, half of them are registered, and half of them ever vote. That makes it 1/4 of x percent that are voting -- which is guaranteed to be less than 1/4 as long as x is less than 100. QED.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:35 pm

So all this math adds up to the Afgans, in their first election ever, have a greater percentage voting than America does. also to correct their percentage of voters:
Out of 28 mil. 45% are 14 years and younger. This leaves 55% of voting age. 55% X 28 mil = 15.5 mil possible voters. At the so called disappointing 6 mil. level that is still 38-39% of the Afgans voting. Not too shabby for a first time go around.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:56 pm

woodchip wrote:At the so called disappointing 6 mil. level that is still 38-39% of the Afgans voting. Not too shabby for a first time go around.

And they do it dodging bullets. We can't be bothered to miss re-runs of Jerry Springer to go to the polls

Arol · Post by **Arol** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:59 pm

woodchip wrote:So all this math adds up to the Afgans, in their first election ever, have a greater percentage voting than America does. ...Not too shabby for a first time go around.

What with kicking the Taleban out of power, and giving a downtrodden people a taste of true democracy, a better reason then most to have gone to war!

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 6:10 pm

I think the "liberation" of Afghanistan is a real feather in the cap of the U.S. They did as much right as could be reasonably expected of any political entity in the situation. There was a clear target, political allies were onside, local factions were strongly supported, risk was kept to a minimum and withdrawl was undertaken as soon as possible with allies taking up the load of policing the "peace".
Large sections of the country are still under the control of warlords and the cultivation of opium poppies has surged back into a major problem but, given the circumstances, the whole adventure has turned out much better than I expected.
I was critical of the attack in the begining, thinking that the U.S. was off base in it's targeting of Afghanis instead of Al Qaida but the results speak for themselves. I was wrong. And pleased to be proven so.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:33 am

afganistan doesn't have to deal with 1st world apathy.
give em macdonalds, springer, couches, and 1 decade.

(oh and israeli made fences)

Arol · Post by **Arol** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:29 pm

roid wrote:afganistan doesn't have to deal with 1st world apathy.
give em macdonalds, springer, couches, and 1 decade.
(oh and israeli made fences)

What would you rather they had?
A medieval theocratic terror regime back in power?

A Big Mac is better seeing war widows and their children starve to death, because the Taleban clergy wouldn't permit women to take jobs.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:45 pm

What would you rather they had?

i didn't mention that