Iraq's Election

Could Bush be right about a relatively democratic Iraq? Despite his lies and deceptions? Possibly.

Are we actually concerned about Iraqi democracy? NO.

Is a democratic Iraq likely to oppose Israeli expansionism? Yes.

Is it likely to want to sell its oil to whomever it wants, maybe in Euros? Yes.

Will it form an alliance with Iran hostile to US interests, as seen by Bush and the neocons. Possibly and just as likely as Iraq being relatively democratic.

Will we fight to keep a democratic Iraq from opposing Israeli expansionism and selling oil to whom it wants, possibly in Euros? Yes. Maybe even militarily ?. Yes.

Would we juse the CIA or Rummy's intelligence force to overthrow the elected government if it dared to oppose us too much? Yes.

Will we try to foment a civil war if it will keep Iraq from opposing the goals of the neocons for oil and world domination of a crude type? yes.

 

If neocons are running things, and we look at a definition of 'neocon,' then the answer is YES. If one doesn't know what a neocon is, then maybe you'll come up with glynch's answer.

Ah, glynch shows his true colors with a Freudian slip!!! Its all about the Jews and your hatin.'

 

I think it’s pretty hard to argue that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. There was no direct connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. Saddam was so unconnected that he couldn’t even get himself out of Iraq after all. He was found alone, hiding in a hole. This is hardly the picture of a well connected, idealistic, terrorist. There has been an argument put forward that by controlling Iraq the US can change the culture in the region, but all reports suggest that this war is radicalizing people rather than changing them for the better. There is an argument that when the war is over the Iraqis will come to realise that this was for the best, an “all is well that ends well” kind of argument, but people don’t forget the killing of their loved ones and friends very quickly, and even Bush admits that this war is far from over and the outcome is very questionable.

As for the numbers, they came out very quickly, don’t you think? Where would numbers like that come from? We’ll see, but as for now I’ll have to say that I remain sceptical.

As for Brown’s article:

Right about what? Right about WMD? No. Right about links to terrorism? No. Right that this is all going to end for the better for the people of Iraq? We’re a long way from being able to say that that is going to happen. And if that does happen, and lets hope and pray that it does, then there are the more difficult questions about whether or not the ends justify the means, about the sovereignty of a people, the right to self determination, etc.

Was Bush right about the people of Iraq wanting democracy? He may have been more right than most of us thought on this point, but let’s not forget that this was his third excuse for the war after the threat of WMD and the war on terrorism, so I’m not even convinced that this was a sincere statement on his part and not just the latest attempt by his spin doctors to find a way to sell the war to the American public.

If democracy was the goal, why wasn’t this war approach in a way that would give democracy a fighting chance to succeed? Back to project management 101. Who is in the larger stakeholder group and what risks do they pose to the project? If democracy is the objective, how will the rulers in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, feel about the prospect of a secular democracy taking root in Iraq, their neighbouring state? If this is something that they would not want, do they have the means and will to try to try to keep it from happening? If so, what has been done to mitigate that possibility? What has been done to make sure that operatives from these countries don’t come into Iraq and carryout assassinations and sabotage to try to make the project fail? If the answer is that little or no thought was given to this, then you have to wonder if this was really the intention in the first place. And again, this is in fact the third excuse that has been given … so far.

 

You know how when you get mad enough to to get in a fight you just want to go ahead and kick everybody's ass that has been pissing you off recently. I think that's how we got into a war with Iraq. 9/11 just got GWB so go-crazy fighting mad, that every SOB that needed an ass kicking was going to get one. Then you just make up stories to tell the principal or the police to justify the fight.

If you win the fight and the other guy is laying there knocked out and can't talk, then you get to make up a story where you come out a hero.

 

When humans learned to control fire, glynch's ancestor was convinced that it would burn every shelter down. When the wheel was invented ... it roll over and kill all. Democracy ... would vote in the wrong person, electricty ... would electrocute all ... computers ... our brains would devolve... and on and on and on.

 

Don't give up your day job.

 

Actually, (pro-war) Thomas Friedman wrote a column with almost the exact same theme in 2003 I believe.

 

Hayes for you info someone can oppose Likud expansionism and not be anti-semitic. Many Jews do, so what do you call them?

 

Not hard at all. By all reports Al Queda is fully vested in Iraq. Iraq IS part of the War on Terror. Was it before the intervention? Not as far as I know relating to AQ, but Iraq was definitely a state sponsor of terrorism - so even there you've got it.

Fair enough. I think you're at least willing to remain open about it.

If you believe neocons are running things, then you'd be on pretty solid ground linking their actions and democracy, as its a central tenet of the ideology. No doubt it was not trumpeted like WMD or terrorism, but that could be a result of it being a given for them, rather than because they didn't believe it.

 

This is something I've never really understood. Iraq obviously IS consistent with the Bush Doctrine that arose out of 9/11. Deal with threats way before they get to blowing up your buildings. People make funny comments about 'oh yeah, its a different world since 9/11' but it IS a different world. The Bush Doctrine is pretty straightforward in that respect. Its not so much about being mad as it is not waiting to for a problem to get out of hand before acting. Look at North Korea - there is not really too much to do offensively because they are sitting on the bomb. It's an outgrowth of the opinion that Saddam should have been taken care of in '91, and that 12 years later he's still a pain in the ass, still killing his people, still sponsoring terrorists, still waiting for his chance to start the next war/whatever.

 

You're the one who started talking about a conspiracy between the Jews, Rumsfeld, and the CIA...

--->

 

"he's still a pain in the ass"... wow really how long was it that you lived in iraq

"still killing his people"...more people died since '91 from the Emargo (no medical supplies..yaddayadayadda) ... go ask a iraqi how they felt about THAT!!!...go ask them how many died!!!....go ask them what the bombings are like!!! ....go ask them how their ruler before saddam died!!!!.... and who put saddam in power!!! ...go ask them for what reason did this happen!!!!...that's sh*t you'll never know....and i don't think y'all want to know.

still sponsoring terrorists....okay this statement is a joke...he was a madman true....but this guy did'nt want anything but to be in power in Iraq...i know people who fought against saddam...the guy was a brute killer and ruler...religon was the last thing in his mind (since most of you assume muslim religon teaches terrorism)...even those so called "terrorist" you say would not work for this guy...you buddy have no clue.

look in your own boat and you'll see the scum....that goes for every friggin boat.

 

Yeah, isn't it great that the intervention has resulted in the sanctions being lifted?

Sorry, it is factually correct to say Saddam sponsored terrorism.

 

"...juse the CIA or Rummy's intelligence force to overthrow the elected government ..."

"juse" was a typo. the word should have been "use"

Wierd. I do think that sfor ome of the neocons, particularly a few Jews like Doug Feith, a major motvation for pushing for the war was that they considered it was in Israel's favor to attack Iraq. However, the real decision makers, Dubya, Cheney, Rummy are not Jews and I think were mainly interested in oil and power, so I wouldn't call call the Iraq war a Jewish conspiracy by any means.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

Sadly the longer the US stays in Iraq killing Iraqis, imprisoning them, searching them, torturing them etc. the more a democratic Iraq, as it evolves, will hate the US and be anti-American.

I know this is hard for those who feel that we are doing what we are doing in Iraq for altruism, genrosity and love of Iraqis. However, the majority of Iraqis just don't see it that way.

 

I disagree. Payments to people's families who died in the conflict with Israel, only a tiny portion of which were terrorists do not equal sponsor of terrorism. It is wrong to pay the families of those people, but there is zero evidence that the payment to families had any real effect in whether suicide bombers would become suicide bombers.

Saddam's absence didn't cause any kind of dramatic decrease in suicide bombers. It is a tenuous argument at best to say Saddma sponsored terrorism.

 

Do you really think that the majority of the Iraqis who voted give a rat's ass about the Iraqi or non-Iraqi terrorist who kills other Iraqis intentionally and wantonly?

It's the US primarily that made this freedom and liberty all possible.

Can we change your handle to Eeyore?!?

 

Hayes since its a fact show me the link? What has he done to support terrorism? Was there a wire transfer.... Telephone taps.... Tapes.... Audio... visual????where is your fact? ...

i'm just trying to say Hayes that the world is'nt a "good guy" "bad guy" story book... there is blood on EVERY countries hands... b/c of this you should try to look at every prospective...

for a country to remain a superpower it has to do things that will keep it there…. Iraq i think was just another step….this has always happened in human history… powerful using the weak….its life… I have nothing against the U.S because they are just in that role at the moment...the next superpower will do the same…...its human nature to want to be in power ..... nothing new… personally I just feel for those who get effected by this….. I certainly would not want to be in the middle of all this.

i'm not saying what i say is the truth...this world to screwy to know the whole truth...i'm just staying open minded because of this though...peace is the solution...yes i know...... dream on.