OT: Monumental Iraqi Elections

[Dutch]

Well, initial reports of the now closed Iraqi polls show this day has been successful. Despite a massive "insurgency" opposition campaign that included a massive ammount of propaganda. Propaganda that threatened terror and death to people who attempted to leave their homes to vote. However, it's been reported that 72% of the Iraqi people showed up to vote.

Wow! That's better than I think we've ever done! Still think they wish Saddam Hussein was back? I don't think so.

Even reports of a 92 year old woman who insisted that a family member load her up into a wheel-barrel and cart her to the polling station!

Today was a massive defeat for Islamic Fundamentalism that is diametrically opposed to individual rights and freedom and voting power.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Still think they wish Saddam Hussein was back? I don't think so.

Who said that they wished they had Hussein back?

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Today was a massive defeat for Islamic Fundamentalism that is diametrically opposed to individual rights and freedom and voting power.

Uh, wrong!
The hard-core Shiite Islamists made it a religious duty to go out and vote. This should turn into a major victory for the Kurds in the North, and the Shiites every where else, turning Iraq in another Islamic Republic in a few months or years.
Then civil war starts, or rather continues, between the Sunnites and the Shiites, Kurdistan will probably try and declare independance, which will piss the Turks off in a major fashion...

All in all, the nightmare that is this region will continue and probably worsen...

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Who said that they wished they had Hussein back?

About 20% of them do, the ones that benefited from Hussein.
They are also the ones that will now be slaughtered by the Shiites. Of course, they themselves butchered thoses same Shiites during Hussein's reign, so in a way, it's only payback time....

[Flasch186]

i will say that there was less violence and certainly less catastrophic violence that that which i feared. Now I hope they dont use this leverage which some will have to punish those that dont....

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

About 20% of them do, the ones that benefited from Hussein.

Hmm. 72% voted, so that leaves plenty of room for that 20% to still want Hussein back.

On a related note, I'm sure I asked this before but I don't remember the answer, or if one was given. Why does Turkey not want the Kurds to become independant?

[clintl]

I think because there is a Kurdish region in Turkey, near the Iraq border. (There is also one in Iran.) There are Kurdish separatists groups in Turkey that would like to become independent, too, and Turkey doesn't want that to happen. And it thinks an independent Kurdish nation in Iraq will embolden the Kurdish separatists in Turkey.

For some reason, all the other ethnic groups in the region hate the Kurds.

[Buccaneer]

It was probably more in line of 60%, making it a typical US election with the additional fear of violence and intimidation. Still, I wouldn't read too much into those not voting (everyone had to walk), no more than you would of those not voting in the US elections. A first step.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by sabotai

On a related note, I'm sure I asked this before but I don't remember the answer, or if one was given. Why does Turkey not want the Kurds to become independant?

Because they have a big Kurdish population in the eastern part of their own country, and they would probably try and join an independant Kurdistan.

Basically right now, the Kurdish population is split between Turkey and Iraq. If one part ever declared independance, the other part would try and join them in a heartbeat...

[sabotai]

Mmmmm....turkey....*drool*

I'm hungary now. HA!

[Joe]

I wish the US could get a 72% voter turnout.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

I wish the US could get a 72% voter turnout.

JOKE the following is only a JOKE and needs no response



Um George, 72% turnout wouldve left you sitting with your dad as a one termer



The above was just a JOKE and in now way is trying to take away from the importance of the first Iraqi democratic elections...you may now continue to talk about this monumental day and......

This democrats hat is off to George in getting the election off without as much violence as most feared. The next step is to get the world to accept the results as official.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Who said that they wished they had Hussein back?

If you haven't been watching CNN and reading the AP and Reuters, the media for one has been very clear that Iraq would have been better off under it's dictatorship and the "mini-Genocide" terror regime than having a foreign army free them of that chain and allow them to travel the long and dangerous road towards Democracy.

Haven't you been paying attention?

EDIT: And some Frenchmen, apparently.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If you haven't been watching CNN and reading the AP and Reuters, the media for one has been very clear that Iraq would have been better off under it's dictatorship and the "mini-Genocide" terror regime than having a foreign army free them of that chain and allow them to travel the long and dangerous road towards Democracy.

Haven't you been paying attention?

EDIT: And some Frenchmen, apparently.

If you read my post carefully Dutch, you will see I said no such thing.

There is no denying Iraqis in general are better off right now without Hussein...but the future is not so bright either...

[Joe]

I don't think it matters. They're just getting killed by a different group of people. Better off or not, dead is dead.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

If you read my post carefully Dutch, you will see I said no such thing.

There is no denying Iraqis in general are better off right now without Hussein...but the future is not so bright either...

The future has a chance now. Big difference. Democracy was never a gift that was given and maintained for free. It will never happen that way, I don't care what Reuters tells you.

If freedom gives the Iraqi's a civil war, well, that's the price that has to be paid. At least they are *not* being systematically tortured and killed in mass. We love to hate Abu Graib, but Iraq was infinately worse than that for years. And how many other places in the Middle East are like this and would love Democracy?

Middle Eastern Dictators, Theocrats, and Monarchs are squirming in their gold plated thrones right now.

[Dutch]

On a related note, I'm sure I asked this before but I don't remember the answer, or if one was given. Why does Turkey not want the Kurds to become independant?

Probably the same reason the French don't want the Basque's to gain any sort of autonomy.

[Anthony]

here is the problem i have with humanity (and politics in humanity):

isn't the earth big enough so that if a group of people, say, the Kurds, want to become independent and start their own sovereign nation they should be able to? why should Turkey not want that to happen? i'm not trying to give one of thoe cliche "can't we all just get along?" speeches, just curious as to why "Turkey would not want that to happen" is an acceptable answer in this thread. if Turkey governs itself in a way where a majority of the population no longer wants to live under those rules and wants to start it's own country then what's the problem?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

here is the problem i have with humanity (and politics in humanity):

isn't the earth big enough so that if a group of people, say, the Kurds, want to become independent and start their own sovereign nation they should be able to? why should Turkey not want that to happen? i'm not trying to give one of thoe cliche "can't we all just get along?" speeches, just curious as to why "Turkey would not want that to happen" is an acceptable answer in this thread. if Turkey governs itself in a way where a majority of the population no longer wants to live under those rules and wants to start it's own country then what's the problem?

oil rich Kurdish lived upon land

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The future has a chance now. Big difference. Democracy was never a gift that was given and maintained for free. It will never happen that way, I don't care what Reuters tells you.

If freedom gives the Iraqi's a civil war, well, that's the price that has to be paid. At least they are being systematically tortured and killed in mass. We love to hate Abu Graib, but Iraq was infinately worse than that for years. And how many other places in the Middle East are like this and would love Democracy?

Middle Eastern Dictators, Theocrats, and Monarchs are squirming in their gold plated thrones right now.

That reminds me of the American Revolution and the struggle in Congress. They knew that in drafting the Decl of Ind and then the Constitution, it set us up for an inevitable civil war. Franklin said at the time that one can only fight one 'battle' (independence and the forming of the republic) at a time, instead to achieve that and freedom for all of the people.

Also reminds me of the former Soviet Union where to this day, a certain segment of the population are convinced that everything was better then. Just like those in the US wanted to stay under the Crown.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Haven't you been paying attention?

No, I haven't. That's why I asked.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That reminds me of the American Revolution and the struggle in Congress. They knew that in drafting the Decl of Ind and then the Constitution, it set us up for an inevitable civil war. Franklin said at the time that one can only fight one 'battle' (independence and the forming of the republic) at a time, instead to achieve that and freedom for all of the people.

Also reminds me of the former Soviet Union where to this day, a certain segment of the population are convinced that everything was better then. Just like those in the US wanted to stay under the Crown.

When they wrote the Dec. of Ind. they did NOT foresee an American Civil War at all. They foresaw a war for independence against Mother England but never a war between their own colonies regarding commerce, cotton, and Slavery. No way am I buying that.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Mmmmm....turkey....*drool*

I'm hungary now. HA!

Good Lord, you think none of us have ever made this joke? I mean, Syria-sly.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sabotai

No, I haven't. That's why I asked.

[Sharpieman]

What I don't understand is why people think that elections in Iraq are going to make things all peachy. The insurgents aren't just going to say, "Oh, theres elections now, we've lost. Time to pack it up!" There will still be violence for years. The first election is just symbolic, nothing else. It will take a cycle of 3 or 4 elections for Iraqi's to realize they have the power that is democracy. Its a good thing, but it won't change the current situation a lot. Now the Iraqi president gets to decide when American troops will be leaving, just as Bush said.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

here is the problem i have with humanity (and politics in humanity):

isn't the earth big enough so that if a group of people, say, the Kurds, want to become independent and start their own sovereign nation they should be able to? why should Turkey not want that to happen? i'm not trying to give one of thoe cliche "can't we all just get along?" speeches, just curious as to why "Turkey would not want that to happen" is an acceptable answer in this thread. if Turkey governs itself in a way where a majority of the population no longer wants to live under those rules and wants to start it's own country then what's the problem?

For staters, it's much more complicated than that. (I know that's an even worse answer, but it's very true.)

The Kurds did fight for the land, and they lost. That's as simple as it gets.

The Kurds in Turkey are so intermixed with Arabs and Turks that it's hard to find a large population of pure-bred Kurds in Eastern Turkey and Northern Iraq and Western Iran.

So who is fighting for what? The truth is that there are resistance organizations in the popular known realm of Kurdistan. But it's not the entire popluation that is part of that organization.

The group (called the PKK back in the day) killed lots of Turkish and Iraqi soldiers. They bombed homes and schools and burned down infrastructure and basically fought the Baath party and the Turkish govt for decades. Tens of thousands of Turks died (I'm not sure how much damage they did in Iraq where they were opressed beyond belief under Saddam Hussein via mass Genocide). But in the end, the leader of the main Kurdish group was captured. And in favor of not having him executed, the Kurdish groups agreed to a cease-fire that has been in effect for quite some time now. The guy is still alive in some island fortress prison in the Med.

But the bigger obstacle to any group gaining independence is if they fall under a soverign flag of an internationally recognized nation. Not part of an empire, not disputed lands (such as in Palestine), but recognized sovereign soil. Such as in Turkey or France.

Any such support for their cause is belligerance towards a nation. If we help the Kurds in Turkey or Iraq, we are assisting a rebellion against Turkey or Iraq. If we help the Basque's in France, we are assisting a rebellion in France.

But assisting the Palestinians would not be so cut and dry because they are in disputed lands that Israel does not want to fall under Israeli sovereignty.

But anyway, just because a group wants it's own country, doesn't mean it's no problem.

We all want everybody to be happy and to be at peace. But sometimes we forget that for every action, their is an equal reaction. Take sovereign land from Iraq and Turkey and make Kurdistan in order to stop terrorism and see terrorism thrive as a tool in another region. For instance.

The world is not perfect, a lot of people screw things up. But I think in this instance, popular elections in Iraq have to be viewed as a positive. Even if it's one small step towards the eventual goal of peace and stability and more imortantly, happiness.

[robbgmaier]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Hmm. 72% voted, so that leaves plenty of room for that 20% to still want Hussein back.

On a related note, I'm sure I asked this before but I don't remember the answer, or if one was given. Why does Turkey not want the Kurds to become independant?

Because there are Kurds in Turkey who would presumably be encouraged to press their own desires for an independent state, or to join with the newly formed one in Iraq. I don't know anything about the history there, but there you have it.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

What I don't understand is why people think that elections in Iraq are going to make things all peachy. The insurgents aren't just going to say, "Oh, theres elections now, we've lost. Time to pack it up!" There will still be violence for years. The first election is just symbolic, nothing else.

I remember when everything was going to be peachy if we could just capture Saddam Hussein. Then when everything would be peachy once we transferred sovereignty to Iraqis. Good times. Good times. Well, I'm glad everything is finally peachy now.

[Anthony]

i see your point Dutch.

it just seems like a lot of violence would end if we just set aside land for people who want to govern themselves. Palestinians. Kurds. Those people who the Russians have problems with. i'm aware of how complex the situations are and can't be solved so easily.

but if a certain segment of a population are all concentrated on one particular area and want to live a certain way - why can't they have their own land? isn't there enough earth where everyone can live the way they want?

i just don't get why we have to *force* people to be where they don't want to be or to live how they don't want to live. take extremist Muslims or terror organizations. what is at the heart of their "evil" doings (evil in quotation marks because it's not our right to say what they do is evil just because we don't agree with their actions. we as a "civilized" nation have a lot of skeletons in our closet in our history with the building up of our nation)? they want to live a certain way. they don't want outsiders telling them otherwise. in their attempts to get their people to live the way a "proper" Muslim should they go to extremes. in their eyes they are right and will be rewarded for their actions. but instead of forcing people to see their "light", why not just give them their own land where they can live how they see fit? why must it be one or the other, with no common ground? (these are just rhetorical questions)

i think my simple, silly questions do ask a very pertinent question - what exactly is sovereignity? is it the will of the people magnified onto an intangible entity we call "government"? or is it the right of a collection of people to say "we are [insert name of country here] - these are our beliefs and this is how we choose to live our lives" and have that proclamation acknowledged by the world? or is it something else?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I remember when everything was going to be peachy if we could just capture Saddam Hussein. Then when everything would be peachy once we transferred sovereignty to Iraqis. Good times. Good times. Well, I'm glad everything is finally peachy now.

Again, we have to question the integrity of our press. The US government, Bush, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al have stated repeatedly that this will not be a pretty, short and sweet operation but would take years before democracy ever really rooted in the middle east.

The assault on terrorism and the dictatorships that allowed them to flourish were the opening shots of the war on terror. If this were a chess match, successful democracy's would be closer to middle game or end game objectives.

Reuter's has removed most of the US speech about how "long" the objective would take and simply inserted "not done yet" in it's place. Thus everybody's surprise that it's "not over yet".

[flere-imsaho]

Over/under on how long it takes the Shiites to drive all the Sunni out of Iraq? I'm giving it 5 years for the majority to be displaced.

Also, in 2-3 years we'll see a de facto independent Kurdish state to the North, which should nicely destabilize that part of Turkey and create a long-running internal civil war in Iraq.

Eventually I expect we'll see the kind of Theocracy in Iraq that will make Iran look like the Swiss.

Of course Hussein wasn't any great shakes either, and I suppose if Iraqis are going to engage in a few years (or decades) or sectarian strife at least they'll be doing so in an effort to mold their own destiny. But don't kid yourselves, invading Iraq wasn't the silver bullet to bring peace to the region.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i see your point Dutch.

it just seems like a lot of violence would end if we just set aside land for people who want to govern themselves. Palestinians. Kurds. Those people who the Russians have problems with. i'm aware of how complex the situations are and can't be solved so easily.

but if a certain segment of a population are all concentrated on one particular area and want to live a certain way - why can't they have their own land? isn't there enough earth where everyone can live the way they want?

i just don't get why we have to *force* people to be where they don't want to be or to live how they don't want to live. take extremist Muslims or terror organizations. what is at the heart of their "evil" doings (evil in quotation marks because it's not our right to say what they do is evil just because we don't agree with their actions. we as a "civilized" nation have a lot of skeletons in our closet in our history with the building up of our nation)? they want to live a certain way. they don't want outsiders telling them otherwise. in their attempts to get their people to live the way a "proper" Muslim should they go to extremes. in their eyes they are right and will be rewarded for their actions. but instead of forcing people to see their "light", why not just give them their own land where they can live how they see fit? why must it be one or the other, with no common ground? (these are just rhetorical questions)

i think my simple, silly questions do ask a very pertinent question - what exactly is sovereignity? is it the will of the people magnified onto an intangible entity we call "government"? or is it the right of a collection of people to say "we are [insert name of country here] - these are our beliefs and this is how we choose to live our lives" and have that proclamation acknowledged by the world? or is it something else?

Sorvereignty, in a legal definition is borders defined and recognized by the international community. That's why, when you hear about the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan back in the day, you would also hear - only recognized only Pakistan and the PLA as a legal government.

The problem now is that Turkey and Iraq can both show that the world recognizes their current boundaries as undisputed by the international community.

And the reason the international community recognizes such things, is so that peace will prevail. Oh well, it sucks to be the Kurds I guess.

However, another huge difference between the Kurds in Iraq and the Kurds in Turkey is that the Iraqi Kurds were systematically killed and tortured and relegated the 2nd class citizen status (if that) while the Kurds in Turkey hold Turkish citizenship and are afforded all the same rights as every other Turkish citizen.

Doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist (it does) but they have equal right and are well represented throughout the Turkish Parliamentary system.

Iraqi Kurds will have representation for the first time ever in Iraq starting....today.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But don't kid yourselves, invading Iraq wasn't the silver bullet to bring peace to the region.

What was Ferdinand Magellan's Expedition around the Earth most imporant moment?

Well, obviously when the ship pulled into Seville 4 years later to complete the quest, that was pretty important. But without the moment when the ships pulled up their anchors and sailed out to sea, they would never have achieved their goal.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Again, we have to question the integrity of our press. The US government, Bush, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al have stated repeatedly that this will not be a pretty, short and sweet operation but would take years before democracy ever really rooted in the middle east.

"If you're looking for a historical analogy, it's probably closer to post-liberation France [after World War II]." - Paul Wolfowitz, 11/17/02 - source

"But as soon as possible, we want to have working alongside the commander an interim Iraqi authority, people representing the people of Iraq. And, as that authority grows and gets greater credibility from the people of Iraq, we want to turn over more and more responsibilities to them." - Colin Powell, 3/26/03 - source

"The goal is an Iraq that stands on its own feet and that governs itself in freedom and in unity and with respect for the rights of all its citizens. We'd like to get to that goal as quickly as possible. " - Paul Wolfowitz, 4/1/03 - source

"I can assure you that we all want to end this as soon as possible, so we can get on with the task of allowing the Iraqi people to form a new government." - Colin Powell - 4/2/03 - source

"QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, could you give us an idea of your views of the interim administration (of Iraq), how quickly it might be set up . . . ? SECRETARY POWELL: We are anxious to move quickly now that the day of liberation is drawing near. I don't know when it will happen. But, certainly, we can see what's going to happen in the not-too-distant future, we hope. " - Colin Powell - 4/4/03 - source

"We will leave Iraq completely in the hands of Iraqis as quickly as possible. " - Condoleeza Rice - 4/4/03 - source

"We come as an army of liberation, and we want to see the Iraqis running their own affairs as soon as they can." - Paul Wolfowitz - 4/6/03 - source

"I think you'll begin to see the governmental process start next week, by the end of next week. It will have Iraqi faces on it. It will be governed by the Iraqis." - Gen. Jay Garner - 4/24/03 - source

and

"By the middle of (this) month, you'll really see a beginning of a nucleus of an Iraqi government with an Iraqi face on it that is dealing with the coalition. " - Gen. Jay Garner - 5/5/03 - source

and

"I would think we are talking about more like sometime in July to get a national conference put together." - Paul Bremer - 5/21/03 - source

Originally Posted by Dutch

The assault on terrorism and the dictatorships that allowed them to flourish were the opening shots of the war on terror. If this were a chess match, successful democracy's would be closer to middle game or end game objectives.

So we removed a violently secularist dictator who rooted out and executed Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists and replaced him with a power void that has allowed Al Qaida to operate for the first time in years in Iraq? That's progress?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What was Ferdinand Magellan's Expedition around the Earth most imporant moment?

Well, obviously when the ship pulled into Seville 4 years later to complete the quest, that was pretty important. But without the moment when the ships pulled up their anchors and sailed out to sea, they would never have achieved their goal.

Wrong analogy.

What was the most important moment in the reign of Emperor Napoleon? Probably the part where he thought invading Russia in the winter was a good idea.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sorvereignty, in a legal definition is borders defined and recognized by the international community. That's why, when you hear about the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan back in the day, you would also hear - only recognized only Pakistan and the PLA as a legal government.

In the context of that, explain the two Chinas & U.S. diplomatic relations thereof. Don't hide behind the legal definition of sovereignty.

The problem now is that Turkey and Iraq can both show that the world recognizes their current boundaries as undisputed by the international community.

And the reason the international community recognizes such things, is so that peace will prevail. Oh well, it sucks to be the Kurds I guess.

Hey, that's a fantastic solution!

However, another huge difference between the Kurds in Iraq and the Kurds in Turkey is that the Iraqi Kurds were systematically killed and tortured and relegated the 2nd class citizen status (if that) while the Kurds in Turkey hold Turkish citizenship and are afforded all the same rights as every other Turkish citizen.

So? They both want an independent Kurdistan. Like it or not, it's an issue that's going to have to be addressed. Meanwhile, the Bush Admin's policy on this particular issue is to ignore it. That's some subtle statesmanship, there.

[Chief Rum]

flere-ihamso--could you point me to a quote from the administration that actually states a specific time length? After all, as quickly as possible is, nevertheless, still relative.

And, no, the July national conference doesn't qualify.

I'm also curious what your solution to all this is?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

flere-ihamso--could you point me to a quote from the administration that actually states a specific time length? After all, as quickly as possible is, nevertheless, still relative.

And, no, the July national conference doesn't qualify.

I'm also curious what your solution to this is?

Such is the theme of this administration....real cloudy language. Much like Clinton's definition of sexual relations, which he got strung for, this administration continues that by using terms that are highlighted above. Im actually happy with the outcome and was for the war from the start but I will always state the obvious which in this case involves the fuzzy "math" used in verbage of this admin. They, much like good professionals in business, never state anything that they can actually held accountable for because when, on several silly occasions, they do, they are blasted for their inaccuracies etc.


Regardless, it is a good day for most Iraqis today.....it about time. I just wish that they could have decent security on all days...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

flere-ihamso--could you point me to a quote from the administration that actually states a specific time length? After all, as quickly as possible is, nevertheless, still relative.

The Bush Admin has smartly never discussed specific numbers (well, they did with WMD, and it bit them in the ass, but nevermind....). However, they certainly gave the impression that it would be a short matter of months.

Obviously you remember differently.

And, no, the July national conference doesn't qualify.

Oh yes, of course not. Silly me.

I'm also curious what your solution to all this is?

Not invade in the first place, especially not with significant international and regional buy-in and support.

Of course, you'll now tell me that I'm an evil person for condemning Iraqis to die, but I don't see you advocating invading Zimbabwe to take out Robert Mugabe or North Korea to take out Kim Jong Il, so....

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The Bush Admin has smartly never discussed specific numbers (well, they did with WMD, and it bit them in the ass, but nevermind....). However, they certainly gave the impression that it would be a short matter of months.

Obviously you remember differently.

I won't tell you I remember differently. I will just tell you I didn't try to force my own concept of what they meant on their words, and took them literally. Just because they didn't satisfy your assumptions, doesn't mean they aren't on exactly the schedule they expected to be on--which may indeed be years in length.

Oh yes, of course not. Silly me.

This sounds like you're being sarcastic, so forgive me if you're not, but are you saying you think the phrase that drew this response--i.e. the supposed July national conference--is the administration setting a date for getting completely out of Iraq?

Not invade in the first place, especially not with significant international and regional buy-in and support.

Of course, you'll now tell me that I'm an evil person for condemning Iraqis to die, but I don't see you advocating invading Zimbabwe to take out Robert Mugabe or North Korea to take out Kim Jong Il, so....

I won't call you an evil person, because I know your decision is not out of malice to the sufferings of the Iraqi people, but a practical view on the costs of undertaking such an invasion, occupation and regime-change. If you want to talk good and eveil, you better instead pick a fight with one of the conservative Christian Republicans, as I am more of the pragmatic, non-God-fearing business sort.

You won't see me advocting Zombabwe or North Korea right now or maybe ever, because it simply isn't practical. There is too much to lose right now, and not enough to gain. And there is limit in resoiurces, because we are currently involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. Plus, North Korea would be a much sterner test and require a lot more than what Iraq has cost us so far (witness the Korean War).

But enough on that.

What I notice, once again, is a time-honored technique for those who are criticising the administration. You would rather argue in hindsight, looking back and sayign what we did wrong, rather than looking ahead and trying to see what we can do right.

You criticize, and yet you offer no solutions. I'm not talking about historic solutions (we should not have invaded)--that is just criticism in hindsight. I mean, solutions, today, now.

When it comes time to talk about what to do now, critics of this adminsitration are awfully silent. Because they don't have any, and apparently can't be bothered to offer up any either.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I won't tell you I remember differently. I will just tell you I didn't try to force my own concept of what they meant on their words, and took them literally. Just because they didn't satisfy your assumptions, doesn't mean they aren't on exactly the schedule they expected to be on--which may indeed be years in length.

It's too bad we can't look back and ask Americans, at the time, how long they thought we'd be in Iraq based on what the Administration was saying. I would expect that the consensus would have been "a couple of years, at the most". But look, I remember what I remember, and you remember what you remember. I could argue that you too are forcing your own concept of what they meant onto their own words.

This sounds like you're being sarcastic, so forgive me if you're not, but are you saying you think the phrase that drew this response--i.e. the supposed July national conference--is the administration setting a date for getting completely out of Iraq?

Oh, actually it looks like I misunderstood you. I put in the quotes about the supposed July national conference as an indication of how the Bush Admin tends to misjudge the time it takes them to get stuff done in Iraq. I didn't think we'd be out by last July.

I won't call you an evil person, because I know your decision is not out of malice to the sufferings of the Iraqi people, but a practical view on the costs of undertaking such an invasion, occupation and regime-change. If you want to talk good and eveil, you better instead pick a fight with one of the conservative Christian Republicans, as I am more of the pragmatic, non-God-fearing business sort.

That's refreshing to hear. Fact is, I'd love it if we could pursue a foreign policy that saw us intervening into any situation where there were deep human rights problems and mass sufferings. Since we can't do that, however, we need to make our choices carefully. Iraq was a poor choice, with lousy ramifications for decades to come.

What I notice, once again, is a time-honored technique for those who are criticising the administration. You would rather argue in hindsight, looking back and sayign what we did wrong, rather than looking ahead and trying to see what we can do right.

You criticize, and yet you offer no solutions. I'm not talking about historic solutions (we should not have invaded)--that is just criticism in hindsight. I mean, solutions, today, now.

When it comes time to talk about what to do now, critics of this adminsitration are awfully silent. Because they don't have any, and apparently can't be bothered to offer up any either.

It's real simple: I told them not to go. I remember saying, back in 2002: "When Iraq turns out to be a morass of sectarian violence and we get bogged down with Islamic Fundamentalist guerrillas, and international support continues to fail to come, and the cost of the operation skyrockets, don't come to people like me asking for a solution. Our solution was simple: don't do it in the first place."

So I'm sorry I'm criticizing and that I don't have a solution for you, but I already gave my advice, and it was ignored, so I'm afraid I can't help Mr. Bush any further.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's too bad we can't look back and ask Americans, at the time, how long they thought we'd be in Iraq based on what the Administration was saying. I would expect that the consensus would have been "a couple of years, at the most". But look, I remember what I remember, and you remember what you remember. I could argue that you too are forcing your own concept of what they meant onto their own words.

Actually, my point was that I didn't force my own concept onto what they meant. I took them literally, meaning "we don't know, but we're going to make an effort to get out as soon as possible."

Since that is, literally, what they said, I don't think you could argue that my "concept" is inaccurate. I simply refused to put a timespan on it and took them at their word, and with the suspicion they knew better than I would how long things would take.

Oh, actually it looks like I misunderstood you. I put in the quotes about the supposed July national conference as an indication of how the Bush Admin tends to misjudge the time it takes them to get stuff done in Iraq. I didn't think we'd be out by last July.

Fair enough.

That's refreshing to hear. Fact is, I'd love it if we could pursue a foreign policy that saw us intervening into any situation where there were deep human rights problems and mass sufferings. Since we can't do that, however, we need to make our choices carefully. Iraq was a poor choice, with lousy ramifications for decades to come.

Ah, yes, but was it better than our other choices? If we were to pursue this agenda of riddign the world of evil, was there a better choice than Afghanistan or Iraq? I don't know. This sort of thing strikes me as having lousy ramifications, whatever we do, including whether we invade or do not invade Iraq.

It's real simple: I told them not to go. I remember saying, back in 2002: "When Iraq turns out to be a morass of sectarian violence and we get bogged down with Islamic Fundamentalist guerrillas, and international support continues to fail to come, and the cost of the operation skyrockets, don't come to people like me asking for a solution. Our solution was simple: don't do it in the first place."

So I'm sorry I'm criticizing and that I don't have a solution for you, but I already gave my advice, and it was ignored, so I'm afraid I can't help Mr. Bush any further.

Two things to that. First of all, there's no guaranteeing that not invading Iraq would have been a better solution. For all the negatives of invading Iraq, there were also plenty of negatives of not invading Iraq, including one you already mentioned (the continued oppression of the Iraqi people, a status quo of a destabilized region with no hope for improvement, one of the world's largest standing armies under the control of a mad man who had shown in the past he is very willing to just outright invade neighboring countries, Saddam's continued support for Palestinian terrorism, a "look the other way" policy when terrorist camps are set up within Saddam's borders, Saddam's intransigence to abide by UN regulations set in place to keep him in power after the first Gulf War, reliance on the UN itself despite that organization's weakening resolve and appeasement policies and the fact we were the guys who did its dirty work anyway, the continuing oil-for-food scandal and other links between France and Russia and Iraq, and, of course, the possibility that someday Saddam would develop WMDs that could either be used on Americans or sold to terrorist organizations).

I'm not even sure not invading Iraq would have done anything but delay the inevitable. It was clear Saddam had no intent to allow the U.N. to do its inspections fully, and it's foolish to think that being led by the guilty to the site of his own hidden crimes is a policy that will work anyway. The UN was acting incredibly slow, and it may have taken as long as into this term, but I think they would have eventually accepted the fact that Saddam needed to be taken care of. And who would have gone in then? Here's a hint: not the French. And I doubt greatly the UN would have done any better job in post-war Iraq then we are. It's by and large an organization controlled by industrialized countries, and any occupying non-Islamic army is going to be resented by nationalistic Iraqi, fundamentalist Muslims, and former Baathe supporters.

So, no, not invading Iraq certainly had its risks as well, including the possibility that it was pointless to avoid it.

The second point I would make is that even the stance you take was simply a criticism of an administration intent. Your solution wasn't really a solution, but more of a not their solution. The status quo is not a solution, not if there are readily acknowledged problems (and there were).

So you don't get a free pass, just because you said we shouldn't go.

I am still waiting for an actual suggested solution, either previous to invading Iraq, or now, from critics of the administration, because it still sounds like the same ole BS to me.

[Glengoyne]

Flere, It seems to me, that you are simply representing opposition whatever agenda the Bush administration has pursued. If Bush is for it, then you are against it. I think that sums up your position. I don't think it realy matters to you, what is happening, or whether these elections might lead to some good down the road. You are opposed to Bush, so you feel the need to be a nay-sayer about anything that might possibly be a credit to the Administration or it's plan.

As for the elections themselves. I'm very glad that they seem to have gone down with less trouble and violence than most had feared. I was moved by some of the pre-elections accounts these families gave of their plans for election day. Some had parents that planned on voting at different times. Others planned to bring their whole families along with them, so that in the event that something happened it would happen to then as a family. Hopefully election day safety is something that these people can take for granted sooner rather than later.

I do figure that a relatively islamic state will arise in Iraq. I don't think we can accurately speculate as to how hard line it will be. I figure that we should expect the worst. In that way, we can only be pleasantly surprised by the resulting democracy. A representative democracy that recognizes the rights of all citizens is what we hope for. That is hopefully what this commission elected today puts together.

Only time will tell. I'm going to consider the elections as beneficial progress. They are simply one more step toward what will hopefully become a safe and secure Iraq. Speaking of time. The administration has only said that the mission would take years, not months, and they also said at the price of thousands of American lives.

I certainly think Iraq could end up being as troublesome a nation as Iran, possibly even moreso, but I still am 100 percent behind the policy of regime change in Iraq. Hopefully we will plant the seeds of democracy in the region. Even if the initial crop of those seeds is sour, we may have laid the groundwork for change for future generations. I don't think we will know how succesful or disasterous this foray into Iraq will be for many years to come.

I also agree that Ted Kennedy is right to a degree. It is the presence of American/Western troops in Iraq that fuels the insurgency. We need to get out, but we can't leave a void behind us. The Nation needs to be secured before we leave. If it can't be secured by Iraqis, then we honestly have to hope the other U.N. nations would get off the sideline, and pitch in. The failure of diplomacy wasn't entirely the fault of the U.S. Dipomacy is a two way street, and the French, Germans, and Russians all had a hand in seeing that Diplomacy failed. Every bit as much a part as the Americans.


Oh and one more thing...Flasch...I'm not certain that a 72% turnout would have spelled doom for Bush. I mean we had record turnouts, and he still carried a majority. Before the election, I would have agreed wholeheartedly with your assessment, but after this November, I don't think you can necesarilly draw that conclusion.

Sorry for the somewhat disjointed ramble.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Ah, yes, but was it better than our other choices? If we were to pursue this agenda of riddign the world of evil, was there a better choice than Afghanistan or Iraq? I don't know. This sort of thing strikes me as having lousy ramifications, whatever we do, including whether we invade or do not invade Iraq.

Well, I continue to support the Afghanistan action. Clearly Al Qaida's ability to work and train there needed to be taken away. Plus, there was already a power-structure in place (even if it was warlords) that could (and has) assumed power after our military action.

Other, better choices? Well, as of 2002, not military. It would have been nice to be free to use even more troops in Afghanistan (to make things go even smoother). Other than that, I thought the best thing would have been to continue to focus on diplomatic efforts. For instance, it's no secret that a lot of Al Qaida's money comes from Saudi Arabia. What could the Bush Admin done to work on that angle? More could have (can be) done to sort out the North Korea situation. There's a regime, definitely, that plans on trading in WMD on the world market. And these are just a few ideas.

I am still waiting for an actual suggested solution, either previous to invading Iraq, or now, from critics of the administration, because it still sounds like the same ole BS to me.

1. Continue to push international pressue to keep Iraq under a U.N. microscope so that their dealings on the international markets are very, very unlikely to succeed. Wait for Saddam to make a mistake/die/be assassinated and then work to influence events in Iraq.

2. Embrace Jordan and attempt to bring Syria into the international fold and work with them against terrorists in the region, especially vis-a-vis Palestinian terrorists.

3. Lend behind-the-scenes support to Europe's support for moderate elements in Iran.

4. Use Hussein as one of the group of "WMD bogeymen" to push an anti-proliferation agenda in the U.N. Appeal to the self-preservation instincts of 1st World and developing countries.

This isn't perfect either, but I think it's preferable to the Shiite Fundamentalist State with Kurdish Civil War we'll have in Iraq in 2-3 years, on top of the goodwill we've lost on the world stage as well as the resources we've wasted that could have gone to non-proliferation activities.

[Dutch]

A million ways to get from point A to point B, but we can only bash the one that's implemented.

You are living in a dream world where you are certain that the only evil force on this planet is President Bush and that everybody else is operating honestly, openly, and on good faith. I can assure you that you couldn't be further from the truth, no matter how noble and romantic the idea is.

1. We gave the UN 12 years, you know what idea's they came up with? Military Force and removing sanctions. But when it came down to it, the UN couldn't do it because France and Russia were ready to veto further resolutions and push for removal of sanctions compelely.

2. Waiting for Hussein to die would bring Uday or Qusay to power, they were incompetent sadistic buffoons.

3. We have already embraced Jordan as best we can.

4. Syria has always been unapproachable and a staunch ally of big-brother Hussein. But on a related note, it was reported on the news that Syrians were not to thrilled at the site of exiled Iraqi's casting their absentee ballots.

5. I have no opinion on Iran, frankly I'm not up to speed. I have no knowledge of any work by Americans or Europeans in that nation other than the recent nuclear trade talks...not sure of it's outcome, but the US, I believe, endorsed the efforts. I do know that the Iranians have a youth movement of very well educated people who no doubt must look at free elections with some disdain at this point.

7. Shiite Fundamentalist State with Kurdish Civil War - Let me be the first to say that I hope there is no blood-shed. But whomever they vote for, that's who they get. They have a constitution in place (that most of us scoffed at) but when any government tries to rip up that constitution, they will be plenty of forces within Iraq and outside Iraq that will crush their attempts to create a "Taliban" state. They can have whatever government they want, as long as it obeys the Constitution. Otherwise, we'll go kick their ass again. But, if it happens again, it will be hard for the UN to ignore more oppression and genocide within that nation. But that's a hard one to gauge, honestly, who knows?

8. As for the "goodwill lost". Bush has sacrificed his ability to make friends in France, I agree. But who gives a shit, the next president and whomever is in charge of France and Russia will all "kiss and make up" and smile for the camera's. But we took care of business in the mean time, and they didn't.

Anyway, I know you mean well Flere, but it just not as black and white as you wish it were.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

About 20% of them do, the ones that benefited from Hussein.
They are also the ones that will now be slaughtered by the Shiites. Of course, they themselves butchered thoses same Shiites during Hussein's reign, so in a way, it's only payback time....

This premise has already proven faulty. In the aftermath of the invasion back in the Spring of 03, I read intelligence estimates that were having US forces brace for mass executions and retaliations from the Shiites against the Sunnis. In fact, I recall seeing numbers like 50,000 deaths being thrown around casually. It never happened.

This also got my dander up when people criticized the Pentagon for allowing all that looting that went on after the invasion. Know why the looting was allowed to happen? Because our troops were much, much more worried about Shiites pulling Sunnis out of their homes and shooting them in the head. Our priorities were a little different than what the media was reporting. Looting and petty crime were not high on the list of our concerns.

Anyway, the Shiites and Kurds did not gun down Sunnis then, when they had the best opportunity to do it, therefore it is highly, highly more unlikely they'll start doing it now with an actual government and security force in place.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You are living in a dream world where you are certain that the only evil force on this planet is President Bush and that everybody else is operating honestly, openly, and on good faith. I can assure you that you couldn't be further from the truth, no matter how noble and romantic the idea is.

If that's what you took from what I wrote, there's no point continuing this conversation. The idea that I believe that "the only evil force on this planet is President Bush" is ludicrous.

Anyway, I know you mean well Flere, but it just not as black and white as you wish it were.

George Bush seems to think so: "You're either with us, or with the terrorists."

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

This also got my dander up when people criticized the Pentagon for allowing all that looting that went on after the invasion. Know why the looting was allowed to happen? Because our troops were much, much more worried about Shiites pulling Sunnis out of their homes and shooting them in the head. Our priorities were a little different than what the media was reporting. Looting and petty crime were not high on the list of our concerns.

Im surprised you know this for sure? is it a theory?

Anyways, I dont think it wouldve been hard to have an extra 10K troops that are, say, MP's....who are trained to enforce petty crimes like that. Might've been able to help target those petty crimes you shrug off. We couldve done both....AND we needed some more troops to secure the borders. That wouldve been much more difficult however perhaps if we couldve got some troops from some other countries to help with that we wouldnt have had the influx of foreign terrorists

UNLESS the venus flytrap theory is right.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Im surprised you know this for sure? is it a theory?

Anyways, I dont think it wouldve been hard to have an extra 10K troops that are, say, MP's....who are trained to enforce petty crimes like that. Might've been able to help target those petty crimes you shrug off. We couldve done both....AND we needed some more troops to secure the borders. That wouldve been much more difficult however perhaps if we couldve got some troops from some other countries to help with that we wouldnt have had the influx of foreign terrorists

UNLESS the venus flytrap theory is right.

A theory based on what I know to be true. I was in Qatar at the time supporting airlift directly supporting those troops on the ground so I do know that a very high priority for those troops was to prevent ethnic cleansing (along with looking for WMDs). I also know they were not given specific guidance to stop the looting, so obviously that was not a priority.

As for troops on the borders and getting third nation support, that's a whole different subject. I know Gen Franks maintains there were agreements with certain third party nations to come in and help that were not kept. Gen Franks also claims the number of troops in Iraq was his call, not Bush or Rumsfeld. Maybe he's just being the good soldier taking the heat for the brass. Who knows?

I'm not a ground security expert so I really don't know if it was even possible to secure the borders, look for WMDs, and protect Sunnis all at the same time. Could very well have required more troops than we and any alliance we could have negotiated could have mustered. I'm sure this will be fodder for discussion at West Point for the next 50 years.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

They have a constitution in place (that most of us scoffed at) but when any government tries to rip up that constitution, they will be plenty of forces within Iraq and outside Iraq that will crush their attempts to create a "Taliban" state. They can have whatever government they want, as long as it obeys the Constitution.

They don't have a constitution yet (which makes it unlikely that anybody scoffed at it). Yesterday's election was to select people who will participate in a constitutional convention of sorts. Link here.