Originally posted by giddyup Here's my point: isn't the overwhelming "success" of this election a vindication? A vindication of everything Bush has done? No. Not at all. Once (and still) you are so cocerned that Bush not give a darn about what the world thought, why isn't the world responsible for giving a darn about what the Bush administration thought. What? Taking leadership is not always the fastest route to popularity. True, but when you piss-off the extreme majority of the populace of even your best friends, you clearly handled something wrong. I would venture that the US has never been anywhere close to this unpopular. And it will cost us. 1. There are many critics who said 6 months ago that this election would never occur or that if it did it would be a bloodbath. That was wrong. Not me. 2. How many times did I read (not from you specifically Cohen) that Iraqis don't even want freedom? Well, it appears that they did and now they embrace it and suddenly... the press discovers it?!? Definitely not me.
<b>Originally posted by Cohen A vindication of everything Bush has done? No. Not at all.</b> I didn't say EVERYTHING Bush has done. How about being right about what the Iraqis would want and what they would suffer to get it? <b>What?</b> This administration has accomplished great things in Afghanistan and in Iraq-- in the face of constant world criticism. Maybe the world was wrong and the Bush administration was right. Is anybody out there, who was a critic, even considering that possibility? <b>True, but when you piss-off the extreme majority of the populace of even your best friends, you clearly handled something wrong. I would venture that the US has never been anywhere close to this unpopular. And it will cost us.</b> Who are our "friends" who were pissed off? France? Germany? Russia? Is it possible they they were wrong about events in this War on Terror? The Iraqis embraced the right to vote. They undertook the responsibility to vote in great numbers even under the threat of death. A 90 YO woman was wheeled to the voting place in a wheelbarrow for God's sake... <b>Not me.... Definitely not me. </b> I implied it wasn't you. Now what about the questions? This election thing has turned out way better than the critics said it would. You might call it a resounding victory for the Iraqi democracy. You might call it an upset; the Bush Administration called it from the beginning. The IRaqis have embraced it.
The election seems to be a success. I don't think that Bush was wrong and the critics were right. I will however, be very happy for the good that goes on there, as well as disappointed with the bad, and the venture as a whole.
The Bush administration was right about Iraqis wanting Democracy, which I also believed (and hoped for). They were wrong in many things, including the main reason they latched onto to go to war. And when was the war supposedly 'over'? How many troops was the post-war supposed to require (and who forced the one general who was right into retirement)? When were the troops supposed to start coming home? Who the hell let abu ghraib happen? Must we rehash all this again? I don't feel like it today. There was not the same opposition to Afghanistan as Iraq. It was a decidely different scenario. As for who we pissed off, the question is more who we didn't piss off. It'd be much easier to list. How can you so readily discount the concerns of so many majorities from so many countries?
Hey! Freedom is good. Freedom in Iraq is better. Who doesn't believe in freedom? Why do terrorists hate us? Because they hate freedom! Yeah, that's the ticket. So; do we allow the Shiites to install an Imam in Iraq, and make our impending invasion of Iran that much more difficult, or do we switch out the ballot boxes and appoint our own U.S. 100% Grade A Stooge to run things? Ahmad Chalabi Jr., maybe?
C'mon giddy, you think all of those populations arund the world have self-serving interests WRT to Iraq? They're upset because they're losing a contract? You honestly believe that? As for results, no results can change our President's reasons (both real and perceived) for going to war. That's what concerns the rest of the world.
What those populations think is largely influenced by what they are told-- just as in America. No, the average Parisian is not concerned about losing a contract but the French government might be a tad concerned about being implicated in a huge scandal involving the UN and other financial issues relative to Sadam Hussein. We included Iraq in the war on terror because: 1. Saddam had in fact used WMDs and 2. the Iraqi people had themselves been terrorized by Saddam's regime for 3 decades. Removal of Saddam alleviated that oppression. The joyous celebration of the IRaqi people on the occasion of this election evidences their release from terror. I saw Joe Lieberman on Hannity & Colmes last night. He reminded us that he and John McCain had been calling for the invasion of IRaq since 1998. They showed a quote from John Kerry in 2003 in which he stated that you shouldn't vote for him (Kerry) if you thought that Saddam didn't have WMDs... because he did. Nuclear WMDs are much scarier than bio-chemical WMDs. How and why the conversation got dominated by nuclear is another question...
Originally posted by giddyup What those populations think is largely influenced by what they are told-- just as in America. Let's use this BBS as a test case of this hypothesis. First, tell me which here are being told what to think, the liberals or conservatives? No, the average Parisian is not concerned about losing a contract but the French government might be a tad concerned about being implicated in a huge scandal involving the UN and other financial issues relative to Sadam Hussein. Those lucrative contracts may explain why 2 or 3 governments anti-war actions. Even accepting this theory, what about the other 150 or so nations? We included Iraq in the war on terror because: 1. Saddam had in fact used WMDs and 2. the Iraqi people had themselves been terrorized by Saddam's regime for 3 decades. Removal of Saddam alleviated that oppression. The joyous celebration of the IRaqi people on the occasion of this election evidences their release from terror. Don't try to go there. What point are you trying to make? I saw Joe Lieberman on Hannity & Colmes last night. He reminded us that he and John McCain had been calling for the invasion of IRaq since 1998. They showed a quote from John Kerry in 2003 in which he stated that you shouldn't vote for him (Kerry) if you thought that Saddam didn't have WMDs... because he did. Again, point being? Since I have always been for the war, you need to listen and understand the issues I have. Others may have been for a War also, but I doubt they were 'for' alienating most of the world, underestimating the troops requirements while forcing a General who made a good recommendation to retire, torturing detainees (prob resulting in many more insurgents and thus US deaths), declaring the war over prematurely, not tracking billions $$$ well, handing over the reconstruction contract to their 'buddies', being slow to return needed utilities, taking actions that made it difficult to buod a military and police force....you get the idea ... I hope. Nuclear WMDs are much scarier than bio-chemical WMDs. How and why the conversation got dominated by nuclear is another question... Again, the WMD issue is a 'why', not 'how'.
Wow...this went better than I could have possibly imagined. Great news! The turnout should send a pretty strong message to the insurgents about what MOST Iraqis think of their bullcrap.
if the turnout numbers are correct, then the election will have not have proved this administration, or it's opponents, right or wrong respectively. it does prove that the iraqi people have tremendous courage. i take my hat off to them.
wait...it proves the administration right in the sense that others said, "democracy will never work there" and all that crap. if this is stepping-stone to having the largest nation in the Middle East turn into a full-fledged democracy, I'd say that's a feather in the cap of this administration, whether you choose to recognize it or not.
dude, just giving kudos to the people showing up to vote. we are a long way from having a stable democracy there. i want that, i hope the iraqi's do too.
GREAT STUFF, this Iraqi democratic way... YIPPPEEEEE!!!!! no sarcasm. Why is it that Iraqis living HERE can vote for things to change THERE? That's sort of like allowing some of us MEXICANs with double nationality to vote for president THERE... when we live HERE. Can anyone explain to me like I was a four-year-old why we allow that...? I think it's not fair... just want an explanation... don't go and get all mad on me...
