I have this sinking suspicion Bush is going to win this year.

God I hope not.

Ugh... What's it take to emigrate to Cananda?

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.... :D

Of course, republicans would also like to see all the blacks, gays, jews, and other hippie liberals leave also. :D

Take off! To the great white north! Take off! It's a beauty way to go!

(props to Geddy hehe)

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out....
So you'd be a uniter not a divider, I guess? ...

WTH is taking Ohio so long?? Cuyahoga county was mentioned as being highly liberal, so that should help Kerry. Not sure whether Ohio will go to Bush or Kerry. Anyone care to take a guess?

Just another 24 electoral votes for Bush to lock up the election.

If Bush get's Ohio, Colorado seems to be his, and New Mexico Bush will be our next President. :moon:

WTH is taking Ohio so long?? Cuyahoga county was mentioned as being highly liberal, so that should help Kerry. Not sure whether Ohio will go to Bush or Kerry. Anyone care to take a guess?

Too close to call. There have been huge lines in ohio polling places.

Then there are the provisional ballots...which will bring a ton of lawsuits into play.

Cuyahoga county is highly liberal..and kerry was carrying it 64% last I looked.

But then you have Hamilton county around cinci which has been republican traditionally...but there are alot of urban precincts which aren't in yet.

Franklin county, while fairly urban and the home to Ohio State, is also home to alot of corporate headquarters...its almost fully reported, and just barely in Kerry's court.

Lucas county is always very tradionally Democratic due to the heavy union presence from the Jeep plant, rail yards, and docks. Its carrying Kerry by roughly 62% with most of the precincts in.

If Bush get's Ohio, Colorado seems to be his, and New Mexico Bush will be our next President. :moon:

Whoever gets Ohio will win. Right now Bush is in the lead by roughly 150k votes in Ohio.

I think I may move to Mexico if Bush wins.

I'm truly disgusted with Fox's coverage, I must say.

They hold back calling kerry states as long as possible...and they call Bush states before anyone else.

They just called Ohio for Bush...with Bush having less than 150k lead and 18% of the votes not yet in.

So if Bush gets Ohio and Kerry gets everything else he will lose by 1 vote... That wouldnt make much sense though because then 269 would be the winning number and there would be no possibility of a tie.

Aidon, Panamah (who I actually took off ignore for this thread, hehe), may I just say... :dance:

(Lord I've been waiting a long time to be able to do that...4 mo' years /nod)

Actually if there was a tie it would go to the House and Senate with each deciding one of the offices.

Believe it or not, it is possible (while not probable) to have a Kerry/Cheney administration!

I SMELL A SITCOM!!!

Yeah, it'll be the House, I believe, that votes. No tie there methinks! Unless, of course, it gets challenged in the courts again.

So far it looks like NM and IA haven't been called either. Not that it matters if OH goes for Bush. Well, 4 more years and a couple more wars and the country should be good and sick of neo-cons.

Crowley...


Made you look!


But the good news is, no matter who you voted for, that many people really set aside their apathy for awhile and participated in their right to vote. I hope its a trend that continues.

Of course, republicans would also like to see all the blacks, gays, jews, and other hippie liberals leave also. Nah, I don't want you guys to leave. Who would I have to argue with then?


I think I may move to Mexico if Bush wins.If you do go, stay there. Don't come back as an illegal alien wanting your benefits :P

They hold back calling kerry states as long as possible...and they call Bush states before anyone else.Really? I remember that at midnight they still hadn't called Florida when other networks had already given it to Bush. They were also saying "Although we haven't called California yet, adding 55 votes to Kerrys total would be a fairly good bet."

I'm not a Fox news fan but It seemed they were last calling everything...not just Bush states.

*sigh* I was so hoping for a clear winner this morning. Kerry needs to just conceed already.

EDIT:

It looks like Bush is going to take Ohio (http://election.sos.state.oh.us/results/SingleRaceSummary.aspx?race=PP) I just don't see the absentee and provisional ballots making up enough votes to overcome Bushs 140K vote lead.

You know, it's called "election day" for a purpose. All this "it may take up to 11 days to count all the votes" is BS. Absentee votes, provisionary votes, whatever you want to call them, need to be cast prior to the election day, and <b>counted</b>. They shouldn't create situations where the entire outcome of the election process could be delayed by days. Yes, everyone's got a right to vote, but damnit, just because you didn't feel like voting on Nov. 2nd, doesn't mean that you can decide to cast your vote in December - same ideals should apply to states. States need to be able to provide the results of their popular vote by xx hours after their polls close, end of story. If they can't be done within that timeframe, they just need to go with the current popular vote count (as long as it's complete by 75% or more) and be done with it. Quit using trained donkeys to count votes, wth.

All this "it may take up to 11 days to count all the votes" is BS. Absentee votes, provisionary votes, whatever you want to call them, need to be cast prior to the election day, and <b>counted</b>. Honestly, I'd rather wait for the count AFTER the election than to open the can of worms counting pre-election day votes in advance. The first one to lose would say that the pre-counts were leaked and swung the election against him. After Florida (and maybe now Ohio, depending on how much of a fuss is made here) we may be beyond the days of losing a presidential election gracefully.

Honestly, this is the FIRST election that had me completely undecided which candidate I wanted to vote for. The only benefit I see to the election at all is that whoever is elected can't claim an "unconditional mandate" by the people.

What I don't get is...

Absentee ballots have to be in before election day, right? Well that means they know how many absentee ballots they have to count, right? So then why the hell don't they add the amount of volunteers on election day just to count absentee votes?

If there was a bulletin in the newspaper hear, calling for more help on election day, sure as **** I'd be signing up to help (pass the donuts, grandpa).

Honestly, this is the FIRST election that had me completely undecided which candidate I wanted to vote for. The only benefit I see to the election at all is that whoever is elected can't claim an "unconditional mandate" by the people.


Oh I dunno, they did after the last election citing their majority in the houses as their "mandate". :p

I wonder if its as easy to become an illegal alien in Mexico as it is in the US? Not that I want to live there!

Well, Jon Stewart will have plenty of material to work with for 4 more years, although he specifically asked voters to make his job harder for him. :p

Yes, everyone's got a right to vote, but damnit, just because you didn't feel like voting on Nov. 2nd, doesn't mean that you can decide to cast your vote in December -

I can't speak for other states, but in CA the registrar's office has to receive your ballot on or before 11/2 if you're voting absentee. I think the only people they sometimes extend the deadline for are troops who are voting absentee but presumably they've voted by 11/2 and their votes are delayed.

One interesting thing in San Diego is that it is looking like the city's mayor might be a woman who got on the ticket just 5 weeks before the election and was a write-in candidate. Everyone is pretty wowed by that.

GO GO GOOD TEAM!

Honestly, Bush is the lesser of 2 evils IMO.

Ohio's policy on Provisional ballots is that they won't even be counted for at least 11 days after the election day - to verify eligibility.

in 2000 Bush lost the popular vote by around a half a million. In 2004 bush has won the popular vote by 3.5 million. That's a pretty big turn around. This should a wake up call to the Democrats that in an increasingly conservative America, they should know better than to field extremely liberal candidate. With all the rabid hatred towards Bush, This elections was the Democrats election to lose, and lose they did. Here's to hoping they learned their lesson and that they will start moving towards the middle. The American people, last night, said that not being "W" isn't good enough to be elected.

My God, you actually voted Bush back in?

Sometimes I don't understand you Americans at all.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/11/02/voting.from.space.ap/index.html">Texas can count votes from space faster than Ohio can from people on Earth</a> :(

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6363692/

Kudo's to Senator Kerry for not dragging the US electoral system through the mud.

/bows to Kerry

The lesser of two evils is still evil. :rolling:

Why vote for the lesser of two evils when you can vote for the real deal?

Cthulu for President, 2008.

I dunno, I'm pretty convinced the Elder Gods are in the White House at this point, Aly! I'm pretty sure I saw the Necronomicon on Bush's desk in a photo.

Now, where can I buy a "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry!" bumper sticker?

Canadian news coverage of the U.S. election was very similar to American coverage.

One significant difference was that Canadian news had numerous interviews with Americans that have taken up residency in Canada. They didn't leave the U.S. for any particular political reason. They reside permanently in Canada for jobs, lifestyle, Canadian spouse etc. What struck me was the large number of Americans. Canadians and Americans are essentially indistinguishable if you meet them on the street, so you don't really notice how many there are.

The Americans congregated at gatherings throughout Canada to follow the election results. Some had actually voted in the U.S. elections. Interestingly, they were politically divided just like in the U.S. -- groups included Republicans in Canada, Democrats in Canada and a number of Bush and Kerry groups.

The American opinions expressed were often focussed on which candidate would foster better relations with Canada. While many were nervous about Bush's Iraq actions, the general consensus was that Bush was a better choice for economic and commercial reasons. Kerry has a reputation for trade protectionism.

Canadians, on the other hand, seldom expressed a preference for Bush or Kerry. They rightfully considered it none of their business, and just hoped for continued good relations with the U.S., regardless of the presidential choice.

Thicket

Edit Note: I did a bit of research. There are 400,000 Americans eligible to vote in the U.S. living in Canada. That's a substantial number for a country of 30 million people.

Of course, republicans would also like to see all the blacks, gays, jews, and other hippie liberals leave also. :D

Uh, no I wouldn't...

Have the election conspiracies started yet?

Was it because of lag??

Ugh... What's it take to emigrate to Cananda?

Got curious and found this helpful story:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6704292

Just don't start packing yet though.

From the article:
"It's one thing to say 'I'm leaving for Canada' and quite another to actually find a job here and wonder about where you're going to live and where the children are going to go to school," said one government official.

I bet so, especially since the current unemployment rate in Canada is over 30% greater than the US. (5.4% vs 7.2% according to last months figures)

What! He got back in? Fools!

So, which year do you think WW3 will be? ;)

Hmmm... well, I figured it wouldn't be just a walk across the border and me with my arms spread saying, "Take me, I'm yours!". Actually, Holland is a pretty cool country too. They have a long, long history of progressiveness. But I'd have to learn a new language.

What! He got back in? Fools!

So, which year do you think WW3 will be? ;)

2009. After Hillary Clinton becomes president and negotiates a peace treaty between Israel and the rest of the middle east.

So, which year do you think WW3 will be?

It started in 2003. It's just going to take a while to heat up....

What! He got back in? Fools!
Only slightly more than 50% of us qualify for that derision!

Since the UN makes up a good chunk of the world, doesn't everything that the UN gets deployed into qualify as a "world war"?

Interesting point though, at what point is a war considered a World War? When the majority of the countries are fighting in it? When x number of the largest population countries are fighting? When it involves UK, Europe and USA?

It's true that unemployment in Canada is significantly higher than in the U.S. Not surprisingly, the highest unemployment is amongst the young.

There is a simple solution. /e puts his tongue in his cheek. Take the unemployed youth, have them enlist in the Armed Forces, join a war somewhere, and watch unemployment numbers drop.

The state of Canada's economy is quite good, despite being closely tied to the American economy.

The Canadian dollar's US 81.06-cent close on Friday was the currency's
highest close against the U.S. dollar since September of 1992.

U.S. strategist Jim Rogers commenting on Canada - "You've got the currency going for you. You've got raw materials going for you. You've got a much-better-managed economy going for you. Canadians have done a much better job. You've got a balance-of-payments surplus. A government surplus. You're paying down your debt. You've got the wind at your back. In America, the budget deficit is getting worse. The trade deficit is getting worse. We're financially and militarily in trouble. The wind is in our face."

I hear there are a lot expats in eastern europe as well. Countries like Slovakia and the Czech republic.

Reagan won WWIII already. WWIV started on September 11, 2001. The dems have been in denial of this, and that is why they were soundly defeated this year.

But according to Bush we won that war! So guess we are in WWV now?

This democrat has nothing against a war on terroism, however Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11. Do I think Sadam is an evil man and deserved to be rousted you betcha! Did Bush do it the right way? Hell No!

But according to Bush we won that war! So guess we are in WWV now?

I don't think that Bush has ever claimed that we are done with the war on terrorism. I assume that you are refering to the "mission accomplished" dead horse. Saying "mission accomplished" is a far cry from saying the war is over. We in fact accomplished the mission of removing Sadam from power. That mission was accomplished. Now we are on a new mission to create and foster democracy in Iraq. It's going to be a long and dificult mission as we have seen in this short time but, it is something I have every confidence that we are capable of accomplishing given time and comitment.

This democrat has nothing against a war on terroism, however Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11. Do I think Sadam is an evil man and deserved to be rousted you betcha!


You are correct Iraq had no direct connection to 9/11 that is currently know but, it's indirect support of terrorism is well documented. The war on terror is not limited to just going after the people directly responsible for 9/11 but, also to target the other states that support and fund terrorism. Each state will be handled differently given the individual circumstances involved and what tactics are deemed best to confront them. Certainly Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the only states that support terrorism. So they certainly will not be the last and only states we have to confront in this war. In fact I have inside info that there is another target in our sights.

Did Bush do it the right way? Hell No!

Well I guess that atleast 55 million americans don't agree with you. Since Bush was re-elected.

You are correct Iraq had no direct connection to 9/11 that is currently know but, it's indirect support of terrorism is well documented. The war on terror is not limited to just going after the people directly responsible for 9/11 but, also to target the other states that support and fund terrorism.

Remember that the US could have been considered an indirect supporter of terrorism during the cold war. The CIA did many dirty jobs around the world and trained many rebels, insurgents, and assassins. They even supported Osama Bin Laden. Individual Americans also supported Noraid and funded the terrorist IRA in the same way that Saudi princes allegedly now support Al Qaeda. Things are never as clear cut as you'd like them to be.

Well let's see. If we were wrong to oust Sadam, that means we need to set ammends and release him and restore him back to power? Right?

The one question about Iraq that I asked myself. Which caused more Terrorist? Finally getting fed up of Iraq Thumbing their nose at us or a decade of effectively blockading the country and enforcing no fly zones? How many more terrorist would have been created with another decade of that?

My only gripe with getting rid of Sadam is with the timing. It should have been done a Decade ago. I thought so then, I still think so now.

The one question about Iraq that I asked myself. Which caused more Terrorist? Finally getting fed up of Iraq Thumbing their nose at us or a decade of effectively blockading the country and enforcing no fly zones? How many more terrorist would have been created with another decade of that?

Look at the number of agitators and terrorists that have been created in Iraq. Aren't there along the lines of a starggering 60 attacks a day on the occupying forces and Iraqi police? Just yesterday three British soldiers were killed in a suicide bomb attack. Kidnappings are rife. Even if Iraq is stabilized these people won't go away, many will just move on and find new targets elsewhere. Iraq is a now crucible of terrorism.

But my point is Iraq already was a crucible for Terrorism. How long would the US imposed the no fly zones and sanctions? another Decade? Do you honestly beleive that there would be fewer terrorist in the long run had we kept the status Quo? I certainly don't. The only difference is we are getting most of them out there at once, rather than over time.

I'm more pissed that we had to lose more lives retaking ground we had already won 10 years ago. How many lives would have been saved if we did this a decade ago? How many US service men would still be alive? How many Kurds that died after Desert Storm? How many Civillians in the past 10 years? How many Iraqi troops? How much better off would Iraq be after 10 years of rebuilding rather than 10 years of a crumbling infrastructure and a lunatic despot holding onto dreams of revenge?

Yep, I'm 100% for ousting Sadam. I'm just pissed at the timing. I blame George Bush Sr for not finishing the job and I blame Bill Clinton for continuing the same policy during his two terms. 10 years of sanctions and occasional Cruise missile attacks have done nothing to solve the problem and only to increase hatred towards the US.

Well, I wanted to wait a couple days before gloating. Neener, neener, neener :p

Now that peacenik can do what he does best and go to the mall, protest, throw away his medals he did not already throw away and perjure himself.

But my point is Iraq already was a crucible for Terrorism.

No not really. Afghanistan was, Chechnya is, Palestine might be, but Iraq wasn't. Iraq did not have WMD to supply to terrorists. Saddam was not working with Al Qaeda. He was a dictator who oppressed his own people but his influence outside Iraq was diminishing year on year.

Do you honestly beleive that there would be fewer terrorist in the long run had we kept the status Quo?

Yes. Remember that Iraq can get worse as well as better.

No not really. Afghanistan was, Chechnya is, Palestine might be, but Iraq wasn't. Iraq did not have WMD to supply to terrorists. Saddam was not working with Al Qaeda. He was a dictator who oppressed his own people but his influence outside Iraq was diminishing year on year.


WMD have Nothing, ZERO, NADA, ZIP to do with my anger for not finishing the job that we started a decade ago.

There had been plenty of Evidence that Iraq was working with Terrorist including Al Qaeda. They weren't a part of 9/11, but there was definately links to terror.

Saddam's infuence was certainly not diminishing. If anything it was growing due to an influx of cash due to the Food for Oil fiasco, and growing sympathy in the Arab world due about sanctions imposed after the Gulf War.

Again, He had to go. I feel it should of happened a decade ago. Waiting so long added a decade of bitterness to boil over.

Saddam's infuence was certainly not diminishing.

It was. Why do think the actual invasion itself was so straightforward? Sanctions were crippling him. The oil for food scandal has been hyped way out of scale in the US. It isn't even a blip on the political radar in Britain.

WMD have Nothing, ZERO, NADA, ZIP to do with my anger for not finishing the job that we started a decade ago.

This is exactly why many people outside the US feel the war was unjust. There is a feeling that Bush wanted to invade because of left over business and simply manufactured a case for war from anything he could find. Revenge is the worst reason possible for invading a nation and threatening the lives and livelihoods of millions of people. It's exactly the thinking that alienated half of europe. "We invaded him just because we wanted to".

No not really. Afghanistan was, Chechnya is, Palestine might be, but Iraq wasn't. Iraq did not have WMD to supply to terrorists. Saddam was not working with Al Qaeda. He was a dictator who oppressed his own people but his influence outside Iraq was diminishing year on year.You mean you don't know that, as an official policy, he paid $25,000 to each suicide bomber and had paid $35 million since 2000 (source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm))? He was actively supporting terrorists and getting rid of him was definitely a good thing.

Ok, I don't support Saddam doing that. I wonder if any comparison can be made though to NORAID, through which Americans paid money to support the terrorist IRA and their families.

On the other hand, you don't become a suicide bomber for the money.

It was. Why do think the actual invasion itself was so straightforward? Sanctions were crippling him. The oil for food scandal has been hyped way out of scale in the US. It isn't even a blip on the political radar in Britain.



This is exactly why many people outside the US feel the war was unjust. There is a feeling that Bush wanted to invade because of left over business and simply manufactured a case for war from anything he could find. Revenge is the worst reason possible for invading a nation and threatening the lives and livelihoods of millions of people. It's exactly the thinking that alienated half of europe. "We invaded him just because we wanted to".

Again, I feel the timing was Wrong. It should of happened a decade ago. But, seeing as it didn't I'm glad it's over and done with now. I believe in the long run it will be better than if we had left it.

As for half of Europe feeling that way. Yes, France and Germany did not want us to go. Then again, it was a conflict of interest for them. The Status Quo Benefitted them more than invading. France and Germany's history is no more noble and peaceful than that of the UK, Italy, Spain, or the US. Their people are no more enlightened than these countries either. They were against it for the same reason the US and her allies were for it. Self interest. If you believe it's anythng other than that, I have a bridge to sell you.

It was. Why do think the actual invasion itself was so straightforward? Sanctions were crippling him. The oil for food scandal has been hyped way out of scale in the US. It isn't even a blip on the political radar in Britain.

Saddam had over $11 BILLION that he skimmed off the oil for food scandal. France, Russia, and China were making billions in trade and many people in those countries and in the UN were making millions in illegal oil exports. The US intercepted missle components that were headed for Iraq under the oil for food program. And the oil for food money has been tracked to terrorists connnections. It is the largest scandal in the history of the world, if it isn't a blip where you live it is because the media isn't reporting the news.

WMD have Nothing, ZERO, NADA, ZIP to do with my anger for not finishing the job that we started a decade ago.

There had been plenty of Evidence that Iraq was working with Terrorist including Al Qaeda. They weren't a part of 9/11, but there was definately links to terror.

Saddam's infuence was certainly not diminishing. If anything it was growing due to an influx of cash due to the Food for Oil fiasco, and growing sympathy in the Arab world due about sanctions imposed after the Gulf War.

Again, He had to go. I feel it should of happened a decade ago. Waiting so long added a decade of bitterness to boil over.

None of you republicans were clamoring for us to invade syria...or saudi arabia..or Iran. All of which are far greater supporters of terror than Iraq ever was.

Did you know that a US representative sat on the UN sanctions committee that approved all the oil for food contracts? Perhaps book keeping and accountancy would have been a better way to stop the scandal than invading a foreign country.

Since the job in Iraq wasn't done a decade ago I feel it could have waited until we got Osama. We have 130,000+ troops in Iraq that could all be looking for Osama. Saddam was a known well watched threat that could have waited until we finished the first job in Aphganistan(sp?). Now our military is over stretched and our country is in debt and Iraq is a more dangerous place then before. Besides that I still feel the people in Iraq should of ousted him themselves. Smaller populations have ousted governments before then they couldn't blame us for the problems they have now and Osama wouldn't have new Iraqi members.

Did you know that a US representative sat on the UN sanctions committee that approved all the oil for food contracts? Perhaps book keeping and accountancy would have been a better way to stop the scandal than invading a foreign country.


Actually, the inspections of oil for food shipments was contracted out to a company called Cotecna which also has ties to Kojo Annan who is Kofi Annan's son.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/32057.htm


Since the job in Iraq wasn't done a decade ago I feel it could have waited until we got Osama. We have 130,000+ troops in Iraq that could all be looking for Osama. Saddam was a known well watched threat that could have waited until we finished the first job in Aphganistan(sp?). Now our military is over stretched and our country is in debt and Iraq is a more dangerous place then before. Besides that I still feel the people in Iraq should of ousted him themselves. Smaller populations have ousted governments before then they couldn't blame us for the problems they have now and Osama wouldn't have new Iraqi members.

Those troops weren't being used to look for Osama anyway. Durring the Iraq war, the number of troops grew in Afghanastan. We are perfectly capable of doing two things at once. Heck, we took on two much larger jobs in WWII, no reason we can't do it now. We are also dealing with N Korea, Syria, and Iran at the same time, just with different methods. No reason to be single minded when there are multiple tasks that need to be done.

Well I guess that atleast 55 million americans don't agree with you. Since Bush was re-elected.

And the other 53 million that voted for Kerry?

Actually, the inspections of oil for food shipments was contracted out to a company called Cotecna which also has ties to Kojo Annan who is Kofi Annan's son.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/32057.htm




Those troops weren't being used to look for Osama anyway. Durring the Iraq war, the number of troops grew in Afghanastan. We are perfectly capable of doing two things at once. Heck, we took on two much larger jobs in WWII, no reason we can't do it now. We are also dealing with N Korea, Syria, and Iran at the same time, just with different methods. No reason to be single minded when there are multiple tasks that need to be done.

First of all, just because we can do two things at once doesn't mean we should. Two front wars are never a good idea. Plus, because of how we've stretched our forced, we are ill-equiped to deal with more traditional theatres, such as N. Korea.

If you look at things we are obviously not able to do both things at once. The President is asking for more troops in Iraq and the job in Aphganistan is still not done. Plus during WW2 the government was using the draft and we had many more soldiers fighting.
Right now we are stretched too thin, if something else happened America would be screwed. But we could always hire more Haliburtin(sp) people to pick up the slack.

First of all, just because we can do two things at once doesn't mean we should.


I wouldn't mind doing two things at once if both things were done well.

Osama's video, and the current situation in Iraq, however, demonstrate that neither got finished well in this case. As an example of what Iraq may be escalating into, here's an excerpt from a news story today:

Prominent Saudi religious scholars urged Iraqis to support militants waging holy war against the U.S.-led coalition forces as American troops prepared Saturday for a major assault on the insurgent hotbed of Fallujah.

The 26 Saudi scholars and preachers said in an open letter to the Iraqi people that their appeal was prompted by "the extraordinary situation through which the Iraqis are passing which calls for unity and exchange of views." The letter was posted on the Internet.

"At no time in history has a whole people been violated ... by propaganda that's been proved false," Sheik Awad al-Qarni, one of the scholars, told Al-Arabiya TV.

"The U.S. forces are still destroying towns on the heads of their people and killing women and children. What's going on in Iraq (news - web sites) is a result of the big crime of America's occupation of Iraq."

In their letter, the scholars stressed that armed attacks by militant Iraqi groups on U.S. troops and their allies in Iraq represent "legitimate" resistance.

The scholars were careful to direct their appeal to Iraqis only and stayed away from issuing a general, Muslim-wide call for holy war. They also identified the military as the target, one that is considered legitimate by many Arabs who view U.S. troops and their allies as occupiers.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_scholars_iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

So Saudi clergy are calling for jihad while Iraqi clergy are talking peace:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6418515/

If people weren't dying, this would be ludicrous.

You notice that the price of peace is for the occupation forces to be kept on their bases for the month prior to the elections.

Another interesting observation in that article:

"Most of what we've learned about insurgencies is that you don't defeat one through purely military means," said Larry Diamond, who served in the U.S.-led occupation authority. "When you try to do that you may win the battle but lose the war. The insurgency in the Sunni heartland is now quite broad-based, and I don't think we're going to defeat the insurgency in this part of the country through purely military means. I think we're looking at a protracted insurgency which will get worse if we go through with elections" that many Sunnis boycott.

Yes, saw that. They must realize that's not acceptable. It could be that they put it in as a bargaining chip (as Diamond suggests), or that the entire offer is a sham designed to engender Iraqi support while allowing them an easy out. Personally, I think it's the latter, but who knows, maybe the clerics really aren't willing to have their people pounded into the ground and really do want a peaceful solution. Seen any flying pigs recently?