Iraq Elections

[Crazy Cooter]

Just around the corner are the Iraqi Elections.  Rather than all the "typical" comments on why we're there, let's keep it on topic.  How do you think the different groups feel about the elections?

My questions:
Why do people that aren't living in Iraq get to vote?
That said, are the "voter turnout" numbers going to reflect how many people voted while living in Detroit compared to those that live in Baghdad?  Or will we just see xx number of votes (and assume they all live there)?

Think of it like this:
If people living outside of America voted in our election, we probably would have had a different outcome.  With entire groups (that actually live there) boycotting the election, is this election even valid?

[RayB]

It's a valid point considering that those outside the country can safely do so, while those IN Iraq will be targets for bombings. Which means the turn out IN Iraq could be way lower than the voting OUTSIDE Iraq!

[iwillfearnoevil]

i don't know why they can vote, but i think they are still iraqis who have fled for their lives but are not us residents? a good question.

there is going to be very low turnout for out-of-iraqi voters due to un bungeling it. they are refusing to open lots of polling places in the us such as san diego where 25,000 - 30,000 iraqis live.

from James Y. Rayis:
Only 280,303 people out of the more than one million estimated to be eligible registered in the 14 countries participating in the out-of-country voting program. In the United States, a mere 25,946 registered, a tenth of what was expected. Here the low turnout is attributable to serious mistakes made by the U.N.-appointed International Organization for Migration's Out-of-Country Voting office (IOM-OCV).

[mr.Curmudgeon]

there is going to be very low turnout for out-of-iraqi voters due to un bungeling it.

The current interim president of Iraq has suggested that there will also be a very low turnout for voters currently IN Iraq.

"Most of the Iraqi People Will Not Participate"

Sadr is shunning the vote, so a large portion of Shia may abstain as well.

The bombing of polling places has already started.

My opinion is that if the U.S. couldn't stabilize Iraq enough to hold a safe and legitimate election process, how can any "elected" official be expected to rule afterward. I imagine most elected officials will be assassinated shortly after anyhow. Democracy cannot be "spread" through imperialistic measures, it must be brought to a willing populace who are fully interested and able to participate without fear of retribution. I see nothing like that in Iraq. I do, however, wish the populace the very best.

[Grasshopper]

What I find slightly disturbing about most of the news coverage of the Iraqi elections is that there never seems to be any mention of what choices the Iraqi people are actually being given. Surely this is the most important issue of all. I've been following the Iraq situation very closely but I don't even know how many different political parties are running yet alone what their policies are.

This bothers me a bit. It's no secret that a lot of Iraqis believe the elections are a sham. I'd like to know whether their scepticism is justified or not, but I'm not being presented with the necessary facts to make an informed judgement.

[patrickl]

I saw Paul Bremer in an interview on dutch TV about the elections and he stated that there were something like 40 parties entering the election. I think the idea is that no one party can get the majority so the government will have to consist of several parties who will need to get along. For obvious reasons the US would not like to see Iraq become a Shia country like Iran.

BTW really sad how this guys' live is ruined. Paul Bremer can probably not live a normal live for at least a decade or so. Amazing that someone can be so dedicated to his job that he will suffer so much for it. I was really impressed by the way he spoke and what he said.

[danny_galaga]

i don't know why they can vote, but i think they are still iraqis who have fled for their  In the United States, a mere 25,946 registered, a tenth of what was expected.

yep. thats the ameerican way  more iraqis are voting in australia than in the US it would seem...

[iwillfearnoevil]

this James S. Robbins article describes some of the candidates and parties running:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200501280818.asp

to get an idea of the scope:
There is a single nationwide ballot for the 275-seat Iraqi national assembly. Eighty-three party and individual electoral lists with a total of 7,200 candidates are contending for those seats. In addition, there are separate ballots in each of the 18 Iraqi governates to elect 41-member governing councils (51-member in Baghdad), which will function as provincial governments. Over 380 party lists representing 7,850 candidates are seeking these 748 seats. Finally, voters in Kurdish areas will choose from among 499 candidates representing 14 parties for the 111-seat Kurdish National Council.

also they're voting for parties and not individuals and the major parties have resisted publishing their list of individuals for security concerns.

[Crazy Cooter]

That's nuts.  It would take hours to fill that out.  I don't know if I would take the risk.  The people that live there should be the ones making the decision though (IMO).  They are the ones that will live with the consequences.

Wouldn't it have been easier to start with a national level government and then create the local stuff once that had been stabilized?  I think it's safe to say that there is going to be extreme distrust and frustration in this.  I think that Iraq may end up with "too many cooks in the kitchen".

"...the idea is that no one party can get the majority so the government will have to consist of several parties who will need to get along." <-- I hope we're not the role model in this.  We have two parties that can't get along.

[RetroJames]

Certainly alot more choices than the last election...

I am very happy those people have that murderous SOB and his horrific offspring out of the way.  At least they have a chance now.

[iwillfearnoevil]

That's nuts.

[iwillfearnoevil]

Certainly alot more choices than the last election...

I am very happy those people have that murderous SOB and his horrific offspring out of the way.

[Tailgunner]

CNN is currently reporting 70% of Iraqis voted today.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

CNN is currently reporting 70% of Iraqis voted today.

This number is not based on any sort of scientific poll, and I'm ashamed that our media keeps batting it around as if it were fact.

From an Iraqi, watching Iraqi television:
"The journalists asked the excecutive director: how did you know that the percentage of the voters in iraq is 72% like you announced? He answered: "well, the head of every voting center estimated that basing on the length of the line of the voters as he saw it!"

If we're to believe this number is correct, then we'd have to believe that the exit polls here for the last election were correct.

KERRY WON!!!

mrC

[RayB]

Yeah, always be skeptical of the media. Especially when they tend to all get their information from the same sources (Reuters, AP, etc). It's not hard for the government to "seed" whatever news suits them best. (ie: 70% turn out rate). This rate surprised me too.

[iwillfearnoevil]

and then CNN goes on to quote:
"It will take some time for the IECI to issue accurate figures on turnout," the statement said. "What is certainly the case is that turnout has exceeded expectations throughout the country."

no matter the actual percentage the iraqis and everyone except the anti-government terrorists have to say this is an unqualified SUCCESS

[RayB]

... except that the Sunni's, who are concerned over their level of representation in such an elected body, DIDN'T VOTE.

[abrannan]

Think of it like this:
If people living outside of America voted in our election, we probably would have had a different outcome. 

Um, you do know that hundreds of thousands of American citizens who live overseas did vote last November, and legally to boot? 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

no matter the actual percentage the iraqis and everyone except the anti-government terrorists have to say this is an unqualified SUCCESS

jened and other war apologists are already seeming to break their arms patting themselves on the back, while the Iraqis still have a hell of a lot of work to do. I'm happy that enormous amounts of people weren't killed while lining up to participate, but I'll continue to refrain from the patriotic triumphalism and flag-waving until after the country stabilizes.

I find it disturbing that there are allegations from individuals in Iraq that people were being threatened with a suspention of food rationing if they didn't vote. There has been no water in large areas of Baghdad and other outlying areas, and some are complaining of a demonstration of 'collective punishment' as incentive to vote. If these allegations are true...I wouldn't call this a success at all.

One prominent Iraqi blogger writes:
"People in many areas are being told that if they don

[iwillfearnoevil]

those blogs have had several claims disputed both factually and logically so i take what they write with a grain of salt. see the Thursday, January 06, 2005 entry on http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ for example. anyways no need for us to argue, the people have won, and the terrorists have lost!

[fredster]

Cooter, people outside of the US do vote for the President. People with dual citizenship can vote, and they did vote. 

This number is not based on any sort of scientific poll, and I'm ashamed that our media keeps batting it around as if it were fact.

MrC, you amaze me with your Kreskin powers.  I guess you AGAIN have ESP and know that this can't be right.

This is a great day for the world and we should all be so happy for the people of Iraq.  Sure, it's a long and hard road ahead, but every long journey starts with a single step doesn't it?

[ChadTower]

American men and women died so that these elections can happen.  If 100% of Iraqis, both domestic and foreign, did not vote, I consider it at least a partial failure.  AMERICANS DIED so they could have a choice of leaders and if they don't vote those AMERICANS DIED without justification. 

Sigh.  This is all such a f***cking mess.  We went in there to find weapons and didn't find them... now we have to set up a democracy in a region that won't support it for people who don't deserve it.

I just wish the gov't and the media would step up and mention what this is really about... establishing a friendly, secure military foothold in the world's most Anti-US region.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

anyways no need for us to argue, the people have won, and the terrorists have lost!

This is a wait and see situation...the vote, while symbolically a great sign, does not prove anyone has "won" or "lost". Bush has all his minions thinking in such simplistic terms and this is what I find most disturbing about his failure of leadership. He cannot, and will not manage reasonable expectations. His "pie-in-the-sky" rhetoric about "spreading freedom and liberty" comes off as shallow and vague. I for one, tend not to trust people that have already misled me. Call me crazy.

I do not wish to take away the joy felt by the citizenry of Iraq, however, I feel we'd do them a great diservice if we continued the "Rah! Rah!" rhetoric without working to conitnually head off the potential pitfalls they face in the quest toward stability. Your jumping the gun with the "won/lost" B.S. as it has no basis in reality as the situation has yet to be played out.

For example, there's precedent for my pessimism. It's important to keep in mind the below article was written 4 month before the Tet Offensive:


U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote (NYT 9/4/1967)

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday.  Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.  The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

Significance Not Diminished

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics.  That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout.  That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly.  Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago.  The turnout  of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise.  The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless.  This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.

NYT. 9/4/1967: p. 2

[ChadTower]

For example, here's a little history lesson for you.

In return, here's a little advice for you:  we don't need you to teach us things.  That type of condescension is exactly why people around here are having trouble taking your posts seriously, even when they have valid points in them. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Cooter, people outside of the US do vote for the President. People with dual citizenship can vote, and they did vote. 

This number is not based on any sort of scientific poll, and I'm ashamed that our media keeps batting it around as if it were fact.

MrC, you amaze me with your Kreskin powers.  I guess you AGAIN have ESP and know that this can't be right.

No, it's just that my ESP tells me to wait until numbers are verified before slathering myself in them. It's not like we haven't seen inflated numbers before (ie: TONS of WMD!!! Ahhh, POUNDS of Yellowcake!!!)

This is a great day for the world and we should all be so happy for the people of Iraq.  Sure, it's a long and hard road ahead, but every long journey starts with a single step doesn't it?

Ok, sure...I was excited to see the purple thumbs too. But that doesn't mean I can't start thinking about tomorrow does it?


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

For example, here's a little history lesson for you.

In return, here's a little advice for you:  we don't need you to teach us things.  That type of condescension is exactly why people around here are having trouble taking your posts seriously, even when they have valid points in them. 

I changed it. Let me know what you think of the article...

[ChadTower]

I don't think it applies.  There are some gigantic differences.  We didn't have full military commitment in Vietnam.  We have full control of Iraq, something we didn't have in Saigon (could have but didn't), and as such there isn't going to be any full out reprisals like in Saigon.  Not to say they won't try, but they won't succeed.

Comparing this war to Vietnam, as much as people like Kennedy enjoy doing, simply is not a valid comparison.  It's a scare tactic that they don't even realize is totally lost on anyone under 45 since US schools don't teach a damn thing about Vietnam.

[Dexter]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/31/1517207

Quote in relation to the from an interview with british MP who has had experience of Iraq first hand....

"They're a farce. They're rigged. An election held under foreign military occupation is always, by definition, utterly flawed. But one which is held in the kind of conditions in which this one is being held is flawed beyond redemption. The facts are that it is simply impossible to hold an election when there is a full-scale war going on between the occupying armies and the resistance forces. The Sunni Muslim population, which if you add the Sunni Kurds and the Sunni Arabs together, is some 40% of the population, are deeply anxious about the way in which the occupying forces are deliberately trying to divide the country along confessional lines. The Sunni Arab population has boycotted the election almost in their entirety. The Iraqis living outside for whom security was not an issue, three quarters of them have voted with their feet and boycotted the election. Less than a quarter of the eligible voters have registered to vote and fewer still have cast their votes. So, this is a festival, a farce that's been held to validate the American-British invasion and occupation of Iraq. But it will not validate it, neither in the eyes of the world opinion, nor, more importantly, in the eyes of those Iraqis who are resisting the foreign occupation and the war will go on, I'm sorry to say."

Give them liberty or give them death. The numerous reports from foreign journalists of people being threatened with starvation if they don't vote, plus the fact that the vast majority of Iraqis want the US out but somehow managed to elect a prime minister who doesn't basically says it all. An election only america could have the arrogance to force on a culture.

As always I ask, who has the real democracy??

[fredster]

"Scottish MP George Galloway has been one of the most vocal critics of the Iraq war. He was expelled from the ruling Labour Party in October 2003 after he was accused of encouraging British troops to disobey what he called "illegal orders".

Wow, now there's an impartial voice in the din. Wow.

Here's a view too -
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Read it if you dare Dexter.  Apparently you don't like seeing the other side, do you?  What would convince you the Iraq war was necessary and has paid divdends for the future?  Did you work for the UN and the OIL for FOOD program?

I love this quote

The numerous reports from foreign journalists of people being threatened with starvation if they don't vote,

Sure, Al-Jazera.  Lots of impartial journalists there. Ever notice how Al-Jazera was right there with the terrorists to film the explosion of roadside bombs?  Nice Dexter, Nice.  Really great.

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/001361.html

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Ever notice how Al-Jazera was right there with the terrorists to film the explosion of roadside bombs?

You're parroting Rumsfeld now??

Al-Jazeera mostly plays the tapes given to them. If they have been present at roadside bombings, and or have captured them on film, I'm more apt to believe that is a factor of coincidence given they are the largest voice in Arab media, with one of the most significant coverage footprints in Iraq and these bombings occur somewhere on the order of 60-70 times a DAY. Don't get me wrong, I think Al-Jazeera has been less than helpful when it comes to Bush's agenda in Iraq. However, can you really fault them for showing the aftermath of U.S. bombs, insurgent/suicide bombers, etc?? If this sh!t was happening in your own backyard, wouldn't you want to see it too?

I suspect you are trying to isolate Al-Jazeera and discredit them solely because they report from a perspective that you disagree with. I find that completely ironic given the next quote from you:

Apparently you don't like seeing the other side, do you?

Well, do you?


mrC

[fredster]

Well, do you?

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]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/31/1517207
I ask, who has the real democracy??

I just saw a nice documentary on Castro and the revolutionaries of the 60's & 70's.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

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 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

[jbox]

1) Bush is the President of  the United States and the leader of the free world.

5) He had information from all sources all over the globe that Saddam was as major a threat as we all believed.

Saddam would be in power and the world would be in danger if not this year, then within 5 years.

I think my beliefs are better backed up with facts than the ranting I see by dems.

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.

But who are those people besides these people and China. Why are they so anti western?

AH HAH! I've just worked it out, fredster is *ACTUALLY* a secret green's operative, charged with the mission of building an SCO out of the republocrats for the next election cycle!

After all, why else claim that total warfare is the *ONLY* alternative to oil dependance?

I think we all agree what the US did in Afgahnistan was justfied and necessary.

Do you mean during the cold war, during the pipe-line negotiations, during the invasion, or letting local warlords take control? I just want to be clear on what "we all agree" on.

[fredster]

After all, why else claim that total warfare is the *ONLY* alternative to oil dependance?

It wasn't total. It was isolated and it was strategic. 
What exactly were the other options?

And to be honest, I kinda like my car, everything made of plastic, heat, and my job.
But maybe that's just me.

[Dexter]

1) Bush is the President of the United States and the leader of the free world.

That ended with bush turning his back on the free world to invade another country for what the free world knew was dubious reasons. Rice and powell stated in 2000 that Saddam was contained and his WMD capacity broken. But why remember the facts when war is so profitable

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.

Really? I know of a CIA briefing handed to Bush on 6 august 2001 containing information that OBL was going to attack using hijacked jets. Rice mentions it in her testimony. I also know of a pet goat who might disagree

[fredster]

1-5 your opinion, you are free to express it.  I can't make much sense out of comments like :

But why remember the facts when war is so profitable

That makes absolutely no sense. It's cost us $200 billion +, and 1400 US lives.  I don't know if you are a businessman or not, but I don't see ROI there, either political or monetary.

Al quaida cells are now active in more countries then prior to 9/11.

Really? Where are they Dexter?

(By the way, did he react in that classroom on 9/11 like you expect a president to react? Yeah right)

Maybe if we all filmed each other 24/7 we can find better examples.  I dropped my coffee.  I wonder if Michael Moore wants that clip?
If you watched his speech to congress after that, you might have a different view.  It took about a 1/2 hour, and I think that's the way I want him to act.  I think it will go down in history as one of the best speeches ever delivered by a president. 

Capture Osama? No

Not yet. Not yet. And when he does should we take our ball and go home? 

I know of a CIA briefing handed to Bush on 6 august 2001 containing information that OBL

"containing information on OBL" man, that's definitive. We should have closed down the US until we got to the bottom of that. Man. Wow.

Intelligence was hand-picked to support an invasion whereas ALL intelligence should always be considered to give a more accurate overall picture of whats going on.

  Really? You know that for a fact or is it your opinion? I always like this one, because this intel came from a lot of sources.  How does that explain Britian's involvement? Australia? You do know that there are more people in the CIA and FBI that report to congress right?  You do know they report these things all the time to committees right? Huh.  Guess Bush is more powerful that I thought and in control of a lot more than the US.

didn't happen because al quaida 'hates our freedoms' it was because of US interference in the middle east

Our interference was liberating Kuwait.  Yep, we should have let them go huh?

Forcing people to live under a government they can freely change is a bad thing? It's better to let them go and have a dictator. Ok, I see the logic there. I'm sure they all got together and said, hey, Saddam is the man.  Who needs all this voting and election stuff? This is really much easier.

And please stop calling bushes policies pro-western, he does not represent opinion in Europe.

  And your opinion does?  Your opinion only Dexter. Please stop saying you represent all of Europe.

[ChadTower]

And please stop calling bushes policies pro-western, he does not represent opinion in Europe.

That's one thing, maybe the only thing, Bush has done right.  He got the US back to being the US and not the muscle behind the UN and their corrupt, Eurocentric world.  Europe is having a hell of a time dealing with the fact that we don't give a damn what they think, say, or do any longer and they can't do a thing about it.

[Dexter]

No, but approx 70% of europe does in general share my views (and don't worry, I didn't forget poland LOL!!)

[iwillfearnoevil]

That's one thing, maybe the only thing, Bush has done right.

[fredster]

As I understand it, 95% of all statistics are made up on the spot 

[Dexter]

As I understand it, 95% of all statistics are made up on the spot

[ChadTower]

Wow.  The guy can't even let someone have a joke without telling the person they are wrong.   

[Dexter]

Theres a winking smiley there for a reason man 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

As Bush continues to gloat at you with his beedy little dead black-eyes, and as he continues to take credit for the elections that happen in Iraq, it's important to remember, that he never wanted these elections to take place.

Just like the 9/11 commission, the Bush administration fought tooth and nail against a truly free and fair election in Iraq. They had other plans...which didn't quite work out the way they had hoped.

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043


mrC

[ChadTower]

I see the formula Mr C is using now:

(open)
  Bush insult
  Bush charge based on biased web article that could have been
    written by anyone

(next)
  Bush charge

Oh wait, dude, you left out the history lesson and the implication that anyone reading this is of inferior intellect.

[fredster]

SSSHhhhh Chad.

That's always been the liberal's best move...

[Crazy Cooter]

One thing you guys need to remember is that Democracy is not "the best".  It's only one of amny different systems.  You're basing your arguement on it being what everyone wants to achieve and that isn't true.  What would we be saying if China went into Iraq to spread communism?  The people would have more freedom under communism than they did under Saddam, so would that have been an acceptable solution?  History says no.

It comes down to thinking that everyone wants to be like us.  Not everyone does.  Some people value other things.  They don't want to own a BMW, they don't even want to see one.  That's what I see as the major "problem" of GW & his crew.  They have zero ability to see things from a different angle.  That's what concerns me.  Watch tonight and see if you hear anything about the people that didn't vote.  See if they get mentioned as being too afraid to vote or if they get mentioned as not wanting to vote.

[fredster]

Wow Shmokes, I mean Cooter,  you never cease to amaze!

Not only have you analyzed the entire poltical spectrum and determined that democracy isn't the best, you have even come to the conclusion that commies are mommies.

[Crazy Cooter]

Heheh, Shmokes gets the blame...

[jbox]

Heheh, Shmokes gets the blame...

Guess it's too hard to be righteous in two threads a time and remember which lib'rl heathen you're currently attacking.

Although for the record, I'd be concerned if you really think democracy isn't the most equitable electoral system of them all. However, I'm more than happy to agree that capitalism as an equitable economic system needs some work (but I sure like being able to vote on that opinion)...

[jbox]

After all, why else claim that total warfare is the *ONLY* alternative to oil dependance?

It wasn't total. It was isolated and it was strategic. 
What exactly were the other options?

Israel stands only with the US, and we are drawn into a war with a contient to fight off.

"A continent to fight off" is "isolated and it was strategic"? I guess you must be thinking of when the time comes you have to attack Australia! Or perhaps you confused the fact I was rebutting your "it was either Iraq or the WORLD" doomsday post, because then you wouldn't have something cool to say in retort.

And there are lots of alternatives to oil-for-fuel, after which we could conserve this limited resource for building those things that need oil like plastic. Hence my suspicion that you are in fact a mole for the Greens, just as keen as I am to conserve this precious commidity from being wasted where it doesn't need to be (like SUVs). Don't worry, I wont tell anyone else so your secret is safe with me Comrade!

[DrewKaree]

No, but approx 70% of europe does in general share my views (and don't worry, I didn't forget poland LOL!!)

And a percentage of Iraqi people equal to your claim of "they agree with me" turned out to show their agreement with what Bush is attempting to establish. 

All of Europe can agree with you, but you're ignoring the people who matter in this "debate".  The Iraqi people themselves have spoken.  Your opinion, and the opinion of all who agree with you, matters very little to those who enjoyed voicing their political opinion.

Also, as ill-informed as I'd like for you to continue sounding, I'd like to point something out that you choose to ignore in your latest "I hate Bush" tirades.

You continue to put forth your crackpot view that we're "forcing" this process on the Iraqi people.

Let's drop the % of reported voters in Iraq's elections.  Drop it to half.  50%. 

When 50% of America (actually, 47%) said they didn't want Bush, to you, that was tantamount to all of America saying "Boot 'im out!"

In Iraq, when 50% (actually, more than that, but to dumb it down for ya) say they want to give the process "Bush forced on them", that means they've chosen to "give it a whirl".  When someone chooses to try something out, when more than half the nation wants to give it a go, your "it was forced" bilge is simply another attempt to throw as much crap against the wall to see what sticks.

The IRAQI people chose.  They went to vote, under conditions that Americans equate with "voter disenfranchisement"...actually, under conditions that make American voters seem like SISSIES for complaining about their "hardships".  To say that this was "forced" on them is either ignorant, or another tactic you choose to employ to take as many cheap shots as you can.  I actually suspect it's both.

It's yet another reason his supporters like him.  Bush didn't find it necessary to call ol' Dexter and see what he thought, and what Johnny Left-wing thought, and Joe We-need-tolerance thought.  It's the "Git 'er done" that we like.  That it galls you to no end is simply a side benefit we enjoy daily.

Hey Cooter, what was your intended purpose with this thread, again?  It seems to have become another "bash Bush" thread.  I wonder if you ever got your questions answered.

My answers being posthumous

     I thought there'd be about half the nation turn out
     Same reason Americans not currently in the U.S. get to vote
     I think it's xx amount of votes (and that there will be less fraud found than in the U.S.)
     Entire groups of people in the U.S. don't vote.  Our elections aren't any less valid
     If boycotted, they still made a choice in the elections
     One more observation - the U.S. needed to make a drop of wet naps to the polling places

[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]

Guess it's too hard to be righteous in two threads a time and remember which lib'rl heathen you're currently attacking.

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 -

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.

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?

Then take steps towards addressing these concerns so that everyone feels comfortable with the direction their country is going.

  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]

Jbox, where's the link to your Mame Machine?  Or are you just trolling around here?

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)!"    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]

 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

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.

[Dexter]

Also, the financial implications. When explained in terms of loss of investment in the Euro (which leading financial experts always touted as a reason for the invasion), the invasion also makes sense. It just didn't go to plan.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

In Iraq, when 50% (actually, more than that, but to dumb it down for ya) say they want to give the process "Bush forced on them", that means they've chosen to "give it a whirl".

*BWAAACK* Polly want a cracker with those figures??

"The point is: Nobody knows, and reporters and pundits should have never acted like they did know when they stated, flatly, that 8 million Iraqis voted and that this represents a turnout rate of about 57%. "

...

"In a rare reference to an actual vote tabulation, The New York Times on Thursday reports that in the "diverse" city of Mosul, with 60% of the count completed, the overall turnout seems slightly above 10%, or "somewhat more than 50,000 of Mosul's 500,000 estimated eligible voters."


EDIT: Updated numbers.

"In al-Anbar it was only 17,000 of 250,000 eligible voters, or 7% turnout.  In Mosul, a city of 1.8 million people, only 54,000 votes were cast (3% of the population, so probably no more than 5% of the eligible voters).  At one poll in Mosul only 3% of voters were women.  At another, which opened at 7:00, at 10:00 they didn't have a single voter except the soldiers assigned to protect it."


Things are not always as they seem...


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

These are military decisions that WILL pay unprecedented dividends.

Most people arguing against the war realize we are there for these reasons, and *not* for any of the other misleading/ever-changing rationales (WMD, Nu-c-u-lar Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction-Related Program Activities, Saddam tried to kill my daddy, Rape Rooms, Iraqi GOTV, etc...). The problem is when the real reason is obvious to everyone in the world, yet, we as a nation are seen to except these other lies at face value, America's integrity is eroded and our enemies are further emboldened. The ultimate goal is to defeat them, not give them more reasons to fight.

Will you still believe we're receiving "unprecedented dividends" once Arab nationals decide to bring the war to our front-door, with suicide bombings in the mall of America and school bus bombings in your neighborhood?

You may believe that sort of thing is bound to happen, I am merely suggesting that our aggressive actions in provoking war, without justification, are making sure it'll happen... in spades.

Most critics of Bush's doctrine of preemption in Iraq agree there were other ways to do what needed to be done in the Middle East...preemptively attacking Iraq was *not*, by far, the most effective way to go about it...and I feel, in the end, our country will certainly receive "payback", but not the kind your thinking of.

mrC

[ChadTower]

You've responded to a military strategy discussion with morality issues.  It's a different discussion.

The ultimate goal is to defeat them, not give them more reasons to fight.

How do you defeat an enemy without giving them reason to fight you?

The problem is when the reason is obvious to everyone in the world, yet, we as a nation are seen to except these lies at face value...

Ever been to a business meeting, where organizational decisions are made but much of the rationale is held back with the explanation of "we can't discuss those issues publicly"?  That's what this is, only it's far more severe because we're talking global military issues.  They can't openly discuss all of the reasons.  This is one of those times one has to think about the major reasons for themself because open discussion of them will get more Americans killed.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You've responded to a military strategy discussion with morality issues.  It's a different discussion.

Maybe so, but I tend to think of war as a moral issue.

How do you defeat an enemy without giving them reason to fight you?

Good question...I'm not suggesting it's entirely avoidable, rather that it isn't efficient to proceed creating more and unifiying others. Which, until we see how the election process plays out, is certainly a possibility, and I would argue, a reality.

The problem is when the reason is obvious to everyone in the world, yet, we as a nation are seen to except these lies at face value...

Ever been to a business meeting, where organizational decisions are made but much of the rationale is held back with the explanation of "we can't discuss those issues publicly"?

Yes. Yes I have. I also know that most "employees" intuitively know the real reasons and lose faith in the company afterward.

This is one of those times one has to think about the major reasons for themself because open discussion of them will get more Americans killed.

Not when starting a war. Short term, yes, less violence and less american casualties. Long term, continued uprising, unbearable cost burden, isolation in the world. It's just unacceptable to me. This notion is basically sanctioning imperialistic behavior, by imagining no one else sees it. That is not my idea of America.

I understand what you are suggesting, however, I'm not trying to convince you of anything...just stating my response.

mrC

[Ravant]

I for one, tend not to trust people that have already misled me. Call me crazy.

So then would you vote for Hilary Clinton if she ran for president? What if Billy boy Clinton ran again, would you vote for him? What about Mr. John Kerry, would you vote for him? (I'm not asking these questions to be an arsehole, I'm asking them with an honest sincerity.) All of them misled the American people. Bill Clinton with his sex scandal, Kerry with half of his campaign, and Hilary, claiming she was going to help gas prices in New York, and yet tried her best to sway minds of certain political leaders to force a 30 cents a gallon tax rate on gasoline. Because of her, I have not been able to fill my 12.3 gallon tank of gas for less than 28 dollars. I'm shelling almost 60 dollars a week out on gas, while getting almost 31 miles to the gallon. I don't even drive that much!

Back on topic. To say that this election was a failure would be a mistake. The fact that they're finally able to have an election rather than a leader who was either put there as a puppet for another nation (and then became a militant totalitarian) or led because they killed the leader, is a step up for them.

[DrewKaree]

You've responded to a military strategy discussion with morality issues.  It's a different discussion.

Maybe so, but I tend to think of war as a moral issue.

How do you defeat an enemy without giving them reason to fight you?

Good question...I'm not suggesting it's entirely avoidable, rather that it isn't efficient to proceed creating more and unifiying others. Which, until we see how the election process plays out, is certainly a possibility, and I would argue, a reality.

Nice non-answer.

In case you missed it, the question was "How do you defeat an enemy without giving them reason to fight you?"

Perhaps you thought you were answering another question.  Clearly you didn't offer an answer to the question posed.  That's nice that you aren't suggesting it's entirely avoidable, but since you brought up the point, why not answer the question posed in relation to the point you made? 

In stating that you "would argue that it's a reality", you essentially have restated your original point.  Again, that's nice, but avoids answering the question while leaving that pile out there.  If you're going to throw it against the wall to see if it sticks, the nice thing to do when it doesn't is to clean up after yourself.

See, this is like the U.N. sitting on its hands and passing resolution after resolution after resolution (multiply that by 4 or more to get the picture) stating your conditions to Sadaam while not following through with any meaningful consequences.


How do you defeat an enemy without giving them reason to fight you? 

[locash]

I for one, tend not to trust people that have already misled me. Call me crazy.

....12.3 gallon tank of gas for less than 28 dollars. I'm shelling almost 60 dollars a week out on gas, while getting almost 31 miles to the gallon. I don't even drive that much!

I realize this is off topic, but I couldn't resist.

$28.00 / 12.3 gallons = $2.28/g
$60.00 a week / 2.27/g =  26.3 g a week
26.3 galllons a week * 31 mpg =  815 miles per week * 52 = 42380 miles per year

Speaking of misleading...that's a lot of driving by anyones standards!

[ChadTower]

Maybe his gas tank leaks.

[DrewKaree]

I like the points you've expressed, but I did a little math, and I'm simply pointing out that many will disagree with this one point, and think you prone to hyperbole on the rest of your points...

. Because of her, I have not been able to fill my 12.3 gallon tank of gas for less than 28 dollars. I'm shelling almost 60 dollars a week out on gas, while getting almost 31 miles to the gallon. I don't even drive that much!

Almost 60/wk leads me to believe you are telling us you fill up twice a week. 

31 mpg x 12.3 tank = 360 miles (rounding and roughly for illustration)

360 miles x 2 fill ups = 720 miles.  720 miles x 52 weeks = over 30,000 miles per year, which is anything BUT not driving that much.

I know, it's nitpicking, but I know there are others here figuring it out just like I did, and putting a check in the box next to your name for "can't be trusted".


*edit* I see someone already DID figure it out, and a whole lot more precisely than my quick rounding-off math!  *edit*


I still agree with a lot of your points!

All of them misled the American people. Bill Clinton with his sex scandal, Kerry with half of his campaign, and Hilary, claiming she was going to help gas prices in New York, and yet tried her best to sway minds of certain political leaders to force a 30 cents a gallon tax rate on gasoline

Back on topic. To say that this election was a failure would be a mistake. The fact that they're finally able to have an election rather than a leader who was either put there as a puppet for another nation (and then became a militant totalitarian) or led because they killed the leader, is a step up for them.

Unbeknownst to you, there are many reasons they will point to when saying this is a mistake....just wait....they'll be happy to tell you about them, regardless of the validity of them 

[Dartful Dodger]

I know, it's nitpicking, but I know there are others here figuring it out just like I did, and putting a check in the box next to your name for "can't be trusted".

My profile is set up to automatically check that box for everyone.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

How do you defeat an enemy without giving them reason to fight you? 

First you have to determine who the correct enemy is first. Up until now, we hadn't had any direct conflict with the Iraqi people, Baathists, and/or "Insurgents"...

So that's the first thing. Then, once you correctly determine who and where your enemy is *cough* Al Qaeda/Saudi Arabia *cough*...we can start talking tactics.

As I mentioned up-thread, I'm not naive enough to think you can fight an enemy without expecting them to fight back, nor am I against conflict in general. You're trying to get me to paint myself into a corner with a question that based on a red-herring to begin with.

I repeat, the goal is to defeat your enemy as quickly and as efficiently as possible, without creating more recruits and/or unifying numerous enemies against you in a common goal. Failure to do that has been the downfall of many a great empire.

...But instead, Bush threatens Iran while the purple ink is still wet on the fingers Iraqi citizens. Awesome!!



mrC

[ChadTower]

I repeat, the goal is to defeat your enemy as quickly and as efficiently as possible, without creating more recruits and/or unifying numerous enemies against you in a common goal. Failure to do that has been the downfall of many a great empire.

It fails because it's not possible indefinitely.  The presence of a strong leadership position creates rebellion by its very nature.  That's just how humanity has worked throughout history. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The presence of a strong leadership position creates rebellion by its very nature.

So we live in a world of perpetual warfare? Bet that makes a great bedtime story for the kids.

Yeah, there is probably always going to be challenges to America's leadership role, my concern is sustaining the longevity of said leadership through strategic initiatives that do not undermine the very spirit that enabled our country to obtain the role in the first place.


mrC

[ChadTower]

So we live in a world of perpetual warfare? Bet that makes a great bedtime story for the kids.

Yes, we do, and history is replete with war after war after war.  Every day there is some conflict going on someplace.  This is a fact.  Humanity is violent.

Yeah, there is probably always going to be challenges to America's leadership role, my concern is sustaining the longevity of said leadership through strategic initiatives that do not undermine the very spirit that enabled our country to obtain the role in the first place.

This is my concern too... the US was not the singular global power until the period just after the USSR fell.  The world has evolved to a point where the US is no longer going to be the singular power and we're either going to accept that or we're going to fight to maintain it.  So far, we are fighting to maintain it, though it took an attack on US soil to provoke that mandate.  Are we going to conquer Iran next?  Are we going to invade North Korea?  What about China?  India?  We can't take them all even if we had moral justification.

[fredster]

my concern is sustaining the longevity of said leadership through strategic initiatives that do not undermine the very spirit that enabled our country to obtain the role in the first place

Like Killin' injun's?

[Crazy Cooter]

Cooter,
Man, what does this mean -

Suppose that Native Americans boycotted the next elections in the US.

[jbox]

Beware, there be pontification below. I'm assuming that we've already shed the people who care less about politics.

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.

Well, that ploy didn't work, so in fairness here's my answer. I'm going to assume that I get to hold the tiller the entire way, instead of being expected simply to fix the jingoist wet dream currently in progress. Here's just a few things I'd love to be "king for a day" to do differently...

1. Take 1 day a week off, not 3.5 days (on average). Read books about the 'evil' governments and how they came into power.

2. Look at what imports the USA cannot live without. Promote work in those areas of research which *eliminate* that dependance in scalable ways. Give the finger to the rest of the world as the USA takes the lead in alternative power generation and conservation, vastly re-enforcing the greenback as foreign imports drop correspondingly. Admit there is such a thing as an environment, and that people should be worried about how they are treating it. Sigh with relief as the middle east ceases to become an economical burden, merely a political one.

3. Order a policy review of all big government contracts. Require an open tender process for all future contracts. Promote legislation that requires all elected officials and senior non-elected officials to provide public documentation describing all corporate ties (including a complete employment record) as well as an investment portfolio summary. This summary must also include anybody with whom they currently have an asset-sharing relationship of more than $1,000 per annum.

4. Stop making corporations stronger. Improve the environmental liability laws. Work with the UN to develop both environmental and human rights standard documentation that then become part of the WTO mandate on globalisation. Promote the removal of trade barriers as a conclusion of human equality, not some magic wand that will supposedly create it. As part of this process launch a public education campaign to teach people the difference between the *price* of something and the *cost* of something. And for goodness sake do something to make it clear that software and genetic patents are wrong.

5. Appreciate human falability, and that if God is truly beyond comprehension, than anyone who claims to know what God wants is obviously lying. Develop dialogues amongst recognised religious and civic leaders. Ask them to submit position papers debating the need for more or less religious motivation in government, including examples from history where those tactics did or did not improve the QoL of their citizens. Retain religous equality until such time as there is only one religion left in america.

9/11

6. Immediately fire those officials directly responsible for the break down in the chain of command from the first message to the final plane hitting. Anyone who needs 'protective custody' gets it, but here in america. No one is going anywhere until we know what the hell just happened.

7. Order all subordinates to participate fully with the investigation process. Don't screw over the investigation committee, refuse to go under oath, and then pretend the public *shouldn't* hold me responsible for this terrible event happening under my watch. Don't censor the report, since anyone who assisted on this attack against america is clearly not "with us".

8. Understand the social, political and economic reasons why this sort of thing happens. If the best excuse I can come up with is "bad guys hate good guys", resign. Don't pretend that the USA didn't train these sorts of bad guys in the first place.

Afganistan Invasion

9. GOLD STAR - half the world didn't even recognise these guys as a legitimate government.

10. Now stay there, with removing/reforming the remaining warlords a key priority of the administration. If democracy is the shining goal of all unavoidable hostilities, use the next four-eight years of reforming Afganistan into a 'western' civilisation to prove to the rest of the world who the 'good guy's really are. Don't start another war until (a) another major attack occurs, or (b) we finish up here; so that I don't have to hold portions of my own military as virtual slaves. Find out if there are places in the military budget that could be re-allocated more efficiently. Don't try to 'own' afganistan in return for your efforts.

Iraq Investigation

11. Immediately sack my so called 'advisors' who attempted to lie to me about Iraq. Flush the nest of those people who participated, including the head of any intelligence agency that forgot they are supposed to work for the public rather than the president. Immediately order another investigation on another huge failure, and order a new study to be released that actually include the "bad-fact" reports previously censured.

12. Apologise to the world at large for letting the lie get so far up my chain of command, and for repeating it to my country. Ask myself again if I am capable of this job.

13. Continue to work with the UN weapon's inspectors in Iraq. Continue to work with the Kurds towards formally creating their own nation. Use that process as the second opportunity to demonstrate to the world that self-governance is our over-riding goal.

14. Define a policy for providing guidance to the administration on what precisely defines a terrorist. Start getting serious against any government which matches that profile, eg. such as permanently cutting 1mil off their annual 'gift basket' each time they kill anyone not carrying a weapon. As an after thought order a review on any 'uncle sam friendly' operations and make sure to cancel any of those currently in violation of that policy as well. Stop transferring prisoners into other countries so they can be 'tortured-by-proxy'.

15. GOLD STAR - use the words "palestinian state" in public. Now do it more often, and lay down the gauntlet for other governments to do the same. Don't veto resolutions in the UN, then get righteous when other members do the same. Use this process as the third opportunity to develop democracies around the world.


So, fire away. And yes, Saddam is (probably) still in power of the Shi'ites. But with three democracies now under her belt I think the odds will be marginally better that more of the global community will pitch in as the USA continues to 'upgrade' each non-democratic country. Most likely, since they went into revolt once before in response to the USA promising to help, if the USA actually started *keeping* that promise, who knows how quickly more populations in the middle east would actually help liberate themselves once word got around that true independance was back on the menu...

And GOLD STAR for getting any number of people to show up for an election in that kind of climate. However, I don't believe it's a good idea to have a yes/no referendum, and would rather see a condorcet style ballot. Our beloved government in OZ managed to scuttle a republic referendum by making it yes/no choice. And my personal opinion is that if they want to split that country into three smaller ones, let them.

[Crazy Cooter]

5-  Ban religion.  It's about time people start having faith in themselves and each other.

12- Figure out why the misinformation made it as far as it did.

14- Add: "Stop trying to find ways to be what we are supposed to be fighting against." ie: Not applying "self evident" rights to "detainees" (since they are not PoW's or prisoners and we don't have them on US soil. )  IMO, anyone that looks for ways to sidestep the Geneva Conventions should be imprisoned.

Looks like we agree on most of the rest.

[jbox]

5-  Ban religion.  It's about time people start having faith in themselves and each other.

including examples from history where those tactics did or did not improve the QoL of their citizens.

Banning religion always goes badly. Bear in mind the overwhelming majority of people in the world think *something* fishy is going on, they just have nothing to prove what it is. Regardless of the cost in felines, we must encourage the motivation for exploration.

I personally believe that one day some form of uncountable sequence theory stuff will get good enough to actually prove you can have "turtles all the way down", but until that point I think it's a good idea to let people be free to believe whatever they want so long as it is a constructive belief.

My beef with organised religion is when certain individuals exploit people's fear and loneliness to isolate and control them, instead of trying to help those people to take control of themselves and explore the world around them. When "WWJD" becomes a battle cry instead of a metric.

A buddhist women dies one day and is very surprised to find herself at the pearly gates. St Peter walks over and gives her a big hug, welcoming her to heaven. As they chat he leads her around, introducing her to where the various groups of people mingle around. She waves to her fellow buddhists, shakes hands with some jews, and shares tea with some muslims. However, suddenly they come to this *massive* wall which spreads as far in every direction as the eye can see.
'Shhhh....' St Peter instructs her.
'Why?' she whispers quietly.
'Behind this wall are the Christians, they think they're the only ones up here.'

[Ravant]

"A continent to fight off" is "isolated and it was strategic"? I guess you must be thinking of when the time comes you have to attack Australia! Or perhaps you confused the fact I was rebutting your "it was either Iraq or the WORLD" doomsday post, because then you wouldn't have something cool to say in retort.

And there are lots of alternatives to oil-for-fuel, after which we could conserve this limited resource for building those things that need oil like plastic. Hence my suspicion that you are in fact a mole for the Greens, just as keen as I am to conserve this precious commidity from being wasted where it doesn't need to be (like SUVs). Don't worry, I wont tell anyone else so your secret is safe with me Comrade!

I dunno, I like driving a turbocharged 3.4 liter V6 and a naturally aspirated 454 cubic inch big block V8. Both supposedly suck down gas and I'm proud of the fact that both are producing more power-to-weight than any car in their class. The Monte Carlo with the V6 gets up to 32 miles to the gallon (if I reallly baby it.). The Camaro gets about 19-26 to the gallon, depending if I'm racing it or if I'm cruising it. I'm sorry, but until an electric car can produce more horsepower and torque than my two cars as efficiently as they do, I will refuse to give either of them up.

[Ravant]

I for one, tend not to trust people that have already misled me. Call me crazy.

....12.3 gallon tank of gas for less than 28 dollars. I'm shelling almost 60 dollars a week out on gas, while getting almost 31 miles to the gallon. I don't even drive that much!

I realize this is off topic, but I couldn't resist.

$28.00 / 12.3 gallons = $2.28/g
$60.00 a week / 2.27/g =

[Dartful Dodger]

...buddhists, shakes hands with some jews, and shares tea with some muslims.

Someone should tell that woman she's not in heaven, she's in the middle east.

[jbox]

Can I just para-phrase this to be clear: Was your response to a post that was *specifically* about being asked how to reduce dependance on foreign oil in non-military ways, that drag-racing is currently more important to you personally?

IANAE (I am not an engineer), but I recommend people who are curious about this topic do more than 'gossip research' next time they are in the market for a new car. Some of the latest hybrid cars use the gas engine for the wussy cruising part, and the electric engine for the Manly(tm) stuff like starting the car and flooring the accelerator. Hmmm...

For future reference, might I suggest a more rewarding target is pointing out that light-weight storage technology is currently a critical bottle neck, so that someone who drives as much as you do would have to recharge an all-electric car at least twice a day. 

[fredster]

I want one of those bad ass electric BMW's like in I ROBOT.

We need those now.

[jbox]

I want one of those bad ass electric BMW's like in I ROBOT.

We need those now.

*cough* Audi *cough*

Hey, was I the only one who thought that the "I, Robot" troop transports looked almost exactly like the "Phantom Menace" troop transports? I kept hoping they were about to run over Jar Jar.


And spherical wheels are yummy, although I believe they can be easily defeated by simply placing the doctor's coat on the ground in front of them......

[SeaMonkey]

5-

[Crazy Cooter]

5-  Ban religion.  It's about time people start having faith in themselves and each other.

War has never been about religion. That may have been the excuse, but we go to war (as a species) for gold, land, water, food, oil, and liberty (or the deprivation there of)

However, we (as a species) accomplish more in the way of advances when there is a level of religious freedom. Most of our math has its root in religious or phillosphical thought.

Answer: What were "The Crusades"... What is "Jihad"... What was the Schmalkaldic war... What was the Thirty Years War... What was Byzantine-Muslim War of 645... What happened in Ethiopia during 1529-1543... what was the medieval Catholic doctrine of tyrannicide... etc.

I should have said "organized religion".  I'm all for philosophical thought.  If we (people in general) learned to actually *think*, the world would be a better place.

BTW: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6913272/
8.5 million votes cast... population of 27 million...

Voter turnout in Iraq...
31.5% - rounded up.

Less than 1/3 of the population of Iraq had a voice in what is currently happening to their country.  More than before (very good), less than 1/3 (very bad).

[Dexter]

Yep. I laughed when the usual suspects were bleating on about their 'over 50%' voter turnout figure.

Even 31.5% is suspiciously high but a lot closer to the feedback coming from on the ground in Iraq.

[SeaMonkey]

Answer: What were "The Crusades"... What is "Jihad"... What was the Schmalkaldic war... What was the Thirty Years War... What was Byzantine-Muslim War of 645... What happened in Ethiopia during 1529-1543... what was the medieval Catholic doctrine of tyrannicide... etc.

I should have said "organized religion".

[Grasshopper]

I think that broadly speaking you're right. But religion can add a dangerous element of fanaticism to the equation.

Look at the Twin Towers pilots for instance. I think it's unlikely they would have carried out their act if they hadn't believed (in their own twisted way) that they would be rewarded in the afterlife for what they did.

The same thing applies to the second world war kamikaze pilots. They were fighting for their emperor who they believed was a god. They also believed they would be rewarded in the afterlife.

[SeaMonkey]

I think that broadly speaking you're right. But religion can add a dangerous element of fanaticism to the equation.

Look at the Twin Towers pilots for instance. I think it's unlikely they would have carried out their act if they hadn't believed (in their own twisted way) that they would be rewarded in the afterlife for what they did.

The same thing applies to the second world war kamikaze pilots. They were fighting for their emperor who they believed was a god. They also believed they would be rewarded in the afterlife.

You are 100% correct in my view.
Ideology is a great way to whip up your minions into a frenzy. However that act, I would have to say, did little to further Islam, here or abroad.
In the case of 911, it was about gold, land, oil, and liberty, from the view of the instigator.

[DrewKaree]

IRAQIS PAINT FINGERS PURPLE TO PICK UP WOMEN
Phony Voters Pack Baghdad

[mr.Curmudgeon]

George W. Bush: "Oops!"

Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21679-2005Feb13.html

"Yesterday, the White House heralded the election and credited the U.S. role. In a statement, President Bush praised Iraqis "for defying terrorist threats and setting their country on the path of democracy and freedom. And I congratulate every candidate who stood for election and those who will take office once the results are certified."

Yet the top two winning parties -- which together won more than 70 percent of the vote and are expected to name Iraq's new prime minister and president -- are Iran's closest allies in Iraq."

mrC

[fredster]

...and it further says

"There's the assumption that the new government will be close to Iran or influenced by Iran. That's a strong and reasonable assumption," Khouri said. "But I don't think anyone knows -- including Grand Ayatollah [Ali] Sistani -- where the fault line is between Shiite religious identity and Iraqi national identity."

Get the part, "nobody knows".  Also catch the source - "This is a government that will have very good relations with Iran. The Kurdish victory reinforces this conclusion. Talabani is very close to Tehran," said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan expert on Iraq. "In terms of regional geopolitics, this is not the outcome that the United States was hoping for."

Note his home page - http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html

Not exactly an impartial source of info is he?  A Bush critic quoting a bush critic.  It's a chorus of sock puppets.

[Crazy Cooter]

Except that "sock Puppet" holds advanced degrees and has specialized in Middle Eastern studies since 1984.  He understood that region before Bush was sober enough to know it existed.

"Juan Cole didn't set out to be a public intellectual. After joining the history department in 1984 as a specialist in Middle Eastern and South Asian history, he focused on what seemed to be obscure topics, the Shiite Islamic denomination, the rise of the Baha'i faith: Egypt's response to colonialism and various other matters that the world at large does not follow on its TV screens. But it's a fact of academic life that if your region of scholarly interest becomes embroiled in a war of strategic interest to the US government, your role may change to one on center stage."

[fredster]

So, he's a degree.

I can't tell you how impressed that makes me. Timothy Leary had a degree also.  If you notice his website, he kinda strays from his degree into other areas of policy not exactly related to the war in Iraq. 

Bush has a degree, Condi Rice is a scholar also.  I guess they just disagree don't they ? 

[Crazy Cooter]

That's the thing.  He studied the area.  He comments on the area.  He specialized in that area.  That holds a lot of water IMO.  It's not like he spent the past 20 years of his life in anticipation of Bush being elected so he could rip on the war efforts.  He was studying that region back when Bush was snorting blow off  his kneecap in the bathroom of some bar.  I think he has an understanding of what may/may not work in that region.  Has either Bush or Condi studied that area for 20 years?  Nope.  I guess it depends on who you would consider more knowledgable in the field.

btw, I admire Timothy Leary.

[ChadTower]

Shows what you know.  Blow is snorted off glass.  It's too frickin expensive to snort of something that is going to absorb it.

[Crazy Cooter]

You got sweaty knees?

[Dexter]

Shows what you know.

[ChadTower]

If you're not sweaty, you're in the wrong club.

[Dexter]

If you're not sweaty, you're in the wrong club.

LOL. Clubbing isn't what it used to be in Ireland unfortunately, so its not that often I'll be up the front sweating.

[Crazy Cooter]

Now what?

[Arcadiac]

http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/content/issue19/features/DahrJamail.php
and
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/index.php

1st link poses an interesting opinion about the myth of "insurgency" in this war. 

2nd link: Dahr Jamail's frequent independent reporting makes for some fascinating reading, warning tho' graphic images of Iraqi war dead are linked, not for the squeamish.
Definitely not the news our media is giving us.  Won't claim his reports are not biased but man it must take some guts to be in the mix, reporting Iraqi opinion and his own war-time reporting experiences.

ARCADIAC!

[ChadTower]

So you have a rebellion on your hands that is dangerous... how to deal with that?  Give one of their leaders full control over your own military.

Idiots.