Successful election in Iraq

[Atreides]

Linky (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=2&u=/nm/20050130/wl_nm/iraq_dc)

Curious that this has not been posted, as extremely interested and opinionated many here are. (I suspect the reasons)

Despite the threats by the terrorists, millions of Iraqis have excersised the freedom they now have, this is a great day for the country and it's citizens.

[Ash]

I find it amusing that Iraq had a higher turnout than any of the recent American elections, even with the dangers involved.

[Slashco]

It's kind of ironic that in order for the Iraqis to 'exercise their freedom', it was necessary for the army to take extreme security measures and watch everyone like a hawk, banning private cars from streets, closing airports, etc. Even so, they couldn't prevent all attacks. And they're not even sure whether this will stabilize the region or further alienate the insurgents and create new ones (at the rate of the suicide attacks, there have to be new ones being created somewhere)... I'm not a political whiz, but this doesn't seem like such a great deal to me.

[severijn]

I wonder if that will make the attacks stop....prolly not, though it's a step in the right direction.

[Atreides]

Asheshi,
I noticed that as well, these people WANT and understand what freedom is, whereas a vast amount of the American populace are complacent to complain and too lazy to do the civic duty they are charged with.

Slashco, this is a GREAT thing. the security was there to protect the people from the scum sucking terrorists. The Sunnis may be a problem, becuase they are a minority in the country by population, but have been in power for so long and treated everyone else as second rate citizens they are afraid of a backlash or will be marginalised in a Shi'ite majority legislature which is inevitable since they are 60% of the population.

[Mac_Bug]

thousands of candidates who are afraid to reveal themselves for fear of being attacked and parties with no clear platform, most of the country without water and electricity and what little campaigning done is limited to the few big cities.. no international observers

It doesn't really matter the turnout, it's far from an american election. The significance is in the vote itself, nobody really cares who gets elected

[Ash]

I think a federal system would have been better for stability, it would have helped ease Sunni fears of Shiite dominance, and given the Kurds more autonomy. Ideally, the election results will be legitimate and the elected government will work to win over the regions that were opposed to the election and establish peace so American troops can leave. Sadly, I fear that the violence is far from over.

[SquidDNA]

I was kind of expecting one (or more) of the more politically motivated boardies to analyze the election prior to its occurance. I wanted to, but it would always occur to me at odd times, like on the train.

[Atreides]

This election lays the groundwork to establish a constitution and an Iraqi constitutional election is scheduled in 11 months. Don't be deluded by the rantings of Kennedy or others, our troops will be there for many years to come, history bears this reality out (Germany, France, Japan etc)

Mac, I was waiting for someone to see the dark lining in the silver cloud, GG.

The platforms of the various parties have been advertised, ther is a communist party, an imperial party to return Iraq to what it was before the Batthist regime and many others represented. As far as the eletrical grid and water facilities, allied and Iraqi forces are doing everything they can to repair the damage from attacks launched by the scum.

/edit/
Squid,

I would have, but I have been away due to surgical complications basically having me bedridden and not even at home much of the last two weeks. I just got back.

[jetfx]

The election as it stands is going to make little difference in the short term, but it's a step in the right direction. Iraq is finally heading down the road to long term stability.

The fact that terrorist groups threatened to kill any "infidel who dared to vote" really detracts from their credibility amongst the Iraqi people. It makes them seem that they are no longer fighting against the American occupiers, but rather opposing the 'freedom' that President Bush brings. I think this election is the beginning of a drop in insurgency and somehow I think that this drop is going to be fairly rapid.

[Harmanoff]

Somehow the entire thing still strikes me as democracy at gunpoint. Voter turnout isn't that big of a deal imo. Sure it's important but what did people expect? It's not like anyone have been presented with a viable option to voting, there is no other social structure to fall back on as the old one has been removed, why would people not vote? It's what happens in the next year that is important to analyze...

[Zepherian]

I just saw this on the news... This is far from a real democracy as has been stated and personally I would have prefered elections to have been brought out in a more peacefull manner, by deposing Saddam and family only, not pratically destroying infrastructure and putting the country on the brink of caos.

Anyways, its a step in the right direction, and a positive sign that the country might manage stability in the mid term. So, despite not agreeing with the invasion of Iraq, this is one of the necessary steps to make things as right as possible.

[ceejayoz]

Congratulations to Iraq, I'm glad it went well.

Let's just hope we don't have to re-freedomize them after they elect an Islamic fundamentalist. ;)

[El Russo]

Asheshi, I think the turnout differences are such because with most Western elections, changing your vote means little, not only because you are one in one million, but because everyone's pretty much the same. If my country had no constitution as such, I'm sure I'd be relatively much more inclined to vote.

As for branding the elections "successful", I'd hold out on that one for the mo, as we have no idea what's just around the corner. I would say, on the other hand, that having them in the first place represents some form of success.

[SquidDNA]

Yeah, declaring the elections a success is somewhat premature. It begs for an Onion mockup article with Bush holding up a paper that says "WE WIN -- votes still being counted" .. or is that a different joke actually? The point is, we have no idea who's just been elected.

[Atreides]

The fact that they took place despite the threat of death on any participants, in fact it has been estimated over 8 million people voted in a country that has not had real elections in over 50 years. That is the success. The coalition government formed by this election will draw up the Iraqi constitution and be in power for the next eleven months, then a constitutional election will take place. The results will take probably around a week.

The election WAS a success, it took place with better turnout than was hoped.

[SquidDNA]

I think the fact that the campaigns had to take place basically in secret, by comparison, is what somewhat still disqualifies these elections from being "real." Sure there were multiple candidates, but it's not like there was a public forum where they discussed the issues, huh? No, I don't mean televised debates, but, well, public appearances of any kind might have been good for starters. Yes, I know that Iraq is a country of limitations at the moment and I think this is an excellent step in the right direction. But I can understand why people are also kind of shrugging, too. This is more symbolic than anything.

Curious, why are you calling the government-elect here a "coalition government?"

[Handarazuur]

Here's hoping the results of this election quell the budding civil war instead of adding to it.

[Atreides]

The coalition term I use is in respect to the group that will be representing each of the various groups in Iraq ie: Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd along with some minority groups. These groups will be represented in proportion to the quantity of people who showed up at the ballot box. The term may be confusing because of the coalition we have had in place that actually made this day possible, the two are exclusive of each other. It is just a term I thought was appropriate because without the Iraqi coalition government elected by Iraqis alone an actual Iraqi constitution that was not written in another country would not be possible.

Leaflets and flyers have been circulating in Iraq from the various parties basically stating their position on important issues, the people chose the party/group to vote for based on which party represented their own views. The public appearances with announced candidates at this time would have amounted to focused attacks by the terrorists on friends and family of each and every candidate. The group that has been chosen and will be named in the next week will be drafting the Iraqi constitution upon which their national laws and political structure will be fleshed out in the coming months, this election was a necessary step as the Iraqi people will have chosen the representation that will form their national laws and government structure free of outside forces.

The United States, England and Allied forces had no part in who voted, they just helped the Iraqi defense forces to protect the PEOPLE of Iraq from the terrorists so they could excersise a RIGHT they have not had in half a century. This election may not be "real" by western standards, but without a constitution in place written and ratified by Iraqis upon which an election would take place a "real" election would never happen. This is just a provisional "coalition" of Iraqi leaders that will draft and vote on how their government will function by which the "REAL" election will be based on next year.

[Ash]

The United States, England and Allied forces had no part in who voted

IIRC, some regions did not have polling due to violence, which is the responsibility of the occupying forces (both instigating the violence and then being unable, through any means, to quell it).

[Atreides]

I am not sure of specific regional polling place availability, I will look into that tomorrow. I do know that in some poll stations in cities where the terrorists are the most active (Fallujah and Mosul for example) they were rather successful in repressing voter turnout. There were also at at least one polling station that was destroyed a few nights ago that I recall.

Well, I go back to work for the first time tomorrow after my surgical fiasco,so i am off to bed. :gnight:

[General Nuke Em]

My presence in a given area instigates violence by other people against me. And then its my fault I can't hit back because I would then go to jail as well.

[El Russo]

I think there is a distinction to be made between the "success of having an election" and a "successful election". Many things can go wrong at this point; an increase in violence, a targetting of winners, the revelation of improper, bribed or blackmailed voting, etc...

See what I mean?

And as a side note, if memory serves me correctly, the last time the Iraqis had a vote outside of the past regimes was when us Brits were fixing things. Hell, I don't think they've ever had actual democracy, or any form of it in their existence, since they're not really a "collective" nation - Iraq can be glibly described as a "made up country" - we (almost) randomly drew up the borders roughly a century ago. Gg us!!

[jetfx]

I'm just reading about Britain's mapmaking forays in the Middle East in the book Paris 1919. It is really interesting how they drew such straight lines in the colonies, without really considering the ethnic problems.

[Ash]

It's for those reasons that I think a federal system would be more appropriate then what the US is currently setting up.

[El Russo]

I'm just reading about Britain's mapmaking forays in the Middle East in the book Paris 1919. It is really interesting how they drew such straight lines in the colonies, without really considering the ethnic problems.
I'd be interested to know which came first, colonial cartography or paint by numbers...

[jetfx]

rofl Russo!

[LoCo]

General Nuke Em: Then don't go to those area/s ...

While this is a big step, it is not a real step. Like someone said, it's a symbolic step. It's like starting on a long journey with your first step, only to stop and go back and do it over again because it wasn't right the first time. Maybe your foot didn't land exactly where you wanted it, or maybe someone tripped you up. But either way they will be doing it again, and that second one is the one they have to watch.

[MajorFreak]

"60% of <unintelligible> iraqis voted!" i call bullsh*t

[TheLoneKnight]

The United States, England and Allied forces had no part in who voted, they just helped the Iraqi defense forces to protect the PEOPLE of Iraq from the terrorists so they could excersise a RIGHT they have not had in half a century.

I'll give a cookie to anyone who can spot the severe insanity of this statement.

No takers? Okay.

The United States, England and "Allied Forces" (isn't that referring to the US and England anyways?), had nothing to do with WHO VOTED.

Wrong. If it wasn't for the US, England, and "Allied forces", women wouldn't be voting. In fact, men wouldn't be voting either. Neither would teenagers, children, or the ugliest dog you've ever seen in your life. How can I know this? Simple: If it wasn't for the "Coalition", there wouldn't BE a vote.


"they [The Coalition] just helped the Iraqi defense forces to protect the PEOPLE of Iraq from the terrorists"

Again, insanely false. The Iraq Defense Forces have done very little. Even the US President publicly stated that they were ineffectual, undertrained, and.. What was that last bit? I forget.

Regardless, I can't say I've ever heard of the IDF ever having accomplished anything of true value without Big Brother US staring over their shoulder, doing the hard work.

Heck, even when they DO things with Big Brother looking over their shoulder.. they still tend to fail miserably. I say give them all a pack of C4, tell them to run at the terrorists, then blow themselves up. It would at least make the War in Iraq more entertaining.


And again, the final part of the statement. That voting is a "right" all human beings must share. This, of course, is insane and false.

There are no "rights" in the universe. There are no rights to live, to vote, or even to breathe. Sure, countries can have "rights"-- but they only apply to those countries, and aren't even always enforced.

I'm sorry, but if voting was a given right to all human beings.. don't you think we would have come up with democracy a hell of alot earlier? We followed "God-chosen" leaders who were never elected, voted in, or even well-liked for the longest damned time. Why did we follow them?

Oh yes, because they could kick our asses in a heartbeat if they so desired. The same happened in Iraq. They [the Iraqis] followed Saddam, because if they didn't, he'd kill them. Hell, he usually killed them anyway. Did they honestly have the "Right" to vote? Naw. Because all of the "rights" you so rightly claim don't matter when you're facing down the wrong end of an assault rifle.

Reality doesn't care if you think you have rights or not-- it knows better. And the second you start getting high and mighty, thinking that you have a right to free speech, to expression, to vote.. It's going to come crashing down and kick you in the nuts. Then it will probably shoot your kneecaps, just for good measure.

Just be damned thankful that you live in a nation where speech isn't oppres-- oop.. Sorry, my mistake. Well, at least it isn't ALWAYS oppressed.

And even though thousands of voters are unable to vote every year, (apparently they don't have the same rights as the Iraqis), you still can. Be happy. Stop pissing me off.

On an entirely related note, I believe that this entire election is pointless. Even as a symbolic step.

Symbolically, it depicts a nation who, after loads of bloodshed and an insanely useless war, finally gets the opportunity to vote. Good for them. Of course, it wasn't them fighting for democracy. It also wasn't them trying to stop the terrorists that only seemed to cause trouble when the US arrived. Huh.

And Literally, it's absolutely ludicrous. Anyone put into power will be assassinated. Anyone not put into power will be assassinated. The fuzzy little dog standing next to the people who aren't in power will be assassinated. I can't see this election actually slowing down terrorist activities. More likely than not it will simply increase them further.

So is democracy great for Iraq when it causes yet more meaningless deaths? Or is it just a more PR-friendly Saddam-likened genocide?

Then again, no one ever gave a damn about Saddam and his genocides. Or anyone else's genocides, for that matter. It only becomes a problem when they step out of their own country.. Fah.

I'm tired, bitter, and annoyed.

:sleep:


Edit: Loco, this isn't exactly the first step in this war, or even in Iraq's "fight for freedom". It's not even the second. Or a distant third. This war has been going on for over three years. The US attacked a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with any of the reasons they claimed. And we STILL re-elected the guy who doesn't even have a grip on his native language.

..I am sooo bitter. Why can't all politicians just die? Even religious leaders are less irritating than these ..little.. bastar.. .. gah.. sleep.. must... ..die.. bush.. Zzz..

[Retroboy]

I find it amusing that Iraq had a higher turnout than any of the recent American elections, even with the dangers involved.I find it uplifting, myself. You don't really miss anything unless it's taken away, and America hasn't had to deal with any credible threat for over 200 years that they wouldn't have a free election, so the comparison isn't really based on the same conditions.

The act of voting carries a colossal amount of symbolism of power over your own destiny. Those Iraqis who may not have been able to do anything about the events of the past 2 years have been given a chance to give their input on something, no matter how small or realistic that actual input is.

I'm not surprised many jumped at the chance, although I also wonder about the realism of the 60% figure, and the allegations of ballot box stuffing and other forms of election fixing will take a while to surface.

-- Retro

[Martian]

It is no wonder that the Sji'ite and the Kurds went to vote, and the Sunnis did not. Let's not forget that the first two groups had everything to gain in this election and were sure of victory, and that the latter group had everything to lose, wether they voted or not. It's not just 'the terrorists' that told everyone to not vote, practically any Sunni leader did. Because they couldn't gain power this way anyway. The only reason the Kurds and Sji'ite went to vote was because they were going to gain power by doing so, not because they are embracing democracy. I daresay that they still hardly understand how democracy works.

But it's a start. I am pleasantly surprised by how relatively peaceful it all happened.

[Alex Drake]

@Atreides Paktu:

First step my ass.

First of all, much of the reason for the better than expected turnout is revenge, pure and simple. When the first Gulf War was on, Bush Sr. encouraged the Shi'ites to rebel, in order to help American troops on the ground. When he packed up and left, Saddam murdered over a hundred thousand of them in revenge for their disloyalty. Its not so much that the Shi'ites are exercising majority power, its that they're getting a bit of payback foar all the years under Sunni rule. Many believe that since the US screwed them over the first time, its only natural that this time they are in a position to finish off the Sunnis. As a result, this war isn't really US vs Iraq as much as it is US vs Sunni dissidents.

How can you really call this a step in the right direction anyway? Most of the major coalition "allies" have either pulled their troops out entirely, or have scaled back deployment (in the last year). Even Britain is asking for a time-table for a pullout. Many people (mostly misguided, conservative, or both) have called this election a victory because GWB stated on television a couple days ago that the US would pack up and leave if the Iraqi government requested it, despite the fact that whatever mock-up regime is put in place would never do something so stupid.

Essentially, he stated the obvious; of course if the Iraqi government wanted the US out, they'd have no choice but to comply, but no rational leader would do something so terribly stupid and inept. Right now, the US is pretty much th eonly thing standing between the country and all out civil war. The Sunni's are afraid the Shi'ites are going to use their ne wpolitical leverage to get revenge for the Batthist ruling party, and the Shi'ite's are afraid the Sunni's are going to continue supporting the insurgency. Since the hatred and fear of both groups is mutually reciprocal, whatever puppet governemt is elected is still going to be playing kissy-face with the US for many years. Hardly a change from the current situation except now terorists have high profile targets. Way to go democracy.

Note:

Bush has repeatedly said that we will "Stay till the job is done", despite his recent back-tracking. Alot of people should note two very important facts; The Dept. of Defense has just asked for an appropriation bill that tacks on another $80 Billion doallars to the money currently being spent on the war (more clearly, that raises the total cost fo the war to around $300 Billion). Second, as part of the same appropriation plan, there is additional money allocated for the construction of not one, but 4 permanant military bases within the country. So people want to talk about exit strategies, but I submit that no one is going anywhere for a long time.

I hope I'm not the only one who sees the other vicious cycle happening. The increased insurgent activity requires more US troops to be sent into combat zones, reciprocally, more insurgents are called up in response to the increased American presence. Essentially, our troops are feeding the conflict they started. It doesn't help that they are also the only ones preventing the entire country from falling back into anarchy and civil war (as the Sunnis arent about to let a Shi'ite dominated legislature lead them by the nose). Bitter irony that, eh? I wonder if anyone has a REAL solution. I predict that in a year, the American people will be more than a bit fed up with the arrangement in Iraq (especially as more and more Americans die over there), to the point where GWB will pull a Vietnam, and find a way to declare victory without making it look like a total lie (much like his last stunt on the aircraft carrier, and his current stumping for the current elections there).

[Zepherian]

Ah well, thats probably the game plan, democratise Iraq over a long period of time, build bases, explore the oil, hope that it pays for the expenses.

This war was allways about money, the 300 billion is just the initial investment.

IF Iraq comes out of this with a western standard of living it would have overall been worth the expense, if it dosen't however this will have been a monumental cock up as far as humanitarian values go.

[Alex Drake]

Thats 300 billion that could have gone towards fixing up our shitty educational system.

[ÜberJumper]

The election will have been successful if they have another one in due time.

[Merturk_NB]

A good first step, but way further to go. I just hope we (in America) can stay committed enough and not leave the job half done.

[El Russo]

Can I just clear up that "England" have no place in the coalition, apart from belonging to the United Kingdom (ie; made up of Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland as well). The UK is the political nation, England is a country. Tony Blair is in charge of the former.

[Nurizeko]

and yet, im still not entirely convinced anyone but the american backed candidate will win...

sure, its a nice step in the right direction, what with lip service to a proper democracy with a vote an all, but its just a novelty, when iraq can stand on its own two feet, insurgents arnt such a big threat, and big brother america isnt looking over little bro iraq's shoulder, then maybe a vote will seem more meaningful and an iraqi government more legit.

dont get me wrong, im happy to see voting in a country thats been through alot, but its far from ideal.

i dare say that for the first time since this whole thing started, iraq might actually be starting to head down the right road.

but i can only feel that if bush and his lot had planned more for post invasion, and spent linger preparing, that iraq might not be in such doodoo as it is.

[Angry Ghost]

By that reasoning, Russo, I suppose that California, New York, and Wisconsin have no part in the coalition either. They are, after all, just states in one larger political system. I disagree. The parts are involved every bit as much as the whole. The English, should they so choose, must take themselves out of the coalition through action and not semantics.

As for the elections, how could this not be a symbolic success, if nothing else? The people got up and tried to take their own destiny in their own hands. Anybody actually watch the news coverage? People dancing and singing in the steets, saying they're not afraid of terrorists. Sure, it wasn't like that everywhere, but people risked their lives to show that they wanted a better future. Whoever said Americans wouldn't do the same is most likely right, but that's neither good nor bad. It's only a product of different conditions.

Say what you want about what it accomplished, or the campaign conditions, or whatever, but the fact remains that the elections were very successful. Now Iraqis are involved in determining their country's future. For those of you who haven't heard, or read, or otherwise been informed, the Iraqi interior minister said they're looking at about 18 months to have security forces ready and let coalition forces move out. Set in stone? No. Perfect? No. But the dialogue about moving to complete Iraqi control has become serious. Why? Because now there is an elected government to deal with. After elections next December, the stage should be set for beginning withdrawal of forces. Concrete? No. But there is a plan because the elections went well and hopefully Iraq can start to stand up on its own. Maybe if the rest of the Europeans would step up and lend a hand, things would work out for everybody. It's alright. Really. It looks like things might work out . . .

Apologies for not going back to find your name, but to whoever mentioned just deposing Saddam and his family . . . Isn't that what we did? Beyond that, how would you propose to do it other than moving in and taking him out, considering he had his own country and an army to defend him? Has the news reached you that a number of the insurgents are Baathists and almost all Sunnis? You know, former Hussein regime operatives and the deposed ruling class? I guess you think they would have just kept quiet if somebody had just deposed Saddam instead of going in and . . . deposing Saddam? Don't think the killers are only killers because the US is there. Don't let them fool you for a moment. They don't want to live in peace as minorities in a democratic country. They want their country back. (Note that I'm not refering to all Sunnis, just the ones involved in the insurgency.)

[Zepherian]

Alex Drake: Yes, 300 billion would go a long way in patching up a hurting educational system, but for that there would have to be political will to spend money in that direction.

The way I see it, politicians more and more represent the will of corporate america, and corporate America wants cheap labour (and soldiers) more than anything else. After all, they can outsource... Once things are dominated by a strictly economical mindset it is the citizen that ends up with the raw deal.

Republican or Democrat wont make that big a difference as this state of affairs is sistemic, and of course not just an American phenomenon, I see it here in Europe too, allthough our social democracies disguise it more.

[Alex Drake]

Exactly my point Zeph, the people that crow about the US' ability to export democracy and law to the downtrodden masses of the world have to be some of the most idiotic folks ever conceived. Why spend all that money to kill a few hundred thousand folks and stage mock elections when a similar investment in education and/or social development will allow us to reap real benefits in the future. IMO; Suddenly the state of affairs in the Middle East > then the state at home.

Americans are (on average) some of the most poorly educated folks (through primary school) in the "civilized western world", we make such a big deal about our financial success, meanwhile our colleges increasingly school more students from around the world. I'm not bashing this, mind you, but it should be noted that costs associated with higher education are increasingly pushing them out of the reach of your average citizen.

Anyway, thats the beginning of another rant. So I'll table my thoughts.

The main point is this; so far, this war has mostly been an exercise in corporate greed and short-sighted decision-making. Calling it anytihng else without acknowledging these rather obvious facts is being a bit... obtuse.

[Atreides]

I'll try to address who I can.

Lone, you should have went to bed before adding to this thread, that wandering tirade against Bush, America, western society in general came off as just nonsensical grenade throwing about a topic which other than talking points you might have read or heard being regurgitated for nausea's sake you really don't know much about, read Alex's post for clarification, at least he deals with the topic as opposed to squealing "Bush is da suck!!1111" and attacking me as well without anything substantial to add to the discussion.

Alex,

What would YOU consider a first step then? If an election isn't then what magical formula would you apply here that would qualify, leaders spanning the globe disagree with you. The "mock up regime" has been chosen by 100% Iraqi citizens and nationals, I'm not going to retye yet again what this group of legislatures will do in the next 11 months leading up to the first CONSTITUTIONAL election, just check an earlier post, I think I outlined it 2 or 3 times. As to Saddam mass killing the Shi'ites following the first Gulf War, GB 41 bowed to UN and Arab pressure to halt the advance on Bagdad following the "Highway of Death" media blitz that decried the "evil" attack on the poor retreating Republican Guard troops. That time America bowed to international pressure and since then many have slammed Bush Sr for "not finishing the job". That mistake was not made this time, so Bush 43 is slammed for "not listening to our foreign friends"(sic). I remember the call for an uprising that we did not support due to our UN "agreement" and the subsequent slaughter using chemical WMD by Saddam, but his victims were Kurds. Sunnis DID turn out to vote, in many mixed Shi'ite/Sunni neighbourhoods, the turnout was repressed in some Sunni dominated sections however, their attitude will not go anywhere toward them getting equitable representation in this temporary government.

El Russo,

That was a semantic error only, when I said England I meant the UK.

nurizeko,

Amrican backed candidate? This isn't a presidential election, the elected governance body will choose it's leaders, similar to how parliment chooses the leader in the UK. Has this been perfect or pretty, NO but we work with what we have ATM and provide the Iraqis with whatever support they need to secure their country, and their self determination.


Angry Ghost,

Welcome to the fire filled area of political discussion on the Relic boards, have your asbestos boxers on because some of the "open minded" individuals will be quite hostile to views that don't mesh with theirs, "open to opposing views" only goes one way, from liberal to conservative in too many deluded people's minds. Just a heads up.

Zeph,

I don't know much about the education system in Spain, but the largest problem in the American system is social engineering, followed closely by inneffective and bloated administrations who seem to exist solely to eat as much money as possible, with precious little left for actually teaching students. Money is not a problem, the misuse of it is.

/edit for Alex's little rant about the failed American education system. Our schools used to be about learning math, literature, science, grammar etc... Since the 60's it has been pushed into "puffy flowery" learnings about ethnic differences in America, frre form learning and a lot of other totally useless crap that amounts to social engineering, instead of teaching kids history and facts they now have their time wasted learning how to view others as well as themselves. It is a crime what our school system has degenerated to, but money is not the root of this, it is social tinkering and experimentation with a system that used to be one of the best.

[TheLoneKnight]

I've found it amusing that people tell me how horrible my post was without actually pointing out what was horrible about it.

After all, I can't exactly become better if I don't know what's wrong. :p

Aside from the obvious bitterness and sidetracked "I hate Bush" comment at the end.


Regardless. I still say that the Iraqis should perhaps do more to fight for democracy. After all, if it's all their work poured into the democracy, shouldn't they be willing to fight for the right to -hold- elections without the US doing all the work? (Work as in combat, not necessarily how the elections are run/operated themselves).

..And yes, I am entirely aware that the IDF has tons of volunteers and are being trained around the clock. I'm just curious when they're actually going to start doing and accomplishing things without the help of the Coalition.

[Merturk_NB]

*feels left out from Atreides's post*

mock elections? I think not. They are heavily infuenced by American forces present and American politics, but they are hardly fake.

[Atreides]

Lone,

Iraq is at this point incapable of defending themselves from the terrorists and foreign fighters that have declared war on democracy. They need our support both in manpower and infrastructure that we are helping them rebuild after decades of neglect under the Batthist regime and Saddam, along with repairing damage from the attacks that occur from the terrorists. This elction will put the country in their hands to mold laws and a government out of the elected body of representatives, America is taking less of an active role in the function of the running of Iraq, and is moving more into the support role they need us for to train their troops/policeman along with equipping said forces to defend themsleves and their country. The IDF provided the security at the polls, US forces were just backup. More and more the IDF is in the lead in combat, the IDF are the ones who stormed the mosque several months ago that served as a stronghold for the Zarquari terrorists. Our role will lessen as the days go on due to the Irqis being better able to function with less and less support. Similar to a child who needs less and less help as it learns to walk (If you have kids you know what I mean, if you don't on day you'll see) The day will come where they won't need our help, the military bases will probably remain as they have in Europe since WWII for obvious financial reasons. (The area around Rammstien AFB potentially will be greatly negatively affected by our withdrawal from there in the future)

As to your first post, do some research first and come with some facts behind you if you want to disagree, there is a myriad of news sources online at your disposal. Also the title of the spoiler you began that rant with was just offensive and childish.

Merturk,

HI :howdy:

[Alex Drake]

@ Atreides, i wish I had a long time to respond to your post, but at th emoment I donot. However, there are a couple inconsistencies.

1) I do agree, in part, with the motivation for the First Gulf War. But there were alot more problems that caused the world-community to weigh in then a simple "slaughter" of retreating republican guard units. One of the most important reasons is one that we saw in Gulf War II; Because there was little distinction between civilian and military infrastructure (this is a real problem; whats to say the power plant that supplies energy for Fallujah doesn't also power the radar installations dotting the city?) we wiped out alot of the stuff necessary to the daily lives of the residents. I'm not saying Iraq was some idealic utopian society before the US invaded, but it had a very high standard of living by comparison to neighboring states like Iran (also had some of the most robust medical and educational systems in the region). But the US wiped all that out.

2) To salt the wound, after war, all the embargos on imports pretty much made rebuilding said infrastructure back up again nearly impossible. The came Gulf War II, where we basically destroyed whatever we missed the first time and what little had been rebuilt (save for the oil wells, of course). SO the real mistake was our foreign policy regarding Iraq. Clinton cut them a little slack, and from all indications, things were getting a bit better (if still repressive). Then Bush Jr. decided to allow the conservatives in the government to do a big 180 on Iraq and pretty much goad Hussein into rebuking them (the inspectors had already been a touchy issue, if you look back to the beginning of the war its pretty obvious that the issue was played up to give the US an initial excuse for its attack, rather than the excuses they offered later (it was like poking an irate dog in the eye with a stick).

Basically, its not about finishing the job. It was a foreign policy disaster that the current Bush administration exploited to make their associates rich. remember, when Bush is out of office, he and his associates will be rolling in dough from this whole debacle. So a few dead marines/soldiers is a fair price to pay for ..well... billions of dollars in government contracts and oil deals.

EDIT: Saddam killed more than just Kurds, I'll dig up a decent link later. Also, my answer si simply that the invasion should never have happened, but since it did, I'd simply prefer to not have the truth of situation distorted so much. There IS no exit strategy, there are no plans for a pull out, and that the democratic process in Iraq is (unbelievably) actually unrelated to elections, it is directly tied to security. Without the ability to hold the damn country, it doesn't matter who gets elected, and when elections are held. The leaders of Iraq stand a very real chance of being killed within months of their apointment, US military presence or not. But I guess that doesn't bother anyone.


Secondarilly, I'd prefer that there be a alot more candid disclosure within the senate and House of Reps concerning what the actual plan to manage all the debt thats acruing from this (IMHO, pointless) deployment. I'd like to see something done about the laws regading deployment of reservist, namely that the US Military has the unilateral right to indefinately extend tours of duty. This isn't your usual liberal complaint, this is a real strategist talking. This law ONLY helps in the short term. The more its abused, the more its going to affect the stream of new volunteers (eg; we're shooting our own military enrollment in the foot with this one). We're strapped for troops as it is, why go about pissing off the ones we have already? Oh I know, it's because they're lives never mattered to begin with...

I'd REALLY like to see something done about our domestic policies. It seems like every initiative the president backs (such as NCLB) ends up intrinsically damaging many aspects of American life, if its not the economy, its education, if its not education, its civil liberties, etc, etc. Basically, I'd like to see some real quality-of-life improvements. I'm very tired of superficial shit like tax-refunds (wtf; yay, I get $600, in return my job market gets fucked up the ass, brilliant thinking GWB, mebe next years you can skip neutering the economy and just send me a grenade in the mail so I can blow my dick off).

Ranting bitchiness aside, I just want to see decisions made with the day-to-day welfare of the avg citizen in mind, rather than obfuscating existing laws to "find" more money for conservative pet-projects.

EDIT 2: Atreides, WTF!? Are you actually suggesting that the US would allow anyone to run for important posts if there was a possibility they might, oh, I dont know, object to the way the US is, for example, putting itself in a position to control most of the basic oil infrastructure (even if the actual wells technically belong to the Iraqi 'government'), etc. You're deluding yourself if you believe that even one of the folks running weren't personally approved by some portion of the US government. By your own logic, it wouldn't be in the US' best interest NOT to control this. Also, you failed to mention that many of the candidates for the top posts in Iraq are running unopposed. Second, no Sunni candidates are actually running in this election, the only concession they made was that some of the larger Sunni politcal entities agreed to accept political appointments in the new regime if they were offered. So lets be honest, not only is this going to be (essentially) a puppet government, its also going to exclude around 30-40% of the population. Yes, American democracy sure is grand!

[CaerAzkaban]

Paktu,

Allow me to address something.
They need our support both in manpower and infrastructure that we are helping them rebuild after decades of neglect under the Batthist regime and Saddam, along with repairing damage from the attacks that occur from the terrorists.

Yeah, they need the support because the U.S. DESTROYED THEIR MANPOWER AND INFRASTRUCTURE! Before America invaded, they actually had a stable government, no matter how barbaric it was. Then America comes and invades Iraq under the excuse "weapons of mass destruction."

What really ticks me off is that Bush didnt even spare time to issue a declaration of war! In my eyes, that was his greatest mistake. Had he issued a declaration of war, the war might actually be over, as the military would be free to use their entire arsenal, barring nukes. They could roll tanks through the streets, looking for insurgents. But i'm gettiing sidetracked here.

When America invaded, they totally annihilated the infrastructure and caused it to fall apart. In the early stages of the war, i wanted America to leave, but now I realize i want America to just end this war, but i also realize it can never be ended. They have declared war on terrorism, and unfortunately, terrorism can never be destroyed. As long as the human race lives on, so will terrorism. The only way to end the war in Iraq, i fear, is to station large amounts of troops in every city and simply delay the attacks, because they'll keep on coming. Evidence of this can be found in Israel, where terrorism has been raging since Israel was founded. Lets face it, the Arab world hates America and Israel, and probably England too, but not as much.

As to why they hate America and Israel, it is probably because they view them as another Crusade in the holy lands.

[Zepherian]

A-p: Spain? Wtf?!

[Alex Drake]

I'm with zeph on this one, X_x

[El Russo]

By that reasoning, Russo, I suppose that California, New York, and Wisconsin have no part in the coalition either. They are, after all, just states in one larger political system. I disagree. The parts are involved every bit as much as the whole. The English, should they so choose, must take themselves out of the coalition through action and not semantics.
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to point out. There is no government of England - Tony Blair is the Prime Minsiter of the United Kingdom. It's not a semantic point. In terms of international politics we, and by 'we' I mean British citizens are represented under the UK banner. It is not similar to the US and its States - there is no federal government. As Atreides has said, it was an error on his part.

The point I was initially trying to make was that foreigners occasionally incorrectly refer to the UK as simply England. Yes, we make up a large part of it, and most of the governance goes on at Westminster in London, but the impression of England playing a role in international politics ignores the other three countries to their dis-service, not to mention the fact that it is specifically not England. It is the equivalent of calling the UK 'Scotland' or 'Wales'. The Houses of Parliament are made up of MPs from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

However, this confusion is mostly our fault. Before the union acts of a few centuries ago, the English throne actually ruled Wales and Scotland, and all of Ireland. Hence the wars between English and Scottish troops, etc. Now however, there is a British army if you see what I mean. Again, this raises more unneccessary terms as people from the United Kingdom are British citizens.

At the Olympics we compete under the flag for Great Britain (& Northern Ireland), and in other sports, such as football (soccer) we compete separately as England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. That is entirely down to the respective governing bodies.

What makes things even more complicated is that since Labour took power in 1997 there has been a process of devolution whereby the Scots and Welsh have been given their own parliaments, with only limited powers of self-government. Utlimately, this may lead to complete separation of state, but Westminster has the final say.

[General Nuke Em]

I'm sure Atreides meant Portugal, and Portugal is right next to Spain, and he is just being a stupid American like he's supposed to be. Since, you know, its impossible for anybody else to make a mistake. :rolleyes:

I don't know what you are talking about, CaerAzkaban, but the US military is using its full resources, barring keeping Reserve and National Guard units on active duty for more than two years. The Pentagon is working to get the regulations changed, as we're in a situation other than a WWII style conflict, which is what the current regulations regarding activating Reserve and Guard forces was designed for. A declaration of war is nice, but we don't have a specific country to declare war on, and a massive mobilization of the entire country is not what we need. We have the ncessary Reserve and Guard units to engage in the war without conscription.

The Untied States hardly "destroyed" all of Iraq's manpower and infrastructure. We destroyed the infrastructure capable of making war, and destroyed the standing army. The continued disruption of infrastructure is the fault of the terrorists, not of some massive American carpet bombing campaign designed simply for the sake of destroying things.

The "Arab world" does not hate America and Israel in the sense that the entire Middle East is one big terrorist camp bent on the destruction of infidels. If that was the case, we'd simply declare war on the various nations in the middle east, destroy strategic targets, population centers, etc until there was no Arab world capable of hating and attacking the United States. Obviously, this isn't the case, as I'm sure a majority of the Arab world does not accept extreme Islamofacist ideology regarding the West.

[Atreides]

My apologies Zeph, I meant PORTUGAL.

(blushes deeply)

I understand that many refuse to see anything good with regards to what happened Sunday, and would rather start ranting about the American election system, domestic economic policy, tax cuts and every other thing that is involved with the administration...

But what does that have to do with an election in Iraq?

Oh, I think I see, as I said in my first post I suspected the reasons why no one until me brought this up, and they have been confirmed...

If not for Allied forces and the United States in particular, in fact if not for George W Bush this election would NEVER have taken place, the videos of Iraqi women dancing and ululating in the street holding up purple stained fingers after some had walked MILES and waited hours to vote would never have been possible. In the end that is why some are blinded to what is a monumental event in the world, in spite of every gain, every piece of good news coming out of Iraq so long as the name George W Bush is attached it will be seen through goggles clouded by hatred for the man as well as the ideology he represents.

Clinton cut him a little slack? Do you remember the bombing of Bagdad that took place suddenly during a particular court case in 7 years ago?

In the end it all boils down to Bush made this possible using our armed forces, had Gore been president these last four years and he did the same actions most of you would be singing a different tune I would wager, because in the past the Iraqi situation as well as anything leading up to 9/11 was (by the majority of posters) Bush's fault, or Bush Sr's fault, or the republican congress's fault, or evil American companies' fault... but never EVER was it Clinton's fault (not a universal statement, but the vast majority of opinion I have seen here these last few years).

Sunday was a great day for Iraqis, and a bad day for those who opposed the war based on political ideologies alone. I had hoped that a constructive discussion would emerge from this thread, but the same old tired whining complaints have been dusted off and retyped again for the 1,000,000 time and everything positive is tucked under the rug like lint because to honestly address it is uncomfortable. So domestic policy is brought up along with education funding, tax cuts yada yada yada...

Is it really that hard to just be happy for a moment? Or is pessimism going to be the order for the day so long as republicans are the majority party?

[Alex Drake]

Wonderful, another sanctimonious diatribe. Thanks buddy, lets just add this to the rest of pile.

Since we're in the middle of a "grass is greener" debate, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to mention the futility of speculation. The point [atleast of my end] of the discourse is to point out that getting all hot and excited over this election is jumping the gun. For all the flag-waving and freedom screaming hoopla some folks on this board seem deadset on proliferating, the cold hard fact remains that the cost of this war, both in human lives, and monetary expenditure on all sides is, and has been, so great that we can't afford not to be highly critical of the situation.

I could care less that a few million dusty, downtrodden Arabs got to march across bombed out streets under the guns of ravening terrorist hordes and rifle-toting American cowboys to vote for a bunch of folks most of them have never even heard of (alot of reports on CNN and CNBC have pointed out that a majority of the Iraqis voting know next to nothing about the candidates, the affect has been almost random voting in many areas). Sure, its been an interesting social experiment, a tiny step forward for democracy, but thats it. Its not much of a victory, and its effects are largely hollow. Will this make the country more stable in the short0term (next 5-6 months), no. Will this event improve the day-to-day lives of the most at risk folks in the country, no. Does this even have any real effects for us good little tax-payers in the US, no. But oh goodness, this is a blow to the face of terrorism everywhere! Heavens, what will they do now that we've elected officials in Iraq. Oh... I dunno.. maybe... continue killing them like they've been doing all along? Just a thought.

Call it cynicism, call it close mindedness, but everytime one of our soldiers dies, a few dozens civilians are blown apart, or a ranking Iraqi politico is gunned down as he enters his stretch limo, just think about all the good this wonderful event has given us and the Iraqi people.

As for being happy, I'll be happy when certain recalcitrant hardliners remove their noses from their colons and remember that life is more precious than oil.

EDIT: As for Clinton's "holiness", no he is not a saint. Nor am I particularly legitimizing his foreign policy (Rwanda et al.). The point is that US relations with Iraq under Clinton were, for the most part, never strained to level of alot ground-warfare in Iraq (though his intervention in certain African nations had varying results). Yes, he ordered several strikes on important ground targets, and was strict in his enforcement of Iraq's no fly zone, he was even responsible for reinforcing alot of the sanctions that helped cripple Iraq's rebuilding efforts for the long term, but he also managed to avoide getting alot of people killed. Which is an achievement in itself. He's just as guitly for alot of other reasons, but for the most part I found that I could understand his policies, which (after much legal wrangling) did alot of good all over the world, without killing a few hundred thousand civilians in the process.

[Atreides]

Oh thats right, it was all about the oil

play that scratched record again Charlie.

Like I said, any good news is just marginalised.

I hope that the majority of liberals don't feel as despondant about this as you. And I do mean that seriously.

[Alex Drake]

victriols aside, the point stands.

In fact, I find rather humorous that beyond biting words, there isn't much evidence which disputes the facts. But I suppose since "whats done is done", we should all just suck it up and go along for the ride. I guess thats all that will make you folks happy.

BTW; despondancy would imply that I, and others, would not seek to be involved in such debates, and largely remain indignantly silent. So either you meant something else, or you were implicating me with the mass of mute nay-sayers that seem to have overrun this country.

[Gyokuran]

Americans are (on average) some of the most poorly educated folks (through primary school) in the "civilized western world", we make such a big deal about our financial success, meanwhile our colleges increasingly school more students from around the world. I'm not bashing this, mind you, but it should be noted that costs associated with higher education are increasingly pushing them out of the reach of your average citizen.

The United States has one of the best public education systems in the world. Its far from perfect, a lot of the administration is fucked up, but you can attend school up though nearly any college pretty much regardless of money. Community Colleges HAVE to accept you if you apply, and a lot of them are nearly as good if not better then a lot of universities. There is also a huge surge in technical schools which can provide great education if you're looking to get into a specific profession. I agree with Atreides Paktu about one of the biggest problems being "inneffective and bloated administrations who seem to exist solely to eat as much money as possible", however I've mainly noticed that problem being with grade schools, colleges seem to be much smarter with money. Though I dont really agree with him about what they're teaching, yeah we have changed our focus in curriculum since the 60s, but I dont think its really for better or for worse.

The elections are a step in the right direction for making a democratic and stable Iraq, I cannot understand how anyone could seriously think they're not.

[Atreides]

I realise that coming from me, the argument against the whole WAR FOR OIL rant would be discounted out of hand, Starfisher and Moe have also argued against that old rant in a previous thread Start at post 88 (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=53732&page=3&pp=30) a few posts doen Starfisher enters as well, perhaps their arguments would be more likely to be taken seriously as opposed to me saying the same thing because I am one of those Christian conservative republicans that are completely wrong about everything down to the number of fingers on my hand in your "open minded" view.

I would never lump you in with the liberals who have sought solace in therapy or prozac following the election in November, you have been very vocal on these boards about your complete disdain for Bush and conservatives in general, and I would wager that IRL you are vocal about it as well, this forum helps people to come to intelligent conclusions on issues by just reading what others write as well as clicking links, or even participating themselves. The desponancy is your implied position that NOTHING will improve until Bush is out of office. You have four years to wait on that, unless something happens to him, then you get to scream about president Cheney through 2008.

/edit
Gyokuran, political ideology is the cloud that prevents it from being seen, which is a shame to say the least.

[Alex Drake]

No one said the elections were a bad thing, simply that they are ineffective and are overrated.

As for education, I was talking about Primary school. Colleges are better, but the cost is rising at an unsustainable rate.

[crobato]

Obviously, this isn't the case, as I'm sure a majority of the Arab world does not accept extreme Islamofacist ideology regarding the West.

Thank you thank you. In this election, there is no way for any other party to win but the Shiia parties all being led by Ayatollah Sistani being funded by Iran. The Iraqi don't even know the issues, or who the candidates were, except maybe the Shiia who will vote only for the Shiia candidates, leading only to the legitimization of an Iran style Islamic regime.

Welcome to the new Islamic Republic of Iraq. Let's see how long women are still allowed to expose their faces in public.

[crobato]

The United States, England and Allied forces had no part in who voted, they just helped the Iraqi defense forces to protect the PEOPLE of Iraq from the terrorists so they could excersise a RIGHT they have not had in half a century.

Thanks to the US, a lot of Iraqis are exercising another fundamental human right guaranteed by the US Constitution---the Right to bear Arms.

[0dyguru]

Hmmm,

I think it will be funny if they create a constitution based on the Koran.

~0dyguru

Abraham and Ishmael built the House and dedicated it, saying . . . "Lord, make us submissive to You; make of our descendants a nation that will submit to You..." ~ The Koran Q 2:127

[crobato]

To put things into perspective, let's recall another similar election in history.

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/nytviet.htm


U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote:
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

Significance Not Diminished

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.

[Starfisher]

Difference being that there was a whole country to their north, backed by china and russia, trying to conquer them. Iraq is somewhat different from that situation.

The election is interesting, and a step in a direction... but the right or the wrong one depends on what comes out of the constitution. This isn't the jubiliant end of anything, it's the solemn beginning of a journey that ends in either a free society, Iranaraq, or civil war. It's a positive sign in that it keeps alive hope for the possibilty of a free society, but it hasn't done much to materially change where the country is headed.

[Beelzebuddy]

Yeah - Iran's to the northeast.

/flamebait. I'm sorry.

Seriously though, good or bad you have to admit one thing - it's better than the alternatives.

[Zepherian]

Atriedes: Spain and Portugal have a longstanding rivalry, 700 years we have been here and they have not conquored us by war or marriage ;)

As for the "its for oil" argument: If it works dont fix it.

1) The bush family has ties with the Saudis.

2) Most of the terrorism in the world can be traced to Saudi Arabia, why not take the war there? Oh yes, they are friends.

3) Iraq, allthough a dictatorship, had little to do with Al Quaeda.

4) Iraq has some of the largest oil reserves which means that there is money to be made.

5) American and Saudi Buisnesses will probably make that money - Just wait and see. Bush's family will probably make money from the war and from the peace. Those that died won't get much of it...

Saddam gone is a good thing, and like I mentioned in this thread, if Iraq comes out with western living standards (and not necesserily cultural values), well, it might be worth it in the long run. If the country is left raped its another Afghanistan and we will have the whole terrorism trip again in 20 years.

You got yourselves in this mess, imo the only thing to do is stay put and haul it out for the long term, just like Germany after WW2.

But maybe the oil will pay for it. Shame about the countless thousands that died unecesserily though :( Question of priorities I guess...

[Starfisher]

Apollyon.. that's not even good flamebait. What powers back Iran? What shooting war is going on between Iran and Iraq?

Yes, Zeph, let's start a war so that Bush's family can make oil money...

OR LETS JUST OPEN UP ALASKA FOR DRILLING!!!!1 OMFG! !121! NO WAR! RIGHT THERE!

Which is less politically damaging? Which has less risk?

Look at the facts - Bush is deeply religious. Bush believes he's on a crusade. His crusade is to spread freedom. Iraq was not free, could be toppled without many casualties, wasn't going to impact the global economy, had a blatantly evil leader.. it was the perfect target. The strategic reasoning behind the move is that if you have a free society in Iraq, an Arab free society, it will bleed over to other countries.

Oil has nothing to do with it. Everyone seems so bent on trying to make Bush seem like an evil capitalist imperialist pig that they discount the very real possibilty that he believes in what he's doing. In which case, you can call him an idiot, radical, whatever. You can even say he started the war so Haliburton and company could profit from the reconstruction. But stop insulting your own intelligence and killing brain cells with this shrill "OIL GRAB" nonsense. There are a plethora of more logical, more probable and sensical reasons for this war than some convoluted conspiracy theory.

[Beelzebuddy]

Which is less politically damaging? Which has less risk?Which was attempted (and shot down) first?

Oh. Right. (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/04/18/arctic.refuge/)

[Alex Drake]

I never made the implication that it was the only reason, merely an offhand jibe, it was simply just a very clear benefit of invasion. I personally don't believe Bush is an idiot, just inept. Theres a difference. As for it being a conspiracy theory, thats not a very accurate statement. Its better to say that its a relatively narrow-minded theory. The fact of the matter is that there were many factors that motivated the Iraq invasion, but very few of them were truly altruistic. I submit that a majority of foreign policy decision made by the US in the last 20 years that have resulted in outright conflict involving US military forces have largely been motivated by a threat (or potential gain) to the economic prosperity of a small minority of individuals and fear (take your pick). Thats not a conspiracy theory, thats a fact, and it can be backed up by any number examples even excluding Iraq (et al).

[Starfisher]

Incorrect, Alex. (Look, a canal! Nightboat) There were no "altruistic" motivations. The spread of democracy is done out of a selfish interest in softening the region, not a noble goal of freeing the world. Bush believes in spreading freedom because he believes it will result in a safer America, not out of the goodness of his heart (although he may have started to think this as well). I totally agree that all US actions have been selfish; they don't make sense in any other context. In fact, I would be alarmed if the US began acting out of anything but it's own self interest. I don't want to die for something that is not going to materially benefit me or mine, thanks very much.

Apollyon: Compare the efforts made to drill in the arctic compared with the efforts made to go to war. Incomparable, basically. They made a limpwristed attempt to open up the refuge and got shot down. They put the propaganda machine into full gear for years, starting just after 9/11, before the Alaska thing was canned, to start a war in Iraq. If they wanted the oil in Alaska they could have had it (I mean even Alaksan citizens want it to happen). For that matter, they could have gone to any number of African states that were just starting to show promising oil discoveries which had little or no government and simply set up shop there without the war.

Do you really think that they are going to try and sneak some oil grab past the world at this point? Everyone has been yelling "oil oil oil!" for years now. The oil industry in Iraq is going to be jealously scrutinized for even a hint of American interference, and any that is found will only serve to undo the effects of the war. It's not happening.

There are plenty of more viable attacks on Bush in this situation and yet everyone persists in parroting the one they hear from everyone else instead of thinking up a new one.

[inquisitor andy]

I think it will be funny if they create a constitution based on the Koran.origenally posted by 0dyguru

yeah we all know how stupid a government thats heavily realigeous is.
Oh wait what are those ten thingys all western laws seem to be based on?
And whose that guy in that White house who's backed heavily by the far right church?

[Alex Drake]

Just a note; how is that incorrect if thats exactly what I was saying? :)

[Newbiest HW Fan]

I thought we couldn't drill in Alaska because the karabou would breed there and an oil drilling site would scare them away and make them extinct?

This is why the world can't have hippies.

Hippie: Wait man you can't drill here!

Bush: Why not? Its nothin but Ice no one lives here.

Hippie: Look at those poor animals, you'll scare them.

Bush: Oh, gosh! I didn't want to Interveney on their breeding, oh crap I misspronounciated a word again.

*About 3 years later*

Hippie: You just want to go into Iraq for the oil!

Bush: Well which the hell is it! We can have Iraq or Alaska, beggers can't be choosers!

[ShivaArchon]

Apollyon, that vote was taken before the Nov 2002 midterm elections that gave the Senate majority back over to the Republicans. If Bush still wanted oil so badly he could have pressured the new Congress to drill ANWR. You make a wild assumption that the failure to get the ANWR drilling bill passed gave the green light to the Iraq invasion.

[Ash]

We could have increased fuel efficiency...

Anyway, the ANWR reserves are a drop in the bucket compared to what's available in Iraq, not that we're invading Iraq to steal the oil. We're invading to make sure that the entire region's oil will be available for us to buy as long as it lasts. As crazy as the current administration may be, I don't see them starting a war that would not yeild any sort of economic benefit.

[Alex Drake]

How 'bout developing a fuel source that won't disappear in 50 years.

But in all seriousness, I don't see why calling an environmentalists "hippies" accomplishes anything. Most hippies were not environmentalists, and the word "hippy" decribes a lifestyle, not a moral/ethical stance. Might as well call'em [pinko] commie bastards while you're at it.

Note; Why is it that whatever and where-ever newbiest posts in the general forum its something mildly unintelligable, illogical, and almost always ignorant?

[Ash]

Oil won't be gone in 50 years, it will just be scarce compared with demand.

[Ash]

Hey, looks like someone already invented one! (http://www.biodiesel.org/)

By the way, you don't have any rights here, aside from protection from racism and the like.

[El Russo]

Bush did not go into Iraq to spread "freedom". You only have to look at the comments about links with terrorists (there were none) and weapons of mass destruction (also none). Furthermore, it would be illegal to do so. Under international law, invading a sovereign state for regime change is not allowed.

Unless he made up all that rubbish just to have an excuse to liberate the Iraqis. Now that I wouldn't have seen coming...

[Starfisher]

*snort* international law. There's a new one.

Yes, Bush went there to spread freedom. WMD were the justification. Links to terrorists were another. The point of the Iraq war was to establish a free society in accordance with Bush's belief that freedom will result in less danger for America. That was the strategic goal, along with getting rid of the fabled WMD. And yes, a free society would sell oil to America, as we are one of the largest consumers. What I don't get is why everyone seems to think we needed a war to go buy it - we could have simply bought into the oil for food thing if we were hip into corruption.

Ash: That's not a primary energy source - you still have to grow the animals and the plants while feeding people so they can drive the cars that burn the fuel. If I had my way, money would be poured into fusion and hydrogen research - a new primary energy source and a new way of carrying that energy around with you. Both clean, both more efficient than oil. And once we're on fusion, we can just ignore the middle east like we so dearly want to, letting them sort themselves out.

[Ash]

The was was fought to help secure the American presence in the Middle East, and stabilize the region. A major war involving any of the oil producing nations could cause flow to stop, which would be disastrous. While we have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, our relations with the Saudi populace are awful and if there were a revolution, we would be thrown out. The free Iraq that Bush aims to create would always welcome American troops.

[Moe]

I really wonder what the future holds for Iraq. How will the new government adress the issues presented by the ethnical makeup of Iraq? Do you think a breakup is possible, like we have seen with other countries before?

[Starfisher]

I can easily see the Kurds breaking off. Then Turkey's reaction will dictate whether or not we have yet another ethnic conflict in the region.

[inquisitor andy]

I can't see Kurdistan being set out in the way the kurds want it, ever.

[Ash]

I don't understand why the U.S. didn't create a federal system. Would both help ease Sunni-Shiite tensions as well as give the Kurds more autonomy without giving them a state and annoying the Turks to no end.

[Starfisher]

Not enough time. Too much pressure to pull out. Plus, the almost total lack of preperation for after the war...

[Alex Drake]

@ Moe: Worst problem to arise from that is that all the dickering over borders yields a situation similar to Israel and Palestine. I'm not entirely sure thats preferable to what they have now....

[Gyokuran]

I dont know much about it, but I dont understand how a strong federal government would be better. Infact I think it would be terrible. With 3 distinct religous/ethnic groups, and one being a majority over the other 2 by a good deal, I would think they would completly dominate the federal government. However if it was more of a republic like system with 3 provinces based around the location of the various groups, it would allow the 2 minority groups controll over most of the laws they live by. You have a relativly even amount of elected represenatives from the provinces making up the federal government, which I think would help to ease tension because they dont feel like they're being lead by people who arent them. Federal government still controlls the military and most outside interaction, but leaves most of the law making up to the provinces. Civil war would, I think, be less of a possibility simply because it would keep the people more happy.

[El Russo]

The liberation argument was just an after-thought, that's patently obvious. Blair for one always used it in the context of the other failed accusations to say "well, at least we removed Saddam...". And in terms of protecting US freedoms I'd say Iraq comes well below at least 20 other states capable of aiding terrorists. Not only did Osama despise Iraq (secular government as opposed to a Muslim run religious one), but Saddam, despite his arsenal, had nothing capable of hitting Europe, let alone the US.

[Mac_Bug]

Oh But You See Iraq Is Free Now

[Starfisher]

You're being deliberatly obtuse russo. Invading Iraq didn't have anything to do with direct threats on the US (although I think Bush really did believe he had WMD). The vision, as it is, is to create a free society in Iraq that then has a softening affect on the surrounding countries. Or hell, just creates another target for their hatred - Iran subsumes it, then you have the Shi'a versus the Sunnis. Balance of power.

But the real goal, the real strategy, was to try and force democracy on Iraq in the hope (naive, vain or otherwise) that a real free society would bolster the cause of reform in other countries. If the Arab world has democracys and not repressive theocracies, terrorism won't have nearly the hold it does - after all, if people are focused on improving their own lives they don't really think about ruining others. Right now it's not like that.

This was talked about, but not nearly as heavily as WMD, largely because it's not a strong enough reason to go to war. When it comes to justifications you need a threat, not a risky, naive sounding strategy. Don't think for a second I'm trying to angelic-ify the administration's actions. All American actions are selfish, in the long or short term, and this is the long term strategy behind this one. Was it poorly executed? Yes. They actually believed Iraqi's would line the streets with roses. Will it work? Who knows? Probably not as intended.

As a justification for war goes, social engineering with force is a poor one. But it was a justification, just not the one they told us.

[Zepherian]

Social engineering with force? Sounds a lot like faschism to me. Wern't you guys supposed to be the 'land of the free'?

[Starfisher]

If you can pay.

[ShivaArchon]

I don't understand why the U.S. didn't create a federal system. Would both help ease Sunni-Shiite tensions as well as give the Kurds more autonomy without giving them a state and annoying the Turks to no end.

The people who were elected on Sunday are going to be deciding on the Constitution and it'll be up to them whether or not to create a federal system, along with a whole lot of other things. It isn't going to be the US's responsibility to decide that.

[Alex Drake]

But you can bet that the US' opinion will highly color whatever decision is made.

[Moe]

Social engineering with force?

It worked in post-WW2 Germany. I can't say I completely agree with the way the US handles things, and the whole middle east situation seems rather bad. But they did pull it off successfully once. (And yes, I know, different circumstances).

[El Russo]

I'm sorry, but to me that's revisionism Star. If the spreading of democracies was the real reason then why did other countries sign up to the coalition (I've never heard anyone talk the way Dubya did at his inauguration speech)? Or did Bush fool Blair? I say this because before the war the UK was seen as a relatively impartial international player when it came to the Middle East. Now, after the US, we're easily one of the biggest targets for terrorism. How did going to war in Iraq help our position?

[Starfisher]

You're still not getting it.

First off, you may be a big target but the majority of terrorist activity is now focused in Iraq. You can be a huge bullseye and never get hit if the rifle is pointed elsewhere.

Secondly, I don't know why Blair supported Bush. Maybe Bush really did fool him with WMD. I do know that in the days leading up to the war Blair often spoke of Bush's "clear vision" and other such ambiguous traits. You probably don't remember, but there were statements made by administration officials about the strategy I'm outlining, but they were kept at a low profile. As you say, regime change imposed from without is illegal by international law - they didn't want to give the impression that they were on a crusade to fix the middle east.

Planners at the Pentagon and Bush himself believed and stil believe in the freedom = eventual lessening of hostilities idea. They said as much at the time, but it was drowned out in the WMD uproar. I'm not saying that the sole purpose of the Iraq war was to set up a democracy, or even that it will work, but it was one of the fundamental goals.

They really screwed up the execution, naively believing that Iraqi's would be glad we were occupying them. The lack of planning for after the invasion is proof enough of that.

Look, I'm not trying to defend the administration. I'm trying to pierce the blind, almost dogmatic belief that everything America does is either A) Oil theft or B) Stupidly destructive with no goal in mind. You can agree or disagree with the effectiveness of the strategy, how it was presented and it's legitamacy, but you can't fight the reality of the situation: Ever since 9/11, Bush has been on a crusade to change the middle east into something that hates America less. That crusade may have been poorly executed, poorly planned and even flat out inane, but it is what he's been trying to do.

[Makaan|Vaygr*]

I think....

[Makaan|Vaygr*]

The election in Iraq is BULLSHIT! Yah the citizens can vote, but who are they voting for? They could even elect someone worse than Sad-fooking-Dam :werd:

Personally i think its a US cover up! how do you guys even know who voted, how many and if even if they are taken into account?

BULLSHIT

Next on the US's hit list is Iran. And i wonder how many drums of oil the Us have jacked since they invaded Iraq back in 2003...mmmmmm.

RuHeL

[Starfisher]

How amazingly well thought out. Pardon me if instead of actually considering your arguments I just snort and go about my business.

[Zepherian]

Starfisher: Personally I don't believe that Bush had a plan to turn iraq into a terrorist magnet and focus all military and terrorist activity there. However I can concede that as long as you wish to sit there that might actually happen.

And allthough I have phrased America's interest in Iraq as 'Oil' the truth is of course a bit more complex: You have old military stockpiles to spend, you have pressure from your own domestic arms industry to keep a certain level of conflict, you have the need for oil of course, you have Iraq as a potentially imperialistic regime even if it was down for the count after the first Iraq war, you have the money for rebuilding Iraq to be made, you have ties with the Saudi's which use the US as cannon fodder to avoid spending their own military in Iraq, a potentially hostile regime (ironical how you are being played here), you have of course a perceived threat of WMD's (I believe that a lot of people really took that story seriously).

But my point stays strong: The US invaded Iraq for mostly economical reasons, under a false or at the very least totally missconcieved pretext.

Now the good bits: Saddam is gone and, in the mid to long term, there is a possibility that in the mid to long run the average Iraqi might be better off, unless they explode into civil war, which they probably will if the US pulls out. So, it was wrong of the US to move into iraq, but I will also be one of the first to say that it is now wrong to pull out.

Iraq can either turn out to be a new hope for the middle east or take the shit to a whole other level. And the USA will be the one to congratulate or blame either which way.

Well, thats a more or less simplified overview of how I see the whole Iraq thing. Sorry if I repeat myself ;)

[Atreides]

Makaan guy,

Seriously, the search function in this forum has not worked in many months so your going to hace to do a little more work. At the bottom of the page you will see lots of small numbers, skim through the GD thread titles and see how in depth our discussions go into the Iraq issue. These topics flesh out our differeing opinins based on research and thought out conclusions/theories etc... if you notice I starkly disagree with most other posters here about Iraq/Bush/America etc but we have an intelligent exchange of ideas...

Your post is more like a 5 year old interjecting himself into a group of adults discussing politics by just standing in the middle saying "You're a poo-poo head!" Grow up, do some research and then get back to us with something substancial to add.

K Thx, drive through please.

[Atreides]

Zeph,

I have a friend IRL who served in Gulf War Iand has an opinion on war in general that in a way coincides with your theory.

He thinks that war is waged to use our stockpiles to add economic life to our defense contractors by needing to order new stockpiles and updating our weapons, he also thinks the population is weede out because the vast majority of combat troops come from lower income areas, they get killed and we have relief from what would be a drain on society. As he put's it "War is to pad the pockets of arms manufacturers and kill a chunk of hicks, spics and niggers." While I find that synopsis of his patently offensive it seems to be in the same vein as your assertion that we use oil to use up old weapons and buy new ones. I am not implying that you think the other part of his crackpot theory but this thinking (generally) would imply that we sacrifice our troops for the sole financial gain of companies... that is dangerous thinking.

[Starfisher]

Heh, I agree that he didn't have much of a plan. And while I don't think the 1984-ish economic factors were as strong as you make out, they definately played a part. The point is that they DID use democracy as a justification, they DID/DO believe that it will result in a better middle east, and that oil is NOT the be all and end all of American action in the middle east. It's an important factor, yes, but not the only one. Really, that's all I'm trying to say here.

[Zepherian]

Atreides: My own theorys don't go as far as killing people as a relief for social security, because it dosen't make sense, not that many kids got killed, there are millions more in the US with economical difficultys. I try and be rational and add the numbers. So selective elimination of the poor dosen't cut it into my political analasis. That Bush family and cº willingly sacrifice the lives of fellow (usually poorer and less educated) americans for their own personal economical gain and public recognition I do believe however, it stands to reason, I find it so glaring im surprised more people don't see it.

Besides, allthough I do not agree with the emphasis the US economy putts on what is now an offensive war machine, I do recognise that no other country on earth goes to such great lengths in military preperation and technology to keep its overweight mcdonald chugging behemoth soldiers alive so they can safely hit a heart attack around their 50th birthday.

And yes, I am joking in that last phrase ;)

[El Russo]

It does seem quite convenient that these campaigns, apart from their primary motives (if they are that...), result in the maintenance of the status quo for many of the rich who circle around Bush. One can point to non-competitive contracts being handed over to Halliburton, or the familial relationship with certain Saudis. All the while the physical act of war goes on in their name by the poor and the small of America, and to make matters worse, Bush (or whoever) is trying to cut their wages and benefits.

What is clear though, is that however much I disagree with Bush, however much I think him misguided or dangerous, he obviously has the knack for making things work in his favour, be it winning elections or indoctrinating the general public. It is the hallmark of a good politician, whether they are a force for good or bad.

[Makaan|Vaygr*]

Atreides Paktu guy.

Me and about the rest of the world agree, America chat SHIT!

1. Bush invaded Iraq becoz of Wepaons of mass destruction.
2. Becoz there weren't 'Any' wmd, bush suddenly said we are after saddam...

I smell bullshit, or is it oil?

America will get whats coming to them, sooner or later....

[Moe]

"Me and about the rest of the world agree, America chat SHIT!"

Me and about the rest of the people in this thread agree that you "chat shit".
Your last post has nothing to do with anything. It's not like the US were the only people there, for example. With all due respect to your blind hatred of the United States as a whole, your attempt at logical reasoning fails. You have yet to back up your original claims.

[Starfisher]

:rofl:

What does that even mean?

[Atreides]

Da man sed dat Amerca chat shit!

Eban i can reed dat!

hims a smart one, pwn joo all!

Please makaan guy, do some research and then you too can sit at the big people table.

[Makaan|Vaygr*]

Well i know if i speak my mind iam gonna get banned :werd: My love for HW2 is far great for me to get banned. So i with draw my previous statement.

I sulut the modz, fairwell.

[Gyokuran]

You speaking your mind in a rational maner will very likely not get you banned. You loudly speaking rehashed rhetoric that you have not seriously contemplated will most likely start to get people annoyed at you. If you research, think, post, and listen its pretty rare that peple will get seriously mad at you.

[Martian]

All the while the physical act of war goes on in their name by the poor and the small of America, and to make matters worse, Bush (or whoever) is trying to cut their wages and benefits.uh no


Bush proposes higher war-zone death benefits

Democrats urge applying payments to all active-duty personnel

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats argued Tuesday that President Bush's proposal to boost government payments to families of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and future war zones should extend to all military personnel who died on active duty.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that while he agreed with Bush's plan to give those families an extra $250,000, the money should also "apply to all service members on active duty" and not just those who died in Pentagon-designated combat zones.

The proposal, the subject of the panel's hearing, includes retroactive payments to the spouses or surviving relatives of the more than 1,500 who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since October 2001. It will be in the 2006 budget proposal Bush submits to Congress next week, a Pentagon official said.

A tax-free "death gratuity," now $12,420, would grow to $100,000. The government would also pay for $150,000 in life insurance for troops. Veterans groups and many in Congress have been pushing for such increases.

[...]
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/01/death.benefits.ap/index.html

[dmille]

America will get whats coming to them, sooner or later....
And, perhaps you'll get a dictionary or a word processor with a spell check feature?

Your posts don't merit a point-by-point response.

The rest of the posts in this thread are a mixture of disgusting negativity for the purpose of avoiding that President Bush might, at some point, have been right about something and the usual nonsense.

[Atreides]

Now you show up.

You missed the fireworks show.

There is always one that injects childish crap, acts like a kind of pressure valve, a noisy one at that.

[Zepherian]

To complete a political analasis of any given figure in a way that is meaningfull beyond the usual partisan rhetoric Dmille, one has to add up what was done right but also subract what was done wrong.

Don't call it disgusting negativity when over a thousand of your countrymen have died in a war which was, as far as I can see it, totally unecessary and ethically wrong.

It's easy for me to defend my position, as i'm not American and not going to war won't make me a hypocrite, but if you guys believe what Bush is doing regarding Iraq is so right, well, why not enlist yourselves? Don't you want to be a part of that extraordinary display of applied democracy that is Iraq?

I've had one family member in Iraq, a first degree cousin, and I can tell by the glazed look on his face whenever its mentioned that it was no picknick...

The fact that the rich are getting richer because of this war is just adding insult to injury.

But, like I said in previous posts, put democracy and prosperity into Iraq, and, in the long run, it might be worth it for the average iraqi, even considering you had no buisness invading the country this time around.

[dmille]

why not enlist yourselves? Don't you want to be a part of that extraordinary display of applied democracy that is Iraq?
Some of us have medical reasons for being ineligible for active military service (and are bothered by it) but intend to go into government service after college.

I don't see that you've said anything there that I or others haven't responded to a number of times, Zeph. Which is to say, that I really don't think that anything said will change your [misguided] opinions. What's more, the simple and fortunate fact of the matter is that my time is better spent working on my own projects these days.

I didn't miss the fireworks. I've just seen this particular show before and found it utterly lacking.

[Atreides]

I am medically unqualified for military service, I was informed of this by the US Navy during the first Gulf War after I HAD enlisted, I had planned on being a naval officer a life career since I was 8, since that time I have wandered about doing this and that.

The rich get richer? Come on, using a platitude does not constitute a fact, unless you have some data to back that up. And don't bring Halliburton into this, the reason Halliburton is used for reconstruction of this scope is it is one of two companies with the resources to even do a job of this magnitude. Clinton used them exclusively as well during his presidency (Kosovo for example) so the Bush uses the same company of course.

Oh yeah, that other company is a French company, thus the reason why it was not a job open for bidding. Why award the reconstruction contract to a nation that pulled every stunt to prevent the liberation of Iraq in the first place, of course maybe the insurgents and Batthist remants would not attack their French sympathisers, but it was American (mostly) blood that was spilled to liberate Iraq so an American company gets the job.

[timotheus]

you do realize that the shia (who are the majority) voted in massive numbers to take majority of power, and the sunni (minority) did not vote at all.

success? seems like a civil war.

[General Nuke Em]

That's right. Exactly zero Iraqi Sunni voted.

[Martian]

That more than zero Sunni voted does not mean that the elections were simply seen as and used as a powergrab by the Kurds and Sji'ites. I can't be sure about that, but it is a very real possibility.

[Nightwatch]

I was not really surprised at a good turnout to be honest. The only insurgents againt the elections were the few hundred forign fanatics and some sunni hardliners (ie about 5% tops of the insurgency, who get 99% of the american press..) The Shia and the Kurds were well behind the elections, the sunni less so as they have been compleatly marginalised since the occupation started, so their lack of enthusiasm is rather understandable. I think the risks of a low turnout were deliberatly exaggerated, just so the actual turnout, no matter how big it was, could be protraid as some kind of triumph.

That said the fact that some have reported threats of having thie rfood vouchers revoced if thay didn;t vote, and that they have downgraded tier estimetes of votoer turnout since (quietly) takes some of the shine off even that.

In any case there is a golden oppratunity here. If the Americans, within the next week, annouunce a timetable for withdrawl and more importantly are seen to stick to it, it will have a tremendous stabilising influence on the country. (the troops will still face attacks till the last one leaves, however.) If they dont, and worse send more troops, the oppritunity will be lost and the elections will become a false dream. its like, to make an analogy, a rotten tooth. the longer it goes on, the more annoying and painful it becomes, and the more you will pull at it to get rid of it. Once you know its going, it dosent seem so bad.

What I see as likely at this point is a variation on every time any kind of representitive body has been convined in Iraq to this point. The elected assempbly meets and then calls for the US to leave. The US, basicly dosent. The Assembly dosent convene again. And a govenorship is set up which basicly becomes Saddam II as that will be a stabilising influence. Remember Saddam I was pretty much set up by the west and was definatly supported by the same as he was seen as a stabilising influence. Theres a reason the guy has not been brought to trial, despite other members of the old goverment was, as what he would say would be highly embarassing for a lot of people. (For example "So, Mr. Bush, why did you praise Saddams human rights record in a speech in 1988? And why did you dismiss photographic evidence of the gassing of the kurds with US supplied Chemical weapons as fakes, and later rely on those same photos as evidence for war?")

In any case, I suspect the post election planning will be to the high standard of post anything planning we have seen thus far.

(By the way, if the insurgents are all sunni how come the US spent a large chunk of last hear fighting Shia's? :werd: )

[ShivaArchon]

What representative Iraqi body has called for the US to leave? Don't make stuff up.

The Shia rebels last year were largely al-Sadr's gang. Clearly with a Shiite majority in the country, a power hungry dictator-wannabe might try to get the US out quickly so he could take power. At this point, the vast majority of attacks are occurring in regions corresponding to Sunni-majority areas. Shiite dominated areas are relatively quiet. Coincidence?

According to the AP, none of Saddam's top lieutenants have been put on trial yet. Where are you getting this stuff from? Saddam hasn't been tried because there's no Iraqi tribunal to try him.

[Atreides]

Nightwatch,

You show insight with your posting style, unlike some others GG.

But you need to actually RESEARCH the topic, NO ONE has been brought to trial yet, Saddam's cabinet members are snuggled into their cells and areallowed to meet under supervision and play chess, Saddam tends a small garden and writes horrifically bad poetry.

And on the caterwauling for a "timetable" pehaps we could use the timetable we had in Kosovo (oh wait, we're still there 8 years later) the UN has a major role in Kosovo with peacekeepers and diplomats, and yet the area looks like it could fire up again any time (the UN is SO good at this)

I watched the State of the Union speech last night, and then saw the democrat response that essentially was "No, no, no, gamble our social security, no, no, we will work with the administration (yeah right) no, no, timetable, no, no, pull out of Iraq, no, no, and in closing we look forward to cooperating :yech:

Why don't they just say what it would amount to... "We need to let the Iraqis fend for themselves! When will we abandon the Iraqis? Only Iraqis should fight for Iraq now!" It is really sick to see how they call for US withdrawal constantly, are they truly blind to what that would mean to the flegling government in Iraq? Or is it just another pathetic attack on Bush. American troops are not the "problem" if not for them the election last Sunday would never have been possible, but that is too bitter a pill to swallow.

[Gyokuran]

The Iraqi government will not ask for the US to leave, they would have to be stupid to do so. The United States does not want to leave until Iraq is stable and capable of maintaining its own security. The Iraqi government will not ask the US to leave until its stable, and capable of maintaining its own security. If they do before then, then their government will colapse. Having the United States in Iraq is in the Iraqi's government's best interest, and they know it.

I think setting up a strict time table to leave could cause problems. You do need a general guideline in order to gauge your progress and have set goals, however with the constantly shifting nature of insurgency set in stone guidelines will probably end up being a hinderence. I do not think we can accuratly estimate when this conflict will "end", I would be very supprised if the united states did not have a military presence in iraq in 25 or 50 years from now.

I somehow missed the state of the union adress, but I'm not really sure what Bush is thinking about Privatizing Social Security. Leting people have private accounts will be good for some, but awful for others... and we're going to be expected to pick up the slack again for the people who wasted it. He once said jokingly that people could spend it on lotto tickets if they really wanted to, I hope he realizes that there are millions of people who will do something exactly like that.

[Starfisher]

I'm more concerned with the trillion dollars needed to fund the reform. But that has little to do with elections in Iraq, right?

[Ash]

roll... back... tax... cuts?

But yes, that has little to do with elections in Iraq.

[Atreides]

OK, off topic: The reform to social security is a phase in for the general population a retirement system like the congress has, which is one of the best retirement plans in existence, democrats don't want that becuase they have some say in where their money is invested, but don't think we are smart enough to do the same, the congress would also lose 4% control of the money, which could go a long way toward reducing or eliminating the welfare state we have now with repect to retirees. The welfare state and scaring people has kept them in power for 60 years, they lose that chip and things get rough for them. They also are desperate to maintain the issue as a point to demogague for the elction in '06 as many of them are up for election and need an issue to scare the crap out of people to vote for them to protect them from the evil republicans that starve the children etc... END OFF TOPIC

We will probably be in Iraq for many years to come, initially for a protective/support role for the Iraqis, and to have a strong military presence in the Arab area for us. Later our bases will be a financial support mechanism for the surrounding Iraqi towns/people. (Like Rammstein for example)

[Beelzebuddy]

Since when are Democrats the ones who scare the population into voting for them?

[Starfisher]

Since when was either party objective?

Election, folks. Election.

[Atreides]

Yeah, there was an election in Iraq, first free election in over half a century, what a great day. The images of crowds of men and women dancing and singing in the streets while holding up purple stained fingers I can well see being one that will live on in history.

[Ash]

There he goes again, like a scratched record...

[Atreides]

Heh.

Just trying to get it back on topic.

[faust8577]

Really have my doubts about as to wether the violence is going to decrease. I really hope it does, but I sadly feel that this is only the beginning. :(

[crobato]

The Shia rebels last year were largely al-Sadr's gang. Clearly with a Shiite majority in the country, a power hungry dictator-wannabe might try to get the US out quickly so he could take power. At this point, the vast majority of attacks are occurring in regions corresponding to Sunni-majority areas. Shiite dominated areas are relatively quiet. Coincidence?

Not really. The Shiia are just bidding their time, playing smartly, using the numbers to control a democratic process in which to put one of their own into power with legitimacy. The Shiia are being backed and financed by Iran, for goodness sakes, and being led by a guy who has Ayatollah for a title.

The Sunnis are against the Shiia for that very reason. This is why we can expect sectarian violence.

What makes you think that the Shiia will be US allies, eh? Don't you still remember what happened in Iran?

[El Russo]

Yeah, there was an election in Iraq, first free election in over half a century, what a great day.
Can you prove that? As far as I know, they've never had democracy in Iraq...

[dmille]

If I recall correctly, Iraq had parliamentary elections in 1953 (I believe that the results were actually later cancelled because of opposition victories, which would undermine the "free" bit), with military coups following in 1958 and 1963 (the final Ba'ath coup).

[The Collector]

They've had a vote, but does vote = democracy?

Saddam had elections where he was the only name on the ballot and got 100% mandates. This experience sours me on Elections in Iraq; though the absence of perfect information leads us to believe (based on the MSM's reporting) that people were celebrating the vote and that soon they would kick out America or somesuch.

[ceejayoz]

Yeah, there was an election in Iraq, first free election in over half a century, what a great day. The images of crowds of men and women dancing and singing in the streets while holding up purple stained fingers I can well see being one that will live on in history. Given that the religious leader seems to be trouncing the US-backed Allawi (sp?) they may well be celebrating "YAY! NOW WE'LL MAKE YANKEE GO HOME!" Heh.

[Atreides]

Only time will tell, they still have to draft their laws and have a constitutional election in December. Maybe some of you are right and the US is expelled or Iraq devolves into total civil war, or perhaps after we are dismissed Iran takes over and the US "keeps it's nose out" of affairs that don't involve us directly (smells like pre WWII Europe). Perhaps Iraq will be a failure in the end and millions will die in the bloodbath and some of you are proven right...

But who would rejoice in that were the case?

[The Collector]

The enemies of the Free World.

[El Russo]

I'm pretty sure before Saddam took over it was us Brits always meddling in Iraqi affairs. And can you blame us??? We invented Iraq!! You hear that you ungrateful terrorist cheese monkeys?? We invented you! Hahahahahahaaaaaaa...

[The Collector]

Sourly enough, the Brits "invented" Afghanistan and Palestine. The Ottomans had Basra, Baghdad and Mosul province, and you wanted one stinking "province". :D

[Martian]

But who would rejoice in that were the case?Nobody except a few crazy fundies and some people who manage to get rich in the ensuing chaos. What is the point of this question?

[Atreides]

So many seem to almost hope that we fail in helping the Iraqis establish liberty and self determination.

I just saw a piece on the news that the Sunnis are approaching the Shi'ites and Kurds to have representation in the delegation that draws up the constitution and the Shi'ites and Kurds were accepting of this for discussion. It would appear that even the hard line Sunnis see the writing on the wall and want to participate now. This is encouraging news.