Main > Everything Else
Iraq Elections
fredster:
--- Quote ---Well, do you?
--- End quote ---
Yes, I see it every day all day. I read the daily kos most every day, and I try to read as much left as I do right. I just can't see it the way you do. I see the basic tennants of your side of the arguement.
1) Bush is evil with motives of power and wealth
2) Bush always ment to get at the oil
3) Bush is a fool for going to Iraq. There was no need.
I've been looking for a convincing argument that doens't contain these basic building blocks from the beginging, but all I see is blind hatred of Bush and fear of what must be done.
I'm not parroting Rumsfeld. It's a fact. You don't see OBL making tapes for CNN or FOX. You don't see terrorists on the BBC beheading people. But we did see this network with on the scene imbedded reporters with cameras taking pictures of IDE on the roads. That should tell you something is amiss.
Here's my side, and believe me, up until this election I didn't call myself a republican. Before I was strickly independent.
1) Bush is the President of the United States and the leader of the free world.
2) Bush didn't anticipate the threat to the level he should have, and was like the rest of us on 9/10/01, he didn't believe it would happen like it did.
3) Bush reacted like I expect the President of the United States to act after 9/11. He found and attacked the bases of the enemy and demoralized them into submission. We should all be proud of the way he flew fighters from the US to that hellhole and dropped those bombs on the taliban.
4) When Bush speaks, he does it for a purpose. He did what he said he was going to do and executed.
5) He had information from all sources all over the globe that Saddam was as major a threat as we all believed. He had a choice whether to go ahead and risk lives and property on that. I think he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do at the right time. Take the threat out.
I firmly believe that if Bush didn't act in March 03 that the left would have said he made the same mistake as his father. Saddam would be in power and the world would be in danger if not this year, then within 5 years. That's my opinion, but as ruthless as today's politics are on both sides, it's very concievable.
I think my beliefs are better backed up with facts than the ranting I see by dems. They believe that Bush was forwarned and this was not necessary. I say we should have taken him out in GW1 when we had the mo. If we didn't do it now, we would be doing it in 2010. Him or his manic sons would pop up again.
I see the vision Bush has. It was to carve a line of new pro western governments in the middle east. The tyranies that are in power are waining, and it's just a matter of time until the kindom of Saud sees the same revolt as the Shaw in the 70's. Doing what we have done stabalizes the region for a generation. I believe it was necessary, just, and done at the right time with the right president.
You don't.
Sorry. I love ya man, but we can't agree on this one.
Mameotron:
--- Quote from: Dexter on February 01, 2005, 09:57:09 am ---http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/31/1517207
I ask, who has the real democracy??
--- End quote ---
I just saw a nice documentary on Castro and the revolutionaries of the 60's & 70's.
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: fredster on February 01, 2005, 04:45:09 pm ---I see the vision Bush has. It was to carve a line of new pro western governments in the middle east. The tyranies that are in power are waining, and it's just a matter of time until the kindom of Saud sees the same revolt as the Shaw in the 70's. Doing what we have done stabalizes the region for a generation. I believe it was necessary, just, and done at the right time with the right president.
--- End quote ---
You do realize that the cost of this vision, should it fail, will be a further solidification of Muslim fundamentalism in the region, since we will have be seen to have proven valid, every fear in the arab world.
Iran had a very successful burgeoning revolution on it's hands with the younger generation of students...they have been quiet since we attacked. Why? Because any dissent is now seen as support of American imperialism in the region, rather than grassroots Arab nationalism.
As Bush prattles on about spreading "I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Democracy!!TM" throughout the region, he continually runs the risk of drowning out the real voices speaking of a style of democracy more suitable to the people living there. If he installs, or is seen to have installed a puppet government...all will be lost in that region for good.
Rather than attack Iraq, I wish he would have spent $300 billion on solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue...and from there, we may have won real, long-term friends in the region.
mrC
Crazy Cooter:
I agree with CT about the voter turnout. I'm not comfortable with it.
My $0.02:
I think that this may bring to light something the US should have considered: You can't give someone freedom. I'm afraid that we will hang around for a year or so, leave, and then there will be a civil war. There is a significant portion of the population that does not agree with what is happening. This isn't republicans vs democrats where we ---smurfette--- for four years and then throw the dice again. Obviously our definition of freedom isn't the same. What do you guys think is going to happen when 60% of the population is going to pass laws governing the remaining 40? It's not that the people that didn't vote didn't care, it's because they didn't agree with the idea of the vote. They're not participating because they don't want it. IMO, after seeing what is happening now, I think the region may become more unstable in the next few years.
As a side note, pay particular attention to how Bush addresses this tomorrow night (you did know the reason behind the date set for the vote right?). I think it will have an impact on what may happen next. Will he ignore the protest made by the Sunni's? Will he gloat on the number of people that voted or take the time to discuss the concerns of those that didn't? If he ignores the people that already have bad vibes about us being there during the elections, I foresee a lot of trouble.
"I see the vision Bush has. It was to carve a line of new pro western governments in the middle east"
Fredster, that's exactly where the problem is. Not everyone is pro-western. Some people hate us. Our solution has been forcing our ideas on them. Forced Democracy has no chance of longevity. That's where I see a major pitfall. I don't see the Sunni's standing by while the Kurds and the Shiites start calling the shots. They will take arms. It's just a matter of time. Civil war or continued war?
fredster:
Cooter, I understand that not everybody is "pro western" that's clear. But who are those people besides these people and China. Why are they so anti western?
To say that we cannot force democracy on them, do you really think that's a reasonable position? Are you really saying that these people aren't sophisticated or socialized enough to ever form their own democracy or sustain one that is put into place?
I can see that point, we see that in Hahti.
I see your points and I'll raise the speculation.
I think we all agree what the US did in Afgahnistan was justfied and necessary. I believe that point is pretty well universally accepted by now right?
Now, let's speculate on the future of the Middle east if the US did retreat from the region. Went home, sent special forces into the foothills of Pakistan and even maybe routed out OBL.
Saddam is in power. Iran is threatened and seeking to protect itself. Kawait is bordering the coast, rich and fat with oil profits. Saudi Arabia is in deepening domestic trouble. Turkey is in a tenuous peace with Saddam, and has a shared hatred of the Kurds. Pakistan with nukes is staring down India. Israel is basically alone and fighting for survival with terrorists blowing up citizens every day. Syria is committed to wiping Israel off the map. Libya is on the edge of the world, seeking out nukes for it's own stake in the region.
All of these states are sitting on most of the oil for the world. The entire world depends on it's livelyhood on the oil that comes from under the sand. Without it, we have no plastic, no fuel, and no commerce.
Do we all agree this is Feb 03?
Let's say we didn't go in. What would be happening in '05 or '06?
Bush would probably have won by a large margin in the polls because of his win. The left would be howling that he didn't go far enough or that we should do more for afgahistan. Whatever, it would be anti-bush whichever way it went.
Saddam would be building up more influence and credibility in the UN, obviously, because he's buying it all over the western countries. He was paying off terrorists in Palestine, and he may find that he has new allies with the displaced terrorists from the taliban. His rethoric continues to grow.
The UN would be very sympathetic to the people of Iraq now that they have been softened by the Billions of dollars, and Saddam's sanctions are eased even more, possibly dissolved. Old scores have to be settled with the Kingdom of Saud, after all, they helped bury him in his bunkers with GHB in GW1. His sons would still be running around killing and raping indescriminately. These are the heir apparent.
Tensions are rising. Lybia is pursuing the bomb using the still undercover operations. The US's intell is still flawed and we have no concept of what's going on.
Saddam rises out of the ashes and Iran reacts. Pakistan falls in bed with the powerful. Bathasts still occupy lebanon and their influence grows. Terrorists turn their attention to Saudi Arabia and war begins within thier borders. Palestinians side with Saddam who funds them against a peace process because they have money and support. Israel is poised to fall from 360