# Free Elections in Iraq



## Sapper6 (Jan 30, 2005)

of all the non-sense and crap i've seen posted here in the study, you would think that an event such as a long overdue free Iraqi election deserved notice and discussion.  suprisingly enough, i'll guess i'll be the one to start this discussion.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050130/D87UET800.html

it's amazing, 36 people killed across the ENTIRE country on election day.  i'd call that a success.  of course, that's 36 people that lost their lives.  this is especially a rather small number seeing that all the world was expecting nothing less than mass chaos there on election day.

so what do ya think?  shall we take a break from bashing our own, poking fun at Cheney's wardrobe, and arguing about the right to be a homo to discuss something more important on a much larger scale....? :idunno:


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 30, 2005)

If those numbers are accurate, they had a better turn out than we did.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 30, 2005)

"[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]About 300,000 Iraqi and American troops were on the streets"

 Yay for freedom!

 [/sarcasm]
[/font]


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 30, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> of all the non-sense and crap i've seen posted here in the study, you would think that an event such as a long overdue free Iraqi election deserved notice and discussion.


Believe me, I've noticed. 

You are presuming the elections were free. As a student of Iraqi history, I'm sure you will recall there were elections in Iraq just a few years ago, which begs the question about 'long overdue', but we can let that pass?

How many of the 7,000 candidates names were actually known to the voting public? 

Of course, party ticket 169 ...yes that is for whom a ballot could be cast ... ticket 169 ... was being advertised with photographs of Grand Ayatolla Ali Al-Sistani (not that Al-Sistani was part of the party ticket, but that's irrelevant too). Nothing better in a 'long overdue free election' than to vote in a Grand Ayatolla ... that has worked so well for Iran, don't you know.

So, anyhow, it's great that the Iraqi's get to go to the polls. But that, in itself, does not make for a democratic nation. Elections are one small part of what it is to be a democracy. 

What we need now is some time, to see how 'it' all turns out. We may end up with "one election, one time", which really gets us no-where.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 30, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> "[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]About 300,000 Iraqi and American troops were on the streets"
> 
> Yay for freedom!
> 
> ...



hey andrew, it's called assurance of safety.  would you prefer no troops on the street, no presence of force so that when ***** did hit the fan you could sit back and criticize that as well....?

@ michael

you're right, it will be a larger test seeing if it actually works.  but the election is a small step.  there is alot to build off there.  certainly you're not going to compare the elections under saddam's regime to these elections are you...?  at least there isn't going to be republican guards standing over your shoulder at the polls telling you which way you should vote.

and the voter turnout, was very high, and as TP pointed out, higher turnout than our own elections.

i hope dearly that the newly elected gov't gets their **** together.  the more they can do on their own, the less that we are needed there, and the quicker we come home :asian:


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 30, 2005)

An unqualified success.


----------



## Kane (Jan 30, 2005)

Yea, these free elections should be a success. The liberals said we couldn't do it (no offense to any liberals). They said this would turn out to be another Vietnam. Well if we gave up and withdrawn our troops it would have been another Vietnam but as everyone sees, it has not turned into one. Now they are having free elections. In time after the in-surgeons are captured Iraq will be free.


----------



## Melissa426 (Jan 30, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> of all the non-sense and crap i've seen posted here in the study, you would think that an event such as a long overdue free Iraqi election deserved notice and discussion. suprisingly enough, i'll guess i'll be the one to start this discussion.
> 
> so what do ya think? shall we take a break from bashing our own, poking fun at Cheney's wardrobe, and arguing about the right to be a homo to discuss something more important on a much larger scale....? :idunno:


While I don't necessarily disagree with your post, I hope you have no intention of taking up a career in diplomacy. I predict you will be utterly unsuccessful.:uhyeah: 

I am still reserving judgment on the election until further reports.  I do hope that it bodes well for the future of Iraq and the safe return of our military.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 30, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> While I don't necessarily disagree with your post, I hope you have no intention of taking up a career in diplomacy. I predict you will be utterly unsuccessful.:uhyeah:
> 
> I am still reserving judgment on the election until further reports.  I do hope that it bodes well for the future of Iraq and the safe return of our military.
> 
> ...



me a diplomat...?  never  

the thought process behind my post, melissa, was that we often get caught up in arguing about really stupid things.  we get so bored in what's going on here, we get so caught up in the "what about ME" lifestyle.  i want us to take a look at other things, things obviously more significant in our world, that's all :asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 30, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Yea, these free elections should be a success. The liberals said we couldn't do it (no offense to any liberals). They said this would turn out to be another Vietnam. Well if we gave up and withdrawn our troops it would have been another Vietnam but as everyone sees, it has not turned into one. Now they are having free elections. In time after the in-surgeons are captured Iraq will be free.


Which liberals said it couldn't be done?

How many body bags will it take before you consider it another Vietnam?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 30, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> me a diplomat...? never
> 
> the thought process behind my post, melissa, was that we often get caught up in arguing about really stupid things. we get so bored in what's going on here, we get so caught up in the "what about ME" lifestyle. i want us to take a look at other things, things obviously more significant in our world, that's all :asian:


It depends on what you think is stupid - like civil rights at home.

I am waiting to see how things turn out *after* the elections before standing on my head about it.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 30, 2005)

*Which liberals said it couldn't be done?*
   All of them Or maybe it just seemed that way.


*How many body bags will it take before you consider it another Vietnam?*
      A lot more. As wars go, this has been low impact. And I bet you just hate that.

* 


*


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 30, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> A lot more. As wars go, this has been low impact. And I bet you just hate that.


I find your attitude disgusting.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 30, 2005)

@ FM

oh yes, almost forgot...i guess i need to get my priorities in line    oh my god, someone call the ACLU, my rights have been violated  

@ michael

how many years were we in vietnam...?  how many soldiers died in vietnam...?  compare those numbers with those of OIF and get back with me.  our campaign in Iraq is far from Vietnam.  you and others wish to equate the two because you have nothing else.

we've lost 1400 soldiers/airmen/marines since march 2003.  granted, even one is too many but in comparision, this is FAR from what we've lost in wars past.  it's actually a record breaking count.  take a look at the casualty rate of conflicts the US has been involved in the past 100 years.  tell me again how bad we are doing.

sorry for the rant, you got me off topic michael.  either discuss the topic at hand or dont dicuss at all.  you too mouse.  this topic is about the one of many GOOD things to come out of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  if you can't stay on topic, if you don't have something good to add to the discussion, then stay out of it.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 30, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> *Which liberals said it couldn't be done?*
> All of them Or maybe it just seemed that way.
> 
> 
> ...


This is one of the most nasty things I think I've read on MT.  Who in the world wants more people to die?

You are just undermining whatever points you would like to make by saying things like that.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 30, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> @ FM
> 
> oh yes, almost forgot...i guess i need to get my priorities in line  oh my god, someone call the ACLU, my rights have been violated
> 
> ...


Me disagreeing with what you have to say does not mean I'm not addressing the topic - perhaps it just means you're not happy with a differing opinion.

Did I say your rights had been violated anywhere?  No, not at all.  I was saying that being concerned about domestic affairs does not preclude concerns about international affairs.

And my disagreement with why we went into Iraq by no means should suggest that I, or anyone else, *wants more people to die*.  That is appalling.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 30, 2005)

how is what Ghostdog said so wrong...?  you people claim our endeavors in Iraq are Vietnam reincarnated.  thats BS.  he just quoted the facts for you.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 30, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> how is what Ghostdog said so wrong...? you people claim our endeavors in Iraq are Vietnam reincarnated. thats BS. he just quoted the facts for you.


"you people"?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 30, 2005)

*MOD NOTE:*

*Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.*

*Thank You.*

*-Technopunk*
*-MT MODERATOR*


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 30, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Me disagreeing with what you have to say does not mean I'm not addressing the topic - perhaps it just means you're not happy with a differing opinion.
> 
> Did I say your rights had been violated anywhere?  No, not at all.  I was saying that being concerned about domestic affairs does not preclude concerns about international affairs.
> 
> And my disagreement with why we went into Iraq by no means should suggest that I, or anyone else, *wants more people to die*.  That is appalling.



i have no problems with differing opinions.  i'd just prefer them to stay on topic.  this thread is about an Iraqi election, not about your/others civil rights being violated.  you changed the subject with your first post here.

my rights havent been violated, i was speaking for you there.  like i said, it's obvious many here have the selfish attitude, "what about ME"...?  you just echoed that fact for me.  look around people, there's more happening in the world.  you don't want to recognize an historical global event...?  that's fine with me.  turn a deaf ear.  something good comes of OIF and you can't stand it,  you won't even recognize it as being a step in the right direction.  that is truly digusting.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 30, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> @ michael
> 
> how many years were we in vietnam...? how many soldiers died in vietnam...? compare those numbers with those of OIF and get back with me. our campaign in Iraq is far from Vietnam. you and others wish to equate the two because you have nothing else.
> 
> ...


I did not start the reference to Vietnam.

For the record, US Involvement in Vietnam began in 1961. 
The Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973.
There are more than 58,000 names on the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC.

Comparison for you ... How many US Soldiers died in the first two years involvement in Vietnam?

You also will be hard pressed to find anywhere where I have said the United States military is performing badly. As usual, they are performing there duties exceptionally well. They are currently involved in a task for which they were not meant. The United State military is a killing machine. It is designed to kill people and capture territory. It is not, nor should it be, a machine designed to create security so that people can hold elections. 

I do not blame the military for serving this function. I blame the adminstration and leadership that somehow misunderestimates what the military is supposed to do.

As I stated earlier, the election is just one-note in the symphony that is democracy. By itself, it means nothing. It may be a vital turning point. Then again, it may be a useless gesture. Only time will tell. 

I believe it is a good thing to have occured, but it is premature to call it a 'resounding success'. 

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 30, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> how is what Ghostdog said so wrong...? you people claim our endeavors in Iraq are Vietnam reincarnated. thats BS. he just quoted the facts for you.


Actually, it was KANE, who claimed that 'liberals' said Iraq would be similar to Vietnam. Go yell at him. Look at the post.


----------



## Melissa426 (Jan 30, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> A lot more. As wars go, this has been low impact. And I bet you just hate that.


ON MY SOAP-BOX

I don't give out red points.  But you came close to getting my first. Why would anyone hate the fact that this has been a "low impact" war? And, BTW, I can not imagine you would think it was low impact if that had been your mother, father, brother or sister in one of those body bags.

OFF MY SOAP-BOX


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 30, 2005)

@ michael

indeed, only time will tell.  but i will at least acknowledge a successful event, regardless of how petty it is.

"How many body bags will it take before you consider it another Vietnam?"

who said that again...?  as for my answer.  i won't judge the comparison based upon casualties alone, but rather, accomplishments gained.  i guess that's where we differ :idunno:


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 30, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> @ michael
> 
> indeed, only time will tell. but i will at least acknowledge a successful event, regardless of how petty it is.
> 
> ...


Is the election a 'successful event' or is it an 'accomplishment gained'? 

I agree that it is an event. Measuring success by turnout and limited voter attacks is reasonable.

I am uncertain that anything has been 'gained' by this event. As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, is that time will be needed to see if this event actually 'accomplished' anything.

I hope it did, but refuse to be a pollyanna.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 30, 2005)

*A lot more. As wars go, this has been low impact. And I bet you just hate that.*


I suspect this isn't something you'd readily say to a grieving family member of a soldier killed there.  Nor would I imagine it'd be something you'd say to a young man or woman blinded or otherwise maimed.  

I suspect the "impact" on them has been somewhat severe.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## Kane (Jan 30, 2005)

I don't think you guys are getting ghostdog2's point. He isn't saying that it doesn't matter about the people died, because not that many died. He isn't saying to ignore those who have died. All he is saying is that compared to many other wars there hasn't been as much death.


Does that mean there were no looses from this war? No it doesn't, all those who have died were a great loose. However that is a part of war and if we are going to look at the success of the war on whether any people died then I assure you no war in history has been a success. The American Revolution was not a success because we lost troops, right? Wrong! Those who died died for a just cause. Does that mean we have to forget them? No, but we can't always regret everything or we will always look at all things as a failure. Death is apart of war. We need to look at the fruit being produced to determine whether this war was a success. I see that it is and the soldiers who died in this war did not die for vain.


----------



## Kane (Jan 30, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Actually, it was KANE, who claimed that 'liberals' said Iraq would be similar to Vietnam. Go yell at him. Look at the post.


 
Not true at all. I have heard so many liberals say this will turn out to be another Vietnam. Posters on MT have even said this. Do you know how many threads anti-Iraqi war threads were there on this board with members stating this will be another Vietnam. I also know many people in my community who were against the Iraqi war saying it is going to be another Vietnam.


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Jan 30, 2005)

I was watching CNN earlier today to get some info on how the election went. They were interviewing some American soldiers. Most of these soldiers have been injuried in combat. One soldier had his leg blown off. He had no problem how the war was going. But he said he hope the U.S would stay till the job was finished. Cause if they pulled out, losing his leg would go in vain. Another soldier said he doesn't want his nephews or neices, to have to come back here 10 years later. He also wanted the job to be done, or losing fellow soldiers would be in vain also. Opinions may vary from person to person. I know some people who have gone over from National Guard units. And yes they have suffer some loses. But they feel going to Iraq is very important and have no regrets.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 30, 2005)

Were any wars "worth the cost"? Will any future conflicts be worth it...Would we have gone past the Normandy Beaches if CNN had been broadcasting  live from location??


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 30, 2005)

Walter Cronkheit and others reported pretty graphically from Normandy. Ernie Pyle and others reported pretty graphically from around the world. Ah, those wacky liberals.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Walter Cronkheit and others reported pretty graphically from Normandy. Ernie Pyle and others reported pretty graphically from around the world. Ah, those wacky liberals.


Rarely live, rarely visual, rarely high definition....

And in association with "propaganda" about our "brave boys sacrificing their lives in a just cause, beating the Germans and fighting for freedom.." yadda yadda. Under todays standards I dont think we would have made it past the Bulge...


----------



## Tgace (Jan 30, 2005)

BTW was it worth the cost???


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Rarely live, rarely visual, rarely high definition....
> 
> And in association with "propaganda" about our "brave boys sacrificing their lives in a just cause, beating the Germans and fighting for freedom.."



There was a great deal of propaganda, but there was also hard-nosed, detailed reporting.  As opposed to today, where journalism from the fields of battle are strictly controlled, shaped, and marketed by whichever administration was in power.

And yes, World War II was worth the cost.  It might have been unnecessary had pesky liberals been listened to in the first place after WWI, but that's a topic for another thread.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 30, 2005)

Ah. So on a thread where you and others are extolling the virtue of free elections in Iraq, you're suggesting pretty strongly that citizens of a democracy shouldn't see what's being done during wartime in their name. Interesting.

By the way, it's kinda funny that it turns out we are in Iraq to nation-build after all. I guess I'm just going to wait a while before cheering, hoping I'm wrong--I mean, given the way that Hizzoner, the VP, most of thge hawkish Republicans, and the likes of Rush Limbaugh assured us all, over and over, that the streets of every city and town would be lined with cheering Iraquis from the git-go...


----------



## Tgace (Jan 30, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> There was a great deal of propaganda, but there was also hard-nosed, detailed reporting. As opposed to today, where journalism from the fields of battle are strictly controlled, shaped, and marketed by whichever administration was in power.


Yeah, I can agree there. But if they had todays live and "in your face" technology I bet they would have manipulated the heck out of it then too....


----------



## Tgace (Jan 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah. So on a thread where you and others are extolling the virtue of free elections in Iraq, you're suggesting pretty strongly that citizens of a democracy shouldn't see what's being done during wartime in their name. Interesting.


 
Hmmm...Im suggesting that we appear to no longer be tolerant of human sacrifices in War anymore due to advancement in live media. Any other associations are your own. 

What does ASSUME mean???


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yeah, I can agree there. But if they had todays live and "in your face" technology I bet they would have manipulated the heck out of it then too....



Yeah, I don't know if it's the technology or the knowledge of marketing combined with the intense damage done to the war effort in Vietnam when the American citizenry actually saw every night what was going on over there, but I agree.

Regardless, I think it's expected and natural for an administration to engage in propaganda for its policies, including wars.  I just wish our media provided more hard information to see around it.

The American people were committed to the Second World War in a way that setbacks and more visual reporting wouldn't have turned around, I don't think.  Unlike now, where the bad news coming out of Iraq is of low-level attrition by the insurgency, the Allies had a few years where things seemed extremely dicey before the war clearly turned in the eyes of the public, and people still stayed committed, even with far more depradations (a draft, rationing, etc) than we experience today.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 30, 2005)

Dont forget, getting all those men and material back across the Atlantic in the 40's would have taken months if not years. Today, most human bodies could be back in the States PDQ....


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Dont forget, getting all those men and material back across the Atlantic in the 40's would have taken months if not years. Today, most human bodies could be back in the States PDQ....



True, but photos of the dead and of coffins were allowed back then, and aren't now.  Moreover, every newspaper printed lists of the dead every day, and the lists were far longer than they are now.

At the same time, every family was saving their fats and scrap metals and papers for the war, eating off ration cards, seeing huge numbers of men go away for the draft... war touched everyone far more than it did today.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 30, 2005)

Pearl Harbor fanned the flames against the Japanese (9-11's went out pretty fast) so Propaganda wise, i can see our "sticking to it". Why against the Germans, who were "at it" years prior to our involvement? Good Propaganda? 

I would like to see some good War Bonds posters made up and hung in our local stores, libraries, etc. The old "dog face" giving the bayonet to some turban wrapped terrorist. They knew "propaganda" back then. The current stuff is limp wristed in comparison IMO. 

[/sarcasm]


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 30, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> you're right, it will be a larger test seeing if it actually works. but the election is a small step. there is alot to build off there. certainly you're not going to compare the elections under saddam's regime to these elections are you...? at least there isn't going to be republican guards standing over your shoulder at the polls telling you which way you should vote.


 Is it a step in the right direction?

 Is forcing a foriegn system of government on a country that has a very different culture, history and values a "good" thing?

 I guess the question is is the US helping them rebuild a government that suits Iraq, or the US?

 Perhaps I just don't get it, the US dissaproves of their way of life so they bomb them, destroy the gov't and install one they like.  They don't like the US way of life and crash a couple of planes.  Who did more damage?

 Yes there are problems in those areas and perhaps we should help, but their is a difference between helping a country out and whipping them out.

 The US has had quite a few assasinations, riots, gov't scandals, a high murder rate, school shootings, etc.  Suppose some other larger super power decided it was the gov't to blame and bombed the crap out of it, whipped it out completly and worked to set up a completely different (non-US-Democracy) Would anyone here really like it?

 Well chances are some people in the US WOULD, so this other super power films those people celebrating and puts it on every tv world wide to show what a good job they've done.

 They could even give us some choice in the matter, Communist leader A, or Communist leader B, the people get to choose.  Lots turn out to vote and the numbers go up.  Again, see how good of job they are doing to have such a high turn out... the fact that most where simply picking what they saw as the lesser of two evils does not show up in the numbers...

 Is this what is happeing with Iraq?  Who knows, but regardless of whether it is or not we sure ain't gonna see that side on CNN.

 But I am quite sure that when 300,000 troops are needed to "keep the peace" there really isn't any "peace"


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 31, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Is it a step in the right direction?
> 
> Is forcing a foriegn system of government on a country that has a very different culture, history and values a "good" thing?
> 
> ...


Let's put a little realistic perspective on the idea that they were just a 'different' culture....

SHussein fed the tribal feud machine to keep them from effectively uniting.  He tortured his olympic atheletes for failing to bring home the gold medal (I mean real torture too, not this stuff that was bad but at least not permanent).  He used biological weapons against citizens of his own nation (to include women and children).  Not to mention all the other fun stuff that we will only find out about over the years.

So...it isn't the 'culture' that we ousted but SHussein.  He was NOT any kind of good Muslim/Iraqi by any of the cultural standards that you are saying we are killing.  He wasn't killing the culture, just using the differences to kill the people.

The ELECTIONS are designed to create a sense of nation for the people so that cultures can have a mediation forum, come together and strike a self determined balance between cultural preservation and social/economic progress based on what the citizens want - not the whim of a dictator.

When people are involved there is no perfect motive, no perfect form of leadership BUT at least in a democratic forum, people have a shot at saying something and having it heard instead of getting the axe (literally).

This isn't a nation of pristine 'noble savages' that we are corrupting with our whiskey and beads.  They have doctors, politicians, professors...they are pretty modern.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 31, 2005)

Andrew makes a good point.  Iraqi thought tends to be more framed in tribalist ideology, and we ought to note that in one of the longest settled regions of the globe, they have never, ever evolved toward a democratic system.  It may very well be due to the fack that their way of thinking is not suitable to the democratic process.

Let's also recall that the borders of Iraq proper were essentially arrbitrarily chosen after the fall of the ottoman empire.  Iraqis, at this time, do not feel a particular sense of "community" when they think about their country.  They tend to think more along the lines of me>my family>my neighborhood>my people.  Because of this difference in values, they are less committed to the success of their nation, rather, more likely to die for their neighbour than flag.  This mindset is certainly one of the contributing factors to the instability there now.

Reference From Beirut to Jerusalem , and The Olive Tree and the Lexus by Thomas Friedman.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 31, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> They tend to think more along the lines of me>my family>my neighborhood>my people. Because of this difference in values, they are less committed to the success of their nation, rather, more likely to die for their neighbour than flag. This mindset is certainly one of the contributing factors to the instability there now.
> 
> Reference From Beirut to Jerusalem , and The Olive Tree and the Lexus by Thomas Friedman.


THis may be true.  But just because it is hard doesn't make it a waste of time or not a noble cause.  If Iraq can stabilize its borders, establish tribal/political parties that are willing to come together to represent those families/neighbors at a parlimentary assembly.....they win because they are stronger together and - just like the rest of the first world nations have taken advantage of - improve the quality of life for all members of the nation.  I think given the choice between living 'within the culture' of a tribal community (which could mean high infant mortallity/shorter life expectancy for all because of lack of quality of life and medical support at the very least) and being able to avoid burying your children from easily cureable diseases by our standards, the tribe/family/neighbors will want to move forward.  

Technology will play a big role in making that appealing.  Plus, it seems to me that there is more cultural sensititivy within these operations (Treatment of women and such) than may have happened in the past.  That may work diplomatically as well.

We (as in the global/community) win because on of the factors that can affect the fluctuation of oil prices is stabilized (and money does make the world go 'round) and hopefully take away one more excuse for some of the up and down pricing that we love watching as we fillup at the pump or pay for petroleum based products (including medical equiptment/practices, technologies, industrial products....).

Cultures evolve, people evolve...as martial artists this shouldn't be a problem to recognize because we take from the old ways and apply it to the modern all the time.  THough I like and respect the origins of my source arts, I don't really want to live with the hygiene, medical, social standards that they did back then.  I like my teeth in my mouth, I like my bones well set so I don't get a limp.  I like knowing that I don't have to sleep with one eye open for wolves or bandits all the time.  I like knowing that I can reasonably expect that I can name my child right away and don't wait for a year before I do it because there is a high infant mortallity rate....

Principles are easy to talk about when you have it as well as we do.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 31, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Cultures evolve, people evolve...


 Exactly.

 So do we let them evolve and help them through it?  Or do we step in and tell them how to run their lives?

 American History is not without its dark days too, had someone stepped in and forced Communism on the country durring the civil war would that have been the right thing to do?


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 31, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> So do we let them evolve and help them through it? Or do we step in and tell them how to run their lives?
> 
> American History is not without its dark days too, had someone stepped in and forced Communism on the country durring the civil war would that have been the right thing to do?


A democratic framework, with a charter like our own constitution will go a long way to protect/preserve their cultural diversity where the previous government didn't care whether it existed or not - unless it served the purpose of lining SHussein's pockets or expand his power.

How is helping them structure a democratic form of government, with charters and documents similar to the ones that help us protect our own diversity (albeit not perfectly with each new interpretation) use 'telling them what to do' and not 'helping them' through their cultural evolution in a way that reduces death, bigotous/corrupt government practices or leave them ripe to do business with known terrorist organziation?

I understand the Prime Directive (star Trek reference) mentallity that we should impact cultures as little as possible, but should we have let SHussein continue to make a mockery of the ceasefire/treaty and conditions of that ceasefire (inspections and other conditions) with no consequences?  Isn't it 'helping them' evolve culturally as well when you oust a known dictator that does the things that we know he did?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 31, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> A democratic framework, with a charter like our own constitution


 So in other words everyone should be like Americans cause it is right and others are not?  The American Democracy might work in America, but this does not mean it will work everywhere.



> will go a long way to protect/preserve their cultural diversity where the previous government didn't care whether it existed or not -


 By forcing American culture and gov't on them we preserve their culture....  huh?



> unless it served the purpose of lining SHussein's pockets or expand his power.


 And no politician in a American democracy is in it for money or power?



> I understand the Prime Directive (star Trek reference) mentallity that we should impact cultures as little as possible,


 
 I never said don't help, I said don't force them to be like us.  Wasn't their a big war down their at one point when the British where doing that to you guys?



> but should we have let SHussein continue to make a mockery of the ceasefire/treaty and conditions of that ceasefire (inspections and other conditions) with no consequences?


 And starting a war based on the threat of nonexistant "weapons of Mass destruction" without the UN support is any better?



> Isn't it 'helping them' evolve culturally as well when you oust a known dictator that does the things that we know he did?


 Umm...  he was a known dictator when the US helped him get that position...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 31, 2005)

Just FYI, there's a good article by Michael Ignatieff in this Sunday's "NYT" Magazine telling all political sides to go to hell about the Iraqi elections..chest-thumping rightists and cynical whiny liberals alike.


----------



## Bester (Jan 31, 2005)

So, since we want them to have a system like ours I have one question:


Have they started recounts yet?

Is the Sumaria district currently experiencing failure with their cardboard paper catching boxes?

And, how many votes did Dubya get?


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 31, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> So in other words everyone should be like Americans cause it is right and others are not? The American Democracy might work in America, but this does not mean it will work everywhere.
> 
> By forcing American culture and gov't on them we preserve their culture.... huh?
> 
> ...


No one is saying they have to become slaves to Britney SPears or worship reality TV. I imagine, since there are Iraqi politicians involved, they will be able to put the culturally sensitive details on it that are needed.

Dude, the democratic framework is not American 'culture.' When has democracy become worse than someone like SHussein?

Agreed, but then when has anyone done any job strictly for altruistic reasons. There is an ego/personal satisfaction kick that keeps people in jobs. What people do with that power is what counts....like not torturing your olympic soccer team for losing the gold, establishing a government structure that is controlled by the whim of one dictator ala SHussein.

Yeah, the war was about a 'absentee ruler' levying taxes on his subjects without representation in parlimentary government....monarch/dictator seems like a closer correlation when SHussein was making governmental policies without any representation most/all of his citizenry. 

Back then we were getting help from the French/Germans and others too. But they didn't want to participate in helping the Iraqi people (I don't here much help in the Afg situation either btw) things have really changed haven't they?

There were many reasons other than WMD that made going into Iraq justified IMO. I didn't agree with the public spin/timing or the propaganda but the intel community internationally was duped by the WMD intel thing - not just the US.

I can understand if you and others don't think that entering Iraq was the 'best' way to go.  Fine.  But to imply that the US occupation and support to establish an independent and democratic government for Iraq is 'worse' than leaving SHussein in power is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Feb 1, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> But to imply that the US occupation and support to establish an independent and democratic government for Iraq is 'worse' than leaving SHussein in power is a bit of a stretch.



HERE, HERE!!!

One of the main goals of the UN Resolutions was to stabilize the region.  After the defeat and capture of the Iraqi government what else were we to do than to help then rebuild with their own government?  What other government model were we supposed to give them?  Oh, since they've lived under a cruel dictator for a long time, we're supposed to pick one for them and put it all back where it began.

Now the power is in the hands of the people.  If they want another dictator to take over later, then so be it.  If they want a better government where they can speak their minds and select leaders that do things *for* them rather than *against* them, if they want a future that has potential rather than being downtrodden, then this process is the best.

I was under the impression that "we" didn't like tyranny and oppression.  Am I wrong?  Do "we" like having rulers who are a minority and control their people through threats and guns?  Are "we" so bitter about politics that we can't see how better the future is for Iraq?

I am so impressed that so many Iraqis came out to vote.  They walked for miles, some carrying their infirmed family members, under the very real threat of violence, to speak their mind.  We in the US complained when there wasn't parking close to the door, or we had to wait for an hour because there wasn't enough voting machines, or we felt oppressed because a few police officers were giving out traffic citations.  The Iraqi cititizens have sure opened my eyes as to how blessed I truly am.  The knowledge of what my forefathers went through to give me this gift is inspiring.

WhiteBirch


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 1, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I am so impressed that so many Iraqis came out to vote. They walked for miles, some carrying their infirmed family members, under the very real threat of violence, to speak their mind. We in the US complained when there wasn't parking close to the door, or we had to wait for an hour because there wasn't enough voting machines, or we felt oppressed because a few police officers were giving out traffic citations. The Iraqi cititizens have sure opened my eyes as to how blessed I truly am. The knowledge of what my forefathers went through to give me this gift is inspiring.
> 
> WhiteBirch


Last I heard, the turn out was somewhere around 2,000 (could be wrong).  I don't know much about the Iraqi population census, so what does this voter turn out compare proportionately to the total population?


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 1, 2005)

Two points that need to be made:

1) The overall voter turnout in Iraq was somewhere in the +60% margin. Of course, this does not take into account regional and minority demographics. For example, purportedly far less of a percentage of the minority Sunnis voted than, say, the more majority Shiyahs.

2) The claim that the Iraqis are "better off" now than they were, say, four years ago isn't particularly accurate...

Four years ago, the vast majority of Iraqis had running water, working electricity, a stable supply of employment and food, healthcare of some sort, and did not have to worry about constant terrorist insurgencies causing them and their families harm. Their standard of living is exponentially poorer than it was those few years ago.

Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't some kinda wacko vidication of Hussein. The guy was a prick, a dick, an ***, a douche bag, a murdering sociopath, a paranoid lunatic, and whatever other nastiness you can come up with (even "evil", if you are simplistic enough to think on those terms). But, the point remains that _right now_, most Iraqis are living under greater suffering than they were then. 

Now, this might change drastically for the positive in the near future, but you can't stick your head in the sand and pretend the Iraqi people are living in sunshine and lollipops right now. They most assuredly are not.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 1, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Two points that need to be made:
> 
> 1) The overall voter turnout in Iraq was somewhere in the +60% margin. Of course, this does not take into account regional and minority demographics. For example, purportedly far less of a percentage of the minority Sunnis voted than, say, the more majority Shiyahs.
> 
> ...


Agreed that if you compare the daily quality of life, those who had now have less or not.  THose who didn't have - because they were on the outside of that DEEK head's favorites circle are not doing much worse.  But the potential for progress that is more equitable is important to remember.

Under SHussein, no matter what kind of running water or utilities you had, you were running the risk of death and torture for just about what ever he said at the moment was the law.  

No one, I think, has their head in the sand about the living conditions in a post war/rebuilding phase of a military operation.  It sucks.  I saw Bosnia in 1999 to 2000 still trying to get up to a normal daily routine with day on day off utilities and 1/2 day schools and no jobs for people....this is well after the Dayton accord btw.  It takes time.  But, everyday we were there, the citizenry in general were glad that we were there to help stabilize, they were hopeful for where things were headed and they didn't want us to go.  From direct conversation with vets of Iraqi operations, it seems that the same sentiment by the general population exists.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 1, 2005)

You know, I had hoped we were past statements like this.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> No one, I think, has their head in the sand about the living conditions in a post war/rebuilding phase of a military operation. It sucks.


Of course people have their heads in the sand about living conditions in a post war/rebuilding phase.

From President Bush - Ive asked the American people to foot the tab for $20 billion of reconstructionOthers are stepping up as well, 13 billion out of the Madrid ConferenceThe Iraqi oil revenues  excess Iraqi oil revenues, coupled with private investments, should make up the difference. - 10/28/2003

From Glenn Hubbard (White House Economist) - Costs of any such intervention would be very small. - 10/4/2002

From Paul Wolfowitz - The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three yearsWe're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.  - 3/27/2003

From Paul Wolfowitz - "There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." - 3/27/2003

From Richard Perle - "Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance, the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will." - 7/11/2002​I mean ... we could go on ... and on ... and on....

If these people, some of the brightest minds leading our government somehow mis-understood the dollar values required in dealing with an invasion of Iraq, how can we possibly accept there is, anywhere in our government, a grasp of reality concerning the elections and reconstruction of a government.

Say what you will about the son-of-a-***** Hussein, he did provide 'stability'. Sure, that stability came at the cost of grotesque human rights violations, but I defy anyone to argue cogently that Iraq is more stable today that it was three years ago. 

The Washington Post reports 260 unique insurgent attacks in Iraq on Sunday. 

There are a lot of heads in the sand around here, I think.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 1, 2005)

So basically those say:

 Lots of Oil = Lots of money = better if controlled by US....?

 Is that about right?


----------



## ghostdog2 (Feb 1, 2005)

_Say _what_ you will about the son-of-a-***** Hussein, he did provide 'stability'. Sure, that stability came at the cost of grotesque human rights violations,_​_Posted by Michaeledward_

Gosh, and Mussollini made the trains run on time.
Wasn't that the argument for what was called "appeasement" in the 30's?

And just a question, given your history of championing human rights, your endorsement of the trade-off of  "grotesque human rights violations" for " stability" becomes meaningful.

Can we talk about Abu Ghrab again......


----------



## ghostdog2 (Feb 1, 2005)

_*So basically those say:

Lots of Oil = Lots of money = better if controlled by US....?

Is that about right? Posted by Andrew Green*_

__________________

So what about:

Lots of oil = Lots of money = better controlled by Saddam Hussein.

Is that about right? If so, invest in windmills.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Feb 1, 2005)

*Four years ago, the vast majority of Iraqis had running water, working electricity, a stable supply of employment and food, healthcare of some sort, and did not have to worry about constant terrorist insurgencies causing them and their families harm. Their standard of living is exponentially poorer than it was those few years ago.*

_*Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't some kinda wacko vidication of Hussein. *_posted by Heretic888

Sure it is. If you can say, you can claim it. Why all these posts that try to have it both ways? Either he's a murdering thug and our country has done the right thing, or he's just mis-understood and we should put the old boy back in charge.
BTW, you're all wrong in saying (as you minimze a mass murderer ) Iraqis "did not have to worry about constant terrorist insurgencies(sic) causing them and their families harm..." What a load of nonsense. 
 Mass graves, rape rooms, thousands gassed and more shot down or made to disappear and you gloss over it? Those same insurgents still killing their own people used to run the whole country...Hell, they were the country.
Geeez, if you're rooting for the guy, just say so. But don't pretend there's some kind of balance here. It ain't even close.


----------



## Fight with attitude (Feb 1, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Sure it is. If you can say, you can claim it. Why all these posts that try to have it both ways? Either he's a murdering thug and our country has done the right thing, or he's just mis-understood and we should put the old boy back in charge.


This isn't a black and white issue, it's shades of grey like anything else in this world.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 1, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> *Four years ago, the vast majority of Iraqis had running water, working electricity, a stable supply of employment and food, healthcare of some sort, and did not have to worry about constant terrorist insurgencies causing them and their families harm. Their standard of living is exponentially poorer than it was those few years ago.*
> 
> _*Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't some kinda wacko vidication of Hussein. *_posted by Heretic888
> 
> ...



You clearly have a fundamental divorcement from reality here. At no point, was I "supporting" Saddam Hussein.

Of course, this kind of irrational "logic" is typical of the Extreme Right --- either you think in completely White and Black terms, or you're confused. Its incredible the level of naivette and arrogance we see here.

Yes, a dictator can provide much in the way of stability and order for a country. And, yes, he can still be a murdering sociopath.

And, to note, more people died in two months' time during the American invasion than they did under the past ten years' rule of Saddam Hussein. Might wanna get your facts straight before lobbing accusations.

Ta ta.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Feb 1, 2005)

_You clearly have a fundamental divorcement from reality here. At no point, was I "supporting" Saddam Hussein. Heretic888_

Coulda fooled me, but I'll take your word for it. The rest of the post is name calling..the kind of quibbling that kept SH in power for years and that would have him there still if it were up to clear thinkers on the Left.

pip pip


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 1, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> _You clearly have a fundamental divorcement from reality here. At no point, was I "supporting" Saddam Hussein. Heretic888_
> 
> Coulda fooled me, but I'll take your word for it. The rest of the post is name calling..the kind of quibbling that kept SH in power for years and that would have him there still if it were up to clear thinkers on the Left.
> 
> pip pip



Actually, the part you quoted was name-calling (and well-warranted, I might add). The rest of the post was actual meat.

You're not exactly disproving my "fundamental divorcement from reality" thesis here. Big surprise.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 1, 2005)

*----------------------------------------------*
*Mod Note:*
*Please, keep this discussion polite, and on topic.  *

*Thank you.*

*-Dan Bowman-*
*-Martial Talk Moderator-*
*----------------------------------------------*


----------



## lvwhitebir (Feb 3, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 2) The claim that the Iraqis are "better off" now than they were, say, four years ago isn't particularly accurate...



They may have problems right now with water, electricity, etc, but their overall future is brighter.  It's probably been said before, but the insurgents are the ones fighting the rebuilding of the infrastructure.  We're trying to get it working.  Most of the civilians that are in the country are risking their lives doing just that.  Unfortunately, the insurgents are blowing up pipelines, etc. in order to create the problems.

All budding democracies have had "short-term" problems (Russia, Germany, Japan, etc).  Should we conclude that democracies are bad because of it?  By the way, we helped these countries rebuild in a lot of the same ways as Iraq.  We pumped gobs of money into Germany and Japan after WWII in order to get their countries back together again.  We helped to create their constitutions and help them learn self-rule.  Let's go back to those countries and ask which form of government they prefer and if the pain was worth it.

I'm truly saddened by those who look at the Iraqi elections and say it doesn't matter because of some political viewpoint against the Republican leadership.  Just about every political leader in the last 15 years has said that the middle east would be safer without the brutal, totalitarian governments.  We're in the process of helping one make the adjustment and just because you don't like how we got here you think it's stupid to do or that they won't be better off.

I don't care what you think about the reasons for us being there.  I don't care if you think the votes are "valid" because the Sunni's didn't vote.  Seeing millions of people walking miles, carrying their infirmed family members, with the threat of being killed constantly hanging over their heads is inspiring!  It puts our population to shame.

This is going to be one of the defining moments in history, similar to the tearing down of the Berlin wall and all you can say is they don't have enough running water so it's not worth it.

WhiteBirch


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 3, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> They may have problems right now with water, electricity, etc, but their overall future is brighter.



Please note that I did not say "overall future". I said _right now_.

And, the truth is that _right now_ their present lives aren't particularly cheery. This does not negate what we are doing over there, but people need to stop pretending the Iraqis are magically, instantaneously "better off" because their dicatatorship is gone. They need some kind of intrastructure and order to replace it.



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> It's probably been said before, but the insurgents are the ones fighting the rebuilding of the infrastructure.  We're trying to get it working.  Most of the civilians that are in the country are risking their lives doing just that.  Unfortunately, the insurgents are blowing up pipelines, etc. in order to create the problems.



Yeah, but just think of how much better rebuilding the infrastructure would be going if our presidential administration actually had a working plan for doing so.   

The sad, sad truth is that the initial 'plan' of the administration is that the Iraqis would see us as liberators (not occupiers), and that they would self-create a working democracy in a matter of weeks. Of course, all the experts and strategists told them otherwise, but what do they know?? After all, you don't need things like "facts" when "evidence" when you've got a pre-formed ideology in your corner.

This is reflected in the actual success of the infrastructure building thus far.



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> All budding democracies have had "short-term" problems (Russia, Germany, Japan, etc).  Should we conclude that democracies are bad because of it?



No one, as far as I know, is concluding that democracries are "bad".

Rather, what is more alarming is the American public's willingess to attribute strategic incompetence to "short term problems". We have occupied this country for nearly two years. The majority of the populace still do not have electricity, running water, medical supplies, or an income/job of any kind.

Yet, despite that, we still seem capable enough of making sure their oil lines are well-protected. Surprise, surprise.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 3, 2005)

We have not occupied Iraq for 2 years. We are still trying to secure areas of it. Try getting a job or traveling while armed militants are out there.

If we go in full force, we look like the bad guys.
If we don't secure it fast enough, we look like the bad guys.

Which way do you see it?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2005)

Just wondering how long our occupation will require to secure the 12 mile road between Bagdhad and the Bagdhad Airport. Currently, it is not possible to safely drive this road.


150,000 US troops & 120,000 trained Iraqi's can't seem to secure this little strip of pavement.

<shrugg>


----------



## lvwhitebir (Feb 4, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Please note that I did not say "overall future". I said _right now_.
> 
> And, the truth is that _right now_ their present lives aren't particularly cheery. This does not negate what we are doing over there, but people need to stop pretending the Iraqis are magically, instantaneously "better off" because their dicatatorship is gone. They need some kind of intrastructure and order to replace it.



Unfortunatly this negativity is seen, at least by me, as being down on the election as a whole.  This thread is specifically about the election and yet you pull in the current-day problems.





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yeah, but just think of how much better rebuilding the infrastructure would be going if our presidential administration actually had a working plan for doing so.



And who says there's no plan for doing so?  There are a ton of people working on just that.  It's the basis for our civilian population over there.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The sad, sad truth is that the initial 'plan' of the administration is that the Iraqis would see us as liberators (not occupiers),



I believe the majority do see us a liberators.  It's the minority insurgents that see us a occupiers.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Rather, what is more alarming is the American public's willingess to attribute strategic incompetence to "short term problems". We have occupied this country for nearly two years. The majority of the populace still do not have electricity, running water, medical supplies, or an income/job of any kind.



You'll have to spin off another thread to talk about the "incompetence."  I'd would be interested in hearing specific evidence of incompetence.  I've heard it put out there by politicians, but with no specific items (other than we shouldn't be there in the first place).

As far as the infrastructure problems, we're not causing it, we're trying to repair it.  It's the Saddamists and the minority fundamentalists that are causing the problems.  What I don't think they understand is that the longer the infrastructure remains broken, the longer we're going to be there.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yet, despite that, we still seem capable enough of making sure their oil lines are well-protected. Surprise, surprise.



We do?  The insurgents still bomb those too.  One of the reasons I see us protecting the oil is because that's Iraqs main income.  Without it the country will have nothing to base its economy on later.

Bottom line is: the election was great!  It shows that the people of Iraq are tired of tyrannical rule.  No one forced them to vote and they had a lot of reasons for staying away.

WhiteBirch


----------

