Main > Everything Else
Iraq Elections
Crazy Cooter:
Not voting because your not interested is one thing (prevelant in the US), not voting because you disagree with the whole process (ala the Sunni's) is a different story altogether.
Suppose that Native Americans boycotted the next elections in the US. (I know, not the same as Sunni's, but I can't think of a better example so I'll point at myself) Would they consider the election fair? No. Would they respect the new governments decisions? No. How would they feel if people started saying what a success it was? Bitter.
I don't view the elections as a success because it isolated an entire section (~35%?) of the population. I don't see this as being the proper direction to take. That's not being ignorant, that's being honest. Whatever concerns they have about the process are being ignored. I don't see this course of action as stabilizing the area. I think somebody somewhere should find out what the gripe is about. Then take steps towards addressing these concerns so that everyone feels comfortable with the direction their country is going. If they just get ignored, they will put up a stink. In the Middle East that stink is usually a bunch of bullets. So I ask myself out loud... Civil war or continued war? Or will someone see the big picture and address the concerns of the people? I don't see it getting any easier around there when THAT many people are upset.
fredster:
--- Quote ---Guess it's too hard to be righteous in two threads a time and remember which lib'rl heathen you're currently attacking.
--- End quote ---
Jbox, where's the link to your Mame Machine? Or are you just trolling around here?
Cooter, Mr.C, and Shmokes are well known members of the BYOAC. We have these arguments all the time. Some of us even like them. (I don't know who right now, but some of us)
Cooter,
Man, what does this mean -
--- Quote ---Suppose that Native Americans boycotted the next elections in the US. (I know, not the same as Sunni's, but I can't think of a better example so I'll point at myself) Would they consider the election fair? No. Would they respect the new governments decisions? No. How would they feel if people started saying what a success it was? Bitter.
--- End quote ---
At best, it's a terrible comparison. The religious Right boycotted the 2000 Presidential election.
This thing wasn't perfect, but it's got to start somewhere. What is your idea of what should be going on? Pick some despot and put him place and cut an run? Is that what you believe?
This is the first of a series of elections. As I understand it, the next one is to ratify the consitution these people are going to write. The last one is to elect whomever the new consitution outlines.
It's a first step that has been planned for awhile. Regardless of how people feel about the Basis of the war, they have to believe we need to follow this path out. What are the other options?
--- Quote ---Then take steps towards addressing these concerns so that everyone feels comfortable with the direction their country is going.
--- End quote ---
Really, can that happen? Can everybody feel comfortable? Is it possible? Are you comfortable with the way the US is going? 50 million would be upset now in the US right?
My feeling is the best we can hope for is to get the ball rolling ASAP. Hold thier hand until they can develop the internal systems for keeping their goverment in control. If we walk out too soon, the Military will be uncontrolled. Look at Pakistan, the military took it over what, 4 years ago?
I'm not really up on the Marshall Plan in Japan, but this is about the same situation. We had to develop that country's goverment systems into a free system from the Military control. It took several years.
But I guess it was worth it. Now we have Anime!
jbox:
--- Quote ---Jbox, where's the link to your Mame Machine? Or are you just trolling around here?
--- End quote ---
Heh heh, I like your emphasis on trolling. Makes it sound like a Back To The Future movie: "C'mon McFly, post your cab pictures already, or are you too chicken to match your woodwork to mine (bwwwaakk, bwak, bwak, bwak)!" 8) That is so cool that I think you deserve another gold star, this one is a serving platter so it's useful too!
http://www.lovetoparty.co.nz/images/Gold%20Star%20Server_small.jpg
(and I admit, that while name-calling fellow agnostics as christians is always a hoot, calling you a Green was probably in poor taste - sorry about that one fredster :( )
Now, because I'm almost out of Gummy-berry juice - what do people think the reaction would be if these 'founding fathers' of the future Iraq decide to draw two more lines on the map and just be done with each other once and for all? It was my understanding that after G.W.1 the kurds brought up the idea of getting sovereignty but nothing ever happened. I mean, apart from that whole water and oil thing, it would be fascinating to see how the world responded to that, and it would certainly eliminate any of this "I don't want to share a government with them" complaints...
Do *you* think it would change anything other than re-classifying the resulting 'civil unrest' as 'border skirmishes'?
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: jbox on February 04, 2005, 02:17:03 am ---
That is so cool that I think you deserve another gold star, this one is a serving platter so it's useful too!
http://www.lovetoparty.co.nz/images/Gold%20Star%20Server_small.jpg
--- End quote ---
It looks better like this:
I wondered what Floyd would turn out like when he got older. Thankfully you came around to let us know....and give us an international version.
Didja give a couple of those posts a run past danny, or are ya still giving it the ol' college try?
I've got a better idea for fredster, jbox. I suggest he sits there and waits for you to tell him what you would do about the situation. After all, we all know it's easy to throw crap. It's a whole lot harder to offer solutions. Kinda puts your neck out there on the line for any jabroni to take a stab at. Perhaps you'll impart your wisdom as to how best handle the present situation so we can debate the merits of YOUR ideas, or if someone just shook you up before opening.
ChadTower:
Guys... think this through. These elections, this gov't, this invasion, none of it has anything to do with freedom or Hussein and little to do with WMDs. These are military decisions that WILL pay unprecedented dividends.as for whether or not it should have been done, that's another discussion, but think about the military implications here.
The Middle East is the only region of the Earth that is both universally antiAmerican AND powerful enough to do something about it. We have NO real foothold there and NO practical way to stage against a united front coming from the Middle East. We never have, and once the USSR fell, the Middle East became the main focus of our defense (Reagan started it even before the USSR fall was complete).
This is why we have our relationship with Israel. We're basically protecting them in order to have a real ally in that region, even if that causes the problem to be worse. It has been our best option. The same with Saudi Arabia. Liberals LOVE to point out how most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Well, what are we to do, turn our back on the only potential staging area we have with proximity to Iran? That would be a poor military decision, but we cannot continue to have these links with a country that is overtly supporting the very terrorism we have sworn to destroy. It's hypocrisy and transparent hypocrisy at that.
The best military decision that could have been made was to take advantage of Hussein and his flouting of the UN, his posession of WMDs (don't bother saying he didn't have them, everyone agreed he did, even the French), and the fact that his mighty regime was a house of cards. Finding a bunch of mason jars in a desert country full of caves was never going to happen anyway. What happened was we took Iraq, are in the process of establishing a friendly but more importantly completely reliant gov't there, for military purposes. They NEED us there, and in return, we're building permanent military installations NEXT TO IRAN AND SAUDI ARABIA. Once Iraq's new gov't is stable, we will be permanently militarily installed smack in the middle of tha region. The strategic implications of that CHANGE THE WORLD. We can cut the farcical ties to Saudi Arabia, we no longer have to listen to Iran talk about nuclear weapons if we don't want to, and in order to get us out of the region they will have to start World War III.
Now, I'm not justifying these actions morally, nor am I saying I agree with them. What I am doing is pointing these things out since no one seems to be talking about the military implications of any of this. Explained militarily, all of things that supposedly make no sense make perfect sense.