If the Iraqis vote by majority to have a theocrat government that is anti-US in the future, would the US have to invade Iraq again?
Because many Iraqi expatriates left to escape being killed by Saddam's regime. And we do allow Americans living abroad to vote in our elections.
Originally posted by giddyup My point was the press not this BBS, but to answer your question: I think both liberals and conservatives are told what to think... I think your painkillers are dulling your senses. So Americans who have supposedly been told what to think are just about evenly divided on most all issues? If our coalition can be dubbed the coalition of the willing, so can theirs. Thats nonsensical. Point? Rousing victory that belies what we were told to expect by the professional critics. Okay, what ON TOPIC point are you trying to make? I guess I"m saying that those who were alienated were WRONG proven so by the election. Remember hearing that Middle Eastern nations don't even want democracy? Iraqis did-- in spite of death threats against their vote-casting. Feel free to diagree about how things were done... but don't let that cause you to miss the overall victory for freedom and democracy and stability in the Middle East. Dude, read mys posts in this thread. I'm ecstatic about the Iraqis being free. Read my old posts back before the start of this war, I always listed freedom for the Iraqi people as the main reason that I supported this war. Recall we diverged from the thread topic when you asked me about why I didn't criticize the 'other' nations. I don't agree. Nuclear capabilities or inclinations were not beyond the pale. Bio-chemical ones were historical fact. I'll rephrase: WMD is related to 'WHY' we went to war, not 'HOW" we bungled it. You (and andymoon) can lament that we didn't allow Saddam to play the UN inspectors card, ... I've NEVER lamented this specifically. I've lamented how Bush ignored the rest of the world. How he alienated them. How he was owned by the French. It' shouldn't have been black/white. There would have always been many countries pissed about us going into Iraq. Maybe even half. But nearly ALL? He failed, quite obvious. Subsequent bungling of the war did not help. ... but the point remains that he had a decade to step forward and come clean. He didn't, so we had to send the inspectors back in. There was stuff unaccounted for. We could be casual and careless and write it off as bad bookkeeping, but if I were the commander in chief I would want more certitude before letting anybody off the hook. Would you want a nuked NY on your historical resume or a toppled dictator of Iraq? Again, you have a strong tendency to try to degrade this into a 'WHY' we went into Iraq. And again, since I have always supported the war, don't you think this misdirected?
Originally posted by Cohen <b>I think your painkillers are dulling your senses. </b> I'm not on any painkillers... <b>So Americans who have supposedly been told what to think are just about evenly divided on most all issues? </b> We have multiple sources of news, i.e. liberal press vs. conservative talk radio. The internet is all over the map. Anybody, no matter their POV, can find a legitimizing outlet. That's my point. <b>Thats nonsensical.</b> Why is it nonsensical to dub those who didn't support the war effort to be part of another coalition of the willling or shall we all them the coalition of the unwilling?! Okay, let's do it mathematically. The US took some 30 nations with them. Russia, Germany, and France each took 30 nations with them. How many are unaccounted for? <b>Okay, what ON TOPIC point are you trying to make?</b> How is that off-topic? <b>Dude, read mys posts in this thread. I'm ecstatic about the Iraqis being free. Read my old posts back before the start of this war, I always listed freedom for the Iraqi people as the main reason that I supported this war. Recall we diverged from the thread topic when you asked me about why I didn't criticize the 'other' nations.</b> Okay, so those other nations now have been proven wrong: they didn't, in fact, know that the Iraqis would celebrate freedom as they have. Since they aren't Americans, they have no stake in The How like you do. WHat next? <b>I'll rephrase: WMD is related to 'WHY' we went to war, not 'HOW" we bungled it.</b> Okay. <b>I've NEVER lamented this specifically. I've lamented how Bush ignored the rest of the world. How he alienated them. How he was owned by the French. It' shouldn't have been black/white. There would have always been many countries pissed about us going into Iraq. Maybe even half. But nearly ALL? He failed, quite obvious. Subsequent bungling of the war did not help.</b> And I say that the rest of the world ignored Bush. Yes, the whys didn't end up being the slam-dunk on the nuclear WMD front that we thought they would. There were plenty other clear reasons to go ahead and oust Saddam. As I pointed out, Lieberman and McCain had been promoting it since 1998. I'll bet you can find a Kerry quote to that effect as well. Bush didn't ignore the rest of the world. He invited them and they stayed home. <b>Again, you have a strong tendency to try to degrade this into a 'WHY' we went into Iraq. And again, since I have always supported the war, don't you think this misdirected? </b> Let's just say it's for andymoon then!
Good for Iraq, once we transform the remainder of the middle east, the question begs, will there ever be war again? If everybody is free. Who is going to fight? Sure. There are good things to fight over. Land, resources, air. money, weapons. There will aways be haves and have nots. But in a free world, there may be a distribution of wealth that supercedes any cause for war.
I'm very happy for Iraq and the Iraqi people. But let's keep a few things in perspective here. Analysts also noted that the Bush administration initially resisted the idea of holding elections this soon and only succumbed under pressure from Iraq's most powerful cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The original plan, designed by then-U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer, was a complicated formula of regional caucuses to select a national government, which would write a constitution, and then hold the elections. "It was Sistani who demanded one-person, one-vote elections. So to the extent it's a victory, it's a victory for Iraqis. The Americans were maneuvered into having to go along with it," said Juan Cole, an Iraq expert at the University of Michigan. Other analysts said recent opinion polls indicate that many Iraqis viewed the election as one way to accelerate the U.S. withdrawal rather than as a vindication of U.S. policy. "They realize that the quickest way to get the United States out of Iraq is to create a new government," said Henri Barkey, a former State Department policy planning staff member now at Lehigh University. "Not to vote would mean a continuation of the status quo. So the election is not a vindication of U.S. policy." Middle East analysts are most concerned about how the divide among the electorate yesterday could translate into trouble when Iraqis get down to forming a government and particularly writing a constitution. "We shouldn't get hysterical with hyperbole, we shouldn't have a 'mission accomplished' moment," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute and an analyst with Zogby International, a New York-based polling firm. "Our polls show that the divisions are quite deep." He compared Iraq's election to the 1860 U.S. election, which paved the way for the Civil War after Abraham Lincoln won -- and South Carolina seceded. "This election could exacerbate the divide," Zogby said. "You can't have 20 percent of the population feel disenfranchised." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ashpost/20050131/pl_washpost/a49115_2005jan30
WTF??? you must be nutz....yes go to china next...hmmmmm they have an communist government. ..or go to North Korea.....hmmmmmmmm they have the real deal missiles which they are crazi enough to use...the only reason iraq was attacked and not N.Korea was because one had them and the other did'nt what was the price for freedom??? anyone in here question that?...too many died...and it's not even over yet....you guys make it like wow you did a great deed....i'm happy for the iraqi's though how it was done is something to be questioned...though not on this board.
Never said invade. No need to do that. When the people taste freedom they'll take it. They'll take it in China, Iran, N. Korea, and anywhere there is no freedom of choice. It's inevitable as a human need.
2 entries found for sarcasm. sar·casm Audio pronunciation of "sarcasm" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm) n. 1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. 2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule. 3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1. [Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein, to bite the lips in rage, from sarx, sark-, flesh.] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm
I haven’t read the recent posts in this thread yet so I apologise in advance if I’m repeat what’s already been said. If these voter turnout numbers are correct* then this is a great result. Even if the war doesn’t abate soon and/or this current government struggles to gain footing I think what this shows is that a significant percentage of the people of Iraq believe in democracy. That’s pretty surprising given that Iraq has essentially no history of democracy and that the region has very little history of it. This begs the question, how did they learn enough about the concept to buy into it enough to risk their lives to vote in such numbers? I could be that this is a result of the new age of information, where a large percentage of the world’s population has access to satellite television and/or the internet and can see it in action to some extent and come to have a good sense of it. If so, then this further advances the theory that political battles of the coming decades will be more between different worldviews than between people with different nationalities, as we will all come to understand more clearly that countries/“religions”/races are not homogenous units, and that they often break down along different lines. * Forgive my scepticism, but I believe this administration to be fundamentally dishonest, and, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” The claims of a 60% turnout came pretty quickly, well before the polls closed. If there was some spin doctoring going on here, what would the strategy be? We know that a significant percentage of the American public still believes that the war in Iraq is part of the war against terror, and some I suspect still believe that there are or were WMD there within the last 10 years. So how did they make so many people believe things that are patently untrue? They made bold, grand statements and got all their supporters pumped up and bought in, then when the truth came out later it didn’t really matter. Their supporters were all flush with righteousness and committed to their tribe’s point of view, right or wrong. “My country right or wrong!” “Stand by our troops, no matter what!” (The last statement always strikes me as particularly strange. If I heard the report correctly, George Bush himself this past MLK day said that “MLK loved his country so much he was prepared to stand up to what was wrong with it.” Yet when such a light is shone on the acts of his administration and questions asked about whether it was good for the troops to be sent into Iraq, the backyard of anti-American terrorists, without the support of a broad coalition, in violation of international law, on false pretences, without adequate planning, etc. they are accused of being unpatriotic, anti-American themselves. The double standard is mind boggling. Harry Truman once said of Richard Nixon that he was the one of the few people he knew who could be talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and lying out of both. I think this administration expands that list quite dramatically.) So, if this turns out to be just another con I’ll adjust my above musings accordingly.
Anyone notice that suddenly the insurgents became terrorists in the media. I'm not sure when that happened. But the transition has almost been made and soon enough the Iraqi will believe it too. We've almost spun this the way we want it. Or at least someone has.
* Forgive my scepticism, but I believe this administration to be fundamentally dishonest, My thoughts exactly. On a positive note it is good to see people turn out to exercise their rights and to vote. It took courage to do this with the violence and threats. Hopefully if they later turn out to tell us to end the occupation we will leave. Sadr's followers had a demonstration and did that and we fired on them. We do know that the Grand Ayatollah Sistani demanded these elections and the US was forced to comply. The election schedule, like much of the progress of the war with respect to Fallujah and in other aspects, was largely done to assist with Bush's reelection efforts. Sistani issued a religious order for all Shia to vote and apparently many of them did. We know the Sunis didn't vote. The Kurds did. This could just be a sort of ratification of the civil war that may have already started. Last time around it was the British opposed by the Shia and the Brits put the Sunnis in power. Now we may have the American invaders fighting the Sunnis and allowing the Shia to be in power. We and Allawi have basically had mainly Kurds fighting along with us against Sunnis and in the case of Sadr, radical Shia. Of course given the desperate financial circumstances we have had a few Sunnis willing to kill Sunnis for Allawi and us as well as a few Shia willing to kill Sadrites and other Shia. The CIA has said that Allawi's group in exile was involved in placing bombs in buses and theaters during Sadam's reign. By a fairly reliable acccount, Allawi executed several alleged resistance members personally ,after being selected as temporary leader by the Bush Administration. He is our guy who had been paraded before Congress and we want him to win. He is a terrorist just as much as any Hamas member or the departed Arafat who many of the pro-war crowd loved to hate. Recently BEFORE THE VOTE Bush announced that the new government would want us to stay. A few days later a poll showed what other polls have shown, that about 82 %of the Sunnis and 69% of the Shia want us to leave immediately or soon. Bush and Rumsfeld talk of staying 2 yrs and some generals and others talk of 10 years. How does Bush know the results of the election ahead of time?-- or at least that the elected leaders would go against strong majorities of their country men and ask us to syay in such a "democratic" country? We recently had US complicity in overthrowing or attempting to overthrow the democratically elected governments in Hait and Venezuela, so it is hard not to be skeptical of US claims to suddenly be true believers in democracy, despite Bush's speeches. Of course Bush and his father were long time supporters of Noriega, Sadam and other dictators as long as they pursued policies that they approved of. The mainstream media seems to have joined the nearly totally uncritical cheering that all is swell and the election pretty much shows Bush is a lover of freedom and all will turn out well. They like to generally be on the side of majority opinion, if it doesn't interfere too much with their corporate profits. I think that they feel, correctly as seen on this bbs, that most Americans want to return to a state of contentedness in which any doubts about America the generous and good hearted and the Iraq war, are dispelled by the success of having an election.
The second didn't exactly say they hoped Americans would die. As for the first, I don't think that infringes on the claim that nobody wants Americans to die. Technically it isn't true, but in reality it is. There aren't any people in the major media that have been routing for that, nor have their been any well known figures who have supported that. Nor has there been anyone on this site that has been in favor of Americans dying. Yes an occasional nut will say something like that. But in general we don't argue the points or condem one side or another because of what a few nuts say. There are conservatives who believe all Africans, Hispanics, etc. should be made to leave the country, and other conservatives who actually believe slave wages are ok. It is a given that the main stream conservative, and even most far right conservatives don't agree with those assertions and therefore they aren't worth mentioning. The story in Iraq is different though. Because while only a few nut jobs actually want that to happen, or say they want that to happen, many people who don't want American troops to die, are routinely accused of just such a horrendous notion.
Juan Cole is a fruitcake, mc mark, and although I understand where you are coming from, surely you can find a more moderate and objective source. If you want to break it down then you could say that getting Sistani in the process was a victory for US policy, and showed they CAN adapt to increase the chances of success. Not that Juan Cole would acknowledge giving ANY credit to US policy. Grizzled, Iraq IS part of the war on terror. And the reports on the turnout were not just from the US government. By all accounts the turnout was very large and no one is reporting it as anything less than a statement of intent by the Iraqis. Even the Sunnis turned out in a larger than expected contingent.
Hayes read glunch's post. I think he's dead on. Bring Sistani into the process? Sistani runs the show there. Iraq will become a theocracy. And the US won't be able to do a thing about it. Or be there for 10, 15 years. I hope not. As far as Iraq being a part of the war on terror. You're right! And we've made it that way. But we've been through that before.
Came across this: "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 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. 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." ~ Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled, 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967. ?
Meowgi. good find. My memories are fading, but I do remember various happy talk scenarios and psuedo mile stones along the way to our defeat in Vietnam. What is especially eery is watching as with Vietnam the poised, general type spokespersons looking so CEO like and in charge saying things are getting rosier every day while things don't go well. What is different is that LBJ, unlike Dubya, used to look like he gave a crap about Americans being killed. Ocasionally Dubya mouths something to that effect, but generally looks like he is enjoying dressing up in uniiforms and such and grooving on the war thang.
LBJ was a dying, old man who, as VP or P, oversaw the death of nearly 50,000 servicemen in Viet Nam between 1961 and 1968. Fear of reprisals? I"d be much more concerned about being blown to smithereens as I reached for my ballot.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along? February 1, 2005 BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood. You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead. Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted. By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval. But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong? It's hard to swallow, isn't it? Americans cross own barrier If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling. For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility. I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces. Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders). I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well. Deciding democracy's worth On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing: Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something. Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly. Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well. I don't want to get carried away in the moment. Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world. Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.) In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out. Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people. And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam. Penance could be required But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them. Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain. Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region. So is the rest of the world. For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy. If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance. Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.
