I assume you want people to admit that the election proves Bush was right in that the Iraqis are a people that want to control their own destiny? Yeah, I think he's right about that. I'm not entirely sure if that was in question, though (I wouldn't put it past some of the hardcore anti-W people to make that claim, but still). The question is whether Democracy can thrive in Iraq. That question remains unanswered. It certainly appears that Iraq is on the right track for that. But, as is the case with everything, the biggest challenge is always the next one, not the last one. So, it's fair to say that the next election (along with forming a new government) is the next test. Things are moving in the right direction, but there isn't enough momentum yet to say that all is well. All that can be said is that it appears the insurgents have lost some momentum and that has been transferred to the people. Hopefully that continues. But the issue is far from resolved.
Basso I'll break down my stance for you: Elections in Iraq with only 40-50 killed on election day with relatively high turnout save the Sunni's = not as bad as it could have been. Elections in Iraq with only 40-50 killed on election day with relatively high turnout save the sunnis =/ worth the cost No way, you'd have to be an idiot to argue as much; You think Iran lite is that valuable an ally? Sorry but no, that's why the intial plan wasn't for Iran lite, it was for Turkey East. Check the scoreboard.
not really. the 'sunnis' and 'shias' perhaps 'fought' immediately after the death of the prophet but not really. since ali's side wasn't really 'shia'. shia theology developed 150 years after the death of the prophet. so i wouldn't call the original war a shia v. sunni war. and iran/iraq weren't predominantly shia until the safavids came down and made them. which was 16th century ish. fatmides had their lil dynasty in egypt a bit earlier but again there weren't really shia v sunni things. they developed mostly due to the colonial method of dividing and conquering. hence the hostilities. shia/sunnis for the most part lived side by side in india, spain, saudi arabia. etc. or perhaps in iraq at least the shia sunni fighting was simply because of political repression. not really shia sunni but one group being oppressed by saddam. which can be directly attributed to britain's method of dealing with mandates (basically giving lil bits to sharif hussein's sons). sorry not trying to be anal but i fundamentally disagree with the cliches of they've been fighting for centuries. same with muslims and jews. they just didn't have such problems until recent times.
basso sorry about the late response. I've been fighting the flu with a temp of 101.7 last night. No I'm not saying they are meaningless. And if it's any consolation yes, I was surprised they went off so well. Actually more thankful than surprised. But the point I was making with the next election quote was that if Iraq can make a peaceful transfer of power to another party without civil war breaking out or people being assassinated then this whole idea of a democratic society emerging from Iraq will have been a success. What other choice do we have now? As much as some of us apposed this "noble venture," we must now hope for an outcome that is beneficial to both Iraq and the US. Now if that means that Iraq chooses a theocratic government instead of the Jeffersonian ideal "we" want, would you accept that? insane man thanks for the 411.
Whatever. We could have definitively proved that Iraq was disarmed without invading, killing tens of thousands of civilians, sacrificing 1500 of our soldiers, or spending nearly $300 billion (after the next "supplemental appropriation goes through) for the lie of WMDs (not commenting on whether it was Bush or Chalabi that lied, but someone sure did). So, you can now admit that we invaded over paperwork errors, eh? Saddam WAS proving that Iraq had disarmed, weapons inspectors were in country until Bush pulled them out, he offered to let the CIA and FBI into Iraq to help the UN weapons inspectors verify that fact, but Bush had to get his war on with Iraq so we didn't even consider listening to Saddam's offers. IMO, the only outcome in Iraq that could justify this action is a stable, democratic state that doesn't require the military presence of the US. We will not know that this is the case for at least another five years and perhaps more, so any claims of "success" in Iraq are, at best, premature (particularly when we still have soldiers dying over there on a daily basis).
Was the war only about WMD, until they weren't found? well, here's W in October 2002: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family. On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured. America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin. and here's tony blair the following february: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3088.asp One further point. The purpose in our acting is disarmament. But the nature of Saddam's regime is relevant in two ways. First, WMD in the hands of a regime of this brutality is especially dangerous because Saddam has shown he will use them. Secondly, I know the innocent as well as the guilty die in a war. But do not let us forget the 4 million Iraqi exiles, the thousands of children who die needlessly every year due to Saddam's impoverishment of his country - a country which in 1978 was wealthier than Portugal or Malaysia but now is in ruins, 60 per cent of its people on food aid. Let us not forget the tens of thousands imprisoned, tortured or executed by his barbarity every year. The innocent die every day in Iraq victims of Saddam, and their plight too should be heard. so it's a nice myth that W changed the rationale after events seemed to disporove the WMD theory. but it's a falsehood, one perpetrated by people who either weren't listening very closely, or are now simply uncomfortable with having opposed a war that could lead to the democratization of iRaq.
Sounds real nice in a speech basso. But do you honestly believe the American people would have backed this war just to "liberate" the Iraqi people?
didn't they? they reelected W and voted, down/out candidates who were war opponents. the actions of the american electorate speak fairly eloquently on that point.
Only 15% of the electorate had Iraq as the most important issue and of them 73% voted for Kerry. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html By no means did this election prove support for the war...
who said it had to be the "most important issue" to prove the point? americans clearly supported the candidates who supported the war. to pretend the iraq war played no role in the minds of voters who voted for bush is just nonsense.
how do you rationalize in your head the lies ? do you just ignore the truth? “Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq: The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress, and the Media from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002” -Devon M. Largio Senior Honors Thesis Department of Political Science University of Illinois http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm
didn't you know that your too stupid to understand the big picture, that is why they lied to you? being re-elected is proof that the American people know best, but not when it comes to selling a war to them - for that, lies are neccessary isn't is fun to be a hypocrit!
