|
|
|
#1
Linky
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.
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common.
They don't alter their views to fit the facts, rather they alter the facts to fit their views.
...This can be unfortunate if you happen to be one of the facts they need to alter.
#2
I find it amusing that Iraq had a higher turnout than any of the recent American elections, even with the dangers involved.
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.
#4
I wonder if that will make the attacks stop....prolly not, though it's a step in the right direction.
#5
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.
#6
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
#7
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.
#8
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.
#9
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.
#10
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.
#11
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...
Socrates: To be is to do.
Sartre: To do is to be.
Sinatra: Do be do be do.
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.
#13
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.
#14
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.
#15
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.
#16
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.
#17
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?"
#18
Here's hoping the results of this election quell the budding civil war instead of adding to it.
My direction, not my intention, will determine my destination. - A.S.
#19
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.
#20
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).The United States, England and Allied forces had no part in who voted
#21
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:
#22
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.
#23
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!!
#24
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.
#25
It's for those reasons that I think a federal system would be more appropriate then what the US is currently setting up.
#26
I'd be interested to know which came first, colonial cartography or paint by numbers...Originally Posted by jetfx
#27
rofl Russo!
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.
It takes a lot of argument
to convince most people
that they are lying.
"60% of <unintelligible> iraqis voted!" i call bullsh*t
"Hacking (to me) implies a less disciplined approach to updating source code." ~ÜberJumper
"There's a little Sorak in every one of us. Every time we feel lazy or
compelled to sleep in, it's the Sorak inside of us talking." ~Mokona
"All those forum noobs flame me now. ALL I TRIED TO DO WAS HELP THEM" Hirmetrium
#30
how much I hate Atriedes when his mouth is open.
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.
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..
Last edited by TheLoneKnight; 31st Jan 05 at 2:48 AM.
#31
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.I find it amusing that Iraq had a higher turnout than any of the recent American elections, even with the dangers involved.
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
#32
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.
"Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes...." -H.G. Wells
@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).
"The superior man...does not set his mind either for anything, or against anything; what is right he will follow."
-Confucius, The Confucian Analects
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.
Thats 300 billion that could have gone towards fixing up our shitty educational system.
#36
The election will have been successful if they have another one in due time.
#37
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.
#38
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.
#39
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Beginning of a rant about the American Education System
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.
#43
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.
#44
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.
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.
#45
*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.
#46
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:
@ 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.
Some mindless ranting about er..., my angst vs. the current administration
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!
Last edited by Alex Drake; 31st Jan 05 at 4:44 PM.
Paktu,
Allow me to address something.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."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.
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.
A-p: Spain? Wtf?!
I'm with zeph on this one, X_x
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
