Iraqi Election

[tracy1]

I am surprised that there has not been any comment on the elections in Iraq??????

Several have asked over the last year for ANY rational, educated reason for the war in Iraq.

Could a democratic election with voter turnout of 60-70% (the BEST the US has ever achieved is just at 60%) be considered one of those reasons?

Seriously, why the lack of attention on the board for this election?

Is it because it could potentially be painted as being validation for Bush (not taking this view, just asking) ?

Pure apathy on the part of Geekfest readers?

Massive blackout in Carroll County http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/smile.gif

Regardless of your political stance, I have to think this is a positive bit of news that surprises many on this board?

[This message has been edited by tracy1 (edited 01-30-2005).]

[kbeem]

This is excellent for them. Now its time to bring our troops home and let the Iraqis sort themselves out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4220551.stm

[Becky Davis]

Maybe it is because the elections in America have been so dishonest?
I am glad that the elections went as smoothly as the did. I am glad that they went that way in Afghanistan too. After Afghanistan I thought it would go just as it did. It is encouraging.
I am not happy with this war and I don't see this election as a validation for it.

I do wonder why so many Iraqis that are American citizens now are allowed to vote in the Iraqi election. Know the answer anyone?

[kbeem]

I hold dual citizenship and voted in the last US election and will vote in the UK election come spring. I assume the Iraqi/Americans are the same.

[OvertheRiver]

Well, I am personally pleased for the Iraqis; it is clear that they appreciated and valued a chance to have their say in their own destiny for the first time in 40 years.

Surely no one can be unhappy that the voter turnout was so good; although I am rather disappointed that, prior to the elections, the news media somehow missed the boat by reporting that there would be extremely low voter turnout.

I am sure that nobody on this board would be small enough to deride or minimize the Iraqi election, simply because they didn't want anything in Iraq to go well if it might make Bush look good (the jury's still out on how Bush will be viewed overall, I think). Why would ANY of us want the Iraq situation to deteriorate even more after all that country has been through, what with the uncertainty of the years of Saddam and the American military effort? This election appears to be a good thing for the Iraqi people, and surely that can be appreciated by all, regardless of whether they hate or love Bush.

It is rather disheartening to realize that the % of Iraqi voter turnout, facing the risk of being killed while voting, is larger than our own general voter turnout in America....even though we don't anticipate being shot at or bombed while we vote.

God bless the Iraqi people, and I hope that this election becomes, in fact, as meaningful and heartening to the Iraqi people as it seems to be on the day after.....

[Larry Williams]

Originally posted by OvertheRiver:
I am sure that nobody on this board would be small enough to deride or minimize the Iraqi election, simply because they didn't want anything in Iraq to go well...



Some reports are putting voter turn out as high as 72%. They can't even keep track of those killed in Iraq, how can they count voters before they can even say who won? They’re claiming about 72% voted. 72% of what? Registered voters where they could hold elections? I don't know. Only about 20% of recent ex-patriot and eligible Iraqis in Great Britain voted. Those who voted in the British based election did so without fear of retaliation or violence. Why the difference? I'm sorry, I'd like to see this election work so we could get out but the story we're getting is less credible than all Bush's claims about Saddam and Iraq before the war.

[OvertheRiver]

Originally posted by Larry Williams:
They’re claiming about 72% voted. 72% of what? Registered voters where they could hold elections? I don't know.


This morning,Dan Rather reported from Baghdad that the percentage consisted of all Iraqis eligible to vote. So far, the Iraqis the media is showing on tv seem happy with the results; why can't we be pleased for them?

[RWhite]

Originally posted by tracy1:

Could a democratic election with voter turnout of 60-70% (the BEST the US has ever achieved is just at 60%) be considered one of those reasons?

Seriously, why the lack of attention on the board for this election?

Is it because it could potentially be painted as being validation for Bush (not taking this view, just asking) ?

[This message has been edited by tracy1 (edited 01-30-2005).]

Regardless of the success of the Iraqi election and our imposed version of democracy upon them (the judgment of which will take years to determine), exactly how is the outcome of their election supposed to be a validation of our war upon Iraq? The stated reason for the invasion was because of an imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction against American interests. That reason was, simply stated, a lie. The only way a successful election validates our war is if you believe the end justifies the means. I don't. If our purpose was to bring democracy to Iraq, then that is what we should have been told in the beginning.

[OvertheRiver]

RW, how do you feel about the election itself?

[gayle]

Personally, I think the whole thing is a farce and history will reveal it with time.

[OvertheRiver]

Well, let us all hope that you are wrong.

[carlspakler]

For OVERTHERIVER only please:

A great day for democracy! I'm sure you will agree that this helps plant the seed for people in other middle eastern countries that if you want it bad enough, you have to fight for it. Even though the administrations intelligence reports turned out to be wrong about WMD, the end result will be looked at by the people of Iraq years from now with great respect for the U.S. for helping them. Then again the ones that do the dirty work never get the thanks they deserve.

Carl

[OvertheRiver]

Carl, the election appears to have been a great booster for the morale of the Iraqi people, and I think that their courage and desire to exercise their voice speaks volumes to the insurgents, as well as to the world. I am hopeful that this event in Iraq will help bring about an eventual peaceable end to the Iraq War.

I also hope that we Americans have not become so cynical that it is impossible for us to believe that nothing good ever happens.

May we all hope that, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the war, perhaps something good can result from it.

And, lastly, I hope that I still feel proud and happy for the Iraqis this time next year.

[RWhite]

Over - I hope the election is a great success and that Iraq has a stable democracy for the foreseeable future. I hope that some good comes out of this war, although our country's past record of imposed democracy doesn't exactly have a high rate of success.

[Kim Yonkee]

Actually, I just hadn't said anything because I was doing other, non-Geekfest-related things. http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/wink.gif

But I am very proud of and impressed by the Iraqi people. Their bravery in the face of such overwhelming odds is remarkable.

This was an election that had to be blatantly held at the point of a gun. The candidates couldn't even be named until the very last minute, due to fears for their safety. The required 30% female candidates couldn't have campaigned face to face even if it had been secure because of the cultural no-no factor. Most importantly, the people who got out to vote did so under the literal threat of death ... and an amazing number of people faced that risk.

So I am extremely impressed by the Iraqi people. Repeat: the Iraqi people.

I think it's a pretty good question to ask if noted Bush-bashers, such as myself, have a bad attitude over this election because of our fear and loathing of the President. I read your question earlier today, tracy1, and it's been stirring around in my mind while I did the aforementioned non-Geekfest-related things. As honestly as I can express it, here is my answer:

No.

I don't have a bad attitude about President Bush, per se. I do have a bad attitude about people, any people, who slide from rationale to rationale. There's a distinction here: If you say, "If I would have known then what I know now, I wouldn't have done what I did," you're OK by me. If you make a statement with great vigor, then you change your mind, then you try to explain your new views to me by pretending you never made vigorous statement #1 ... well, you worry me.

It's nothing personal against the President; this is merely a Rule for Living that has worked out pretty well for me.

I don't expect anybody to be perfect...I don't even expect the "Leader of the Free World" to be perfect. But I'm a lot more comfortable with people who demonstrate leadership in what I regard to be normal human ways. Some of us may have the opportunity to flail on the global stage, but we all flail somewhere. So when I look for leadership, I tend to look for people who demonstrate the process of mucking things up, recovering, and starting over (honestly) in a new direction. From what I've seen of President Bush, he's a devotee of the "make it up as we go along" school of thought, and that just doesn't fit my personal model of "leadership."

Granted, my personal model of leadership is sort of like a dry martini. It's an acquired taste.

Despite the fact that I'm a dedicated Bush-Basher, the very last thing I would want is to be proven "right" at the expense of the Iraqi people. Or, for that matter, the American people.

I'm not worrying about President Bush at all, at the moment. If I'm going to worry about anything, it would be this:

Now that the Iraqi people have faced death to carry out their first vote, do we really have what it takes to follow through on our publicly-stated promise to back them up? Are we really serious about wanting to "bring democracy to Iraq," or is that just another one of those ever-morphing rationales? When people like Brzezinski tell us we're going about this in the wrong way, should we worry? I think we should, because Brzezinski is one of those people who, unlike President Bush, generally says the same thing all the time ... no matter who asks.

If there's going to be an eternal validation of the Bush Doctrine, I suspect it's a generation or two down the road. It's going to take a bit of time before we see if we've improved things or made them worse by stomping our size 24 Tony Lama's "on the ground" in Iraq.

Tonight, I'm just proud of and impressed by the Iraqi people.

[kbeem]

Kim Quote: “Are we really serious about wanting to "bring democracy to Iraq," …?”


What does “bring democracy to Iraq” really mean? Does that involve maintaining a presence in Iraq and setting up US bases on their soil? Does that involve pouring even more money into their country providing their elected officials do our bidding? What is the United States of America really planning for Iraq?

In my opinion, the Iraq people have shown by their vote that they want to take charge of their country. I sure hope the USA lets them do so – their way, not ours.

[Becky Davis]

Hopefully they will draft a fair constitution and the people who are selected to do the chore will be safe. I really admire the people who had the guts to put themselves in the public spotlight and run for these offices. It will be a long time until October and their lives are still on the line.
It is our duty, but mainly the duty of the people of Iraq to protect them. There are millions of people over there and if they stand together they can have whatever kind of government they want. And they can choose to run any group they consider bad guys out of the country in a short short. Maybe this is the first step at developing a pride and overcoming fear. To take control of their country is the next one.

[Becky Davis]

The Speech Bush Should Have Given

http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/speech-bush-should-have-given-this-is.html

[Jhawkr]

These links are to a Middle East Media Review site. This is what Iraqi people were seeing on TV and the internet prior to the elections.


Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 3:20 pm
Iraqi Political Ads

http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=499#

http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S1#

[Larry Williams]

Let's just step back in time and put this in perspective while BushCo adjusts downward their vote turn out.

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.

[Becky Davis]

Am wondering if it is true that the Iraqis voted because they had to if they wanted to receive their food rations? Anything of that on American tv?

[Kim Yonkee]

Great article, Larry! When did it first appear?

About Iraq ... I had forgotten this part until Juan Cole brought it up:

The original Bush administration plan was to have the Coalition Government (Bremmer's group) choose representatives who would elect the National Assembly.

Some history, from the Council on Foreign Relations:

http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_sistani.php


If it hadn't been for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, there wouldn't have been an election at all.

Sistani issued a fatwa (religious edict) in June 2003, demanding an election instead of the Bush-admin arrangement. He didn't like the idea of Iraq's government being hand-picked by the Coalition. Remember? Sistani was the one who assured the US that Iraq would put up with the occupation in exchange for an agreement to hold a national election and to allow the UN to supervise the vote.

Sistani's name is frequently in the news. He was also the man who negotiated the cease fire in Najaf with Muqtada al-Sadr.

It was Sistani's latest fatwa that got Iraq's majority party to the polls. Becky Davis was talking about this recently, somewhere on Geekfest.

So technically, I believe this one would be a political and moral victory for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Not that President Bush won't try to use it for his own self-promotion...like fighting the original Homeland Security Department, then taking credit for its creation. Like fighting the 9/11 Commission ... then taking credit for its findings.

I'm still not impressed, one iota, with the Chief Executive abilities of President Bush. He's more like the Everybody's Brother in Law role model that anyone who's ever worked in a corporate environment has met. At least once. You know? The guy who has no need to demonstrate his own competence because he's so darned good at out-smarming his fellow citizens of the cubicle farm?

But I'm still impressed with the bravery and patriotism of the people of Iraq.

[Becky Davis]

Thanks Kim for very informative article.

[tracy1]

Kim, this quote from you surprises me a bit:

"If it hadn't been for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, there wouldn't have been an election at all."

Does this mean you think that without Sistani there would not have been democratic elections as long as the US was there?

Why wouldn't it follow the Afganistan model? Appointments made, then a short time later elections.

I find it amusing to picture Bush on the line with Bremmer saying "Well if Sistani wants elections, who am I to argue?"

If Bush did not want elections, why wouldn't he have told Sistani to politely "pound sand" or ignore him?

He has certainly done that with other fatwas (fatwi?) from powerful Iraqi clerics.

T1

[Neener Neener]

I'd rather snuggle with a dead animal than go along with Bush policies. I also agree that time will tell. It's way too soon to see what the results of the Iraqi election truely are. And the pics of all the elated purple fingered voters....What about the others who were protesting the US involvement,destruction of their country due to continual "shock & awe", etc.

As a Demopublican or Republicrat, either way I abhor the Kinglike approach Bush has toward this issue and several others.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist distatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

HERMANN GOERING, Hitler's #2 man, before being sentenced to death at the Nuremberg trials.

[Kim Yonkee]

Originally posted by tracy1:
Kim, this quote from you surprises me a bit:

"If it hadn't been for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, there wouldn't have been an election at all."

Does this mean you think that without Sistani there would not have been democratic elections as long as the US was there?

Why wouldn't it follow the Afganistan model? Appointments made, then a short time later elections.

Politics, tracy1. Think back ... and remember how different the conditions were in Afghanistan vs. Iraq.

Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban. They refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. Few in the world had any problem with the US invasion of Afghanistan because, at the time, 9/11 was recent, and the world had a sympathetic attitude towards the US. After the invasion, Afghan factions who were opposed to the Taliban met in Germany, under the auspices of the UN, to decide how they would move their own country into its next phase.

Very different scenario in Iraq. We invaded for reasons that are still considered to be specious by half of our country and a majority of the world. We started by giving Paul Bremer the ultimate authority over drawing up the new Iraqi constitution.

Stop. Change policy.

The US agrees with the UN idea of handing Iraq over to a caretaker government while the country prepares for the then-idea of national caucuses. We agree that we won't let Bremer write the constitution. Instead, we'll let him choose the people who will carry out this task. Iraqis are so angry at the US we have to bring in UN envoy Brahimi, who agrees to select the interim government that will keep an eye on Iraq until elections can be held. At the time ... remember? ... he was widely regarded as the only person with enough clout and experience to extricate us from our own mess.

Brahimi selects Allawi as PM, who is widely regarded as yet another operative who will help the US retain control (because of his CIA connections.) Iraq remains at or near the boiling point ... because of what is widely perceived to be US meddling...because of the rapidly deteriorating infrastructure of the nation ... because of the Chalabi situation (remember him?) ... because of the outrages at Abu Ghraib ... because we kicked all the skilled and educated people out of the government then said, "Oops. I guess we need you after all."

So do I think that we would have held elections without Sistani? You're right. I mis-spoke.

Sure, we would have done it. I have no doubt about it. I imagine we would have extended our stop-loss provisions to include lifetime indentured servitude, if necessary.

But it couldn't have ever, never ever, been like the vote in Afghanistan. Didn't start that way. Didn't run that way. Didn't end that way.

We've had to call in White Knights at every stage of this process. Brahimi, to keep the machine running long enough to fix it; Sistani, to engage the Iraqi populace in the actual process of fixing. The US hasn't exactly built the sort of occupation credentials in Iraq that inspire confidence. That's why we needed Sistani and, to his own credit, Sistani was able to overlook whatever personal discomfort he might have had about the situation long enough to work for the good of his own people. This must be part of the job description of being a Grand Ayatollah. Maybe we can expect people like that to avoid pettiness. Apparently, they do avoid pettiness. Praise Allah.

I suppose you could argue that it's good management to call in White Knights when know when you're out of your depth. If you want to argue that, I won't argue at all. I actually agree with that principle.

The part that gets to me, as mentioned above, is the part where we wet our own Wranglers, call in the International Nannies to change our jeans, then pretend like we were in total control of our national, unmentionable bodily functions the whole time ... and then... and then! ... we ask the world to be proud of us for being the Big Boys & Girls who can pull up the Pull-Ups of the whole, entire planet. All by ourselves!

But, wait! There's more!

What's even worse is, there's a good half of this country who either buys the story of our Competent Invincibility because they've followed the history of our flailing 'bout Iraq and it actually sounds competent to them. Or is it worse that a good half of this country buys the story of our Competent Invincibility because they have no idea who any of these people are and what their roles in the situation actually were?

I don't know which scenario is worse ... I also don't know why you'd be surprised at my comment. It's not like you'd have to look at al Jazeerah to follow the story. Even FOX has played this particular imbroglio...line by line.

<font size=-2>(rant, rant, rant ...I know. I guess I have a "rant" button that works a lot like the "easy" button on those Staples commercials.)</font>

[Hermit of Hogscald]

Good old American optimism, gotta love it.

Why does this remind me of all the folks who assured me time and again with absolute certainty "We will be greeted as liberators and showered in rose petals? Iraqi oil will pay for the reconstruction. This war will only cost us 1 billion dollars, major combat is over, loss of US life will be minimal, and my all-time favorite, Saddam has huge stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons".

And still you listen to these people? Every one of those beliefs defied all logic, yet they were accepted hook, line, and sinker. I’d call it faith-based logic.

Seems like nobody ever heard of a guy named Murphy, and it further appears no one is even remotely aware of the situations we have created. We are in the mess we are in now because no one was willing to admit the possibilities that things might just not fit in the best possible case scenario. This whole fiasco has been a comedy of errors, a failure to recognize sometimes obvious in your face realities. It is almost as if everyone believes every movie has a happy ending, they lived happily ever after, we are never wrong or if we are it is justifiable. So we will go forward from this point absolutely blind to the pitfalls that lay in the path, because history repeats itself, and I doubt it is going to change simply because everyone chooses to believe that "Democracy" is the solution to all problems, and that if you install a democracy in the Middle East, you will create a little USA right in the middle of the world of Islam, and soon all of the Arab world will follow out of envy.

It is because we will adopt this attitude and once again play Pollyanna that we will be totally unprepared when reality whacks us up side the head again. Then everyone will be blaming poor innocent President G.W. Bush (or President Jeb Bush, or President Neal Bush or President Jenna Bush) once more for "not having a plan", when in fact they were dancing the "Happy Dance" right along with him, believing that an election would change the world.

So while you believe that Americanism will set the world free and turn everywhere into a little Eureka Springs, there will be a few who will not be surprised when and if things not only get worse, but get a lot worse.

For example: We have just totally disarmed a country, and in winning this war, have left them totally defenseless against their neighbors. Right next door is a country so well armed that we are sweating blood over the fact that they may soon have a nuclear weapon. In fact, Iraq is surrounded by countries that have suffered greatly at the hands of Iraq (with American aid I might add, since we were the ones who armed our good friend Saddam for the Iraq-Iran War). If that is not enough, these age old enemies of Iraq are not Democracies. Worse than that, they fear democracy as a danger to their own control of their countries. I'm sure the Saudi royal family is just overjoyed at the thought of giving up their money and power and turning it all over to a democratically elected government. I am sure the same is true of the Ayatollahs in Iran. Meanwhile, down in little Kuwait, somehow I get the distinct feeling the locals don't look at the Iraqis as "those poor people oppressed by that bad Saddam", but instead remember them as the thugs who came into their country, killed their children, raped their wives and daughters, and looted the country of everything they could carry. Syria, now there is a country renowned for their commitment to democratic principles. Turkey has been having problems with the Kurds for generations, and even refused them safe haven while Chemical Ali was busy gassing them.

Just think for a minute of the myriad ways this has the potential to play out. All these neighbors, while paying public homage to the great and powerful USA (just as the Iraqis used to dance in the streets in support of Saddam out of fear), see their own little empires in dire danger of being swept up in a wave of revolution and democracy. Bush has as much as stated that this is his plan (for which you gave him a mandate). They all have a very real interest in seeing Iraq fail. If democracy succeeds in Iraq, they realize they may be next. Soon they may even have US troops on their soil and in their oil, supporting free elections, because that is the precedence we have set and it now our doctrine, a doctrine we have enforced twice since 2001.

So, here we have Iraq, a country whose ability to defend itself has been completely destroyed. The will to defend themselves is so lacking that they are unable to control even the poorly organized, under funded efforts to undermine them within their own country, their current defense forces have become famous for their unwillingness to face down danger within their own borders, and why should they anyway, they have Americans there to do the dying for them, and they don't like the Americans THAT much anyway, so why risk their own necks? Nice set up for them, sitting on the sidelines cheering while their traditional enemies and their new enemies indulge themselves in an orgy of death and destruction.

This leads me to believe that we will be unable to leave Iraq in the foreseeable future. What are we going to do, leave an oil rich democracy sitting there surrounded by enemies whose own best interests is in seeing Iraq destroyed? Yea, there will be any number of grandiose excuses why they "must" invade, we ought to know, we just used a couple of these phony excuses ourselves, but if Iraq is left undefended, I will lay hard cash down on the fact that they will fall on Iraq like a pack of hungry wolves (remember them from the Republican campaign ads?). They will claim they have come to “liberate” the oppressed Sunnis, or oppressed Kurds, or oppressed goats, you can always find someone who needs “liberation” from {insert your favorite oppressor here}.

So, guess who gets to defend this new democracy? Looks like us folks, we broke it, we own it. Is there any hope? I doubt it. Nobody, from Rummy through Rice and all the way to Kerry will even venture a wild guess as to when we might start a withdrawal, and even those flag-burning, Kum-Bah-Yah singing left-wing traitors are espousing sending more troops in to “finish the job” in an game of one-upmanship designed to prove who supports the troops MORE, because that translates into votes, and consequently, power.

Guess whose taxpayers get the bill for rearming Iraq to the point where it is able to defend itself? It is either that, or stay forever and become Iraqis army. They will need an army at least as powerful as Iran, and Iran is no pushover. If the Iraqis decide it is much better for them to let the Americans die for them than to get blown to pieces themselves, we may be there for a very, very long time. We have put most of our military assets into Iraq already, if we have a need for an action elsewhere in the world, we are going to need another army. What does that cost these days? If we do arm Iraq sufficiently to protect itself against Iran, what is to say that, as soon as we do leave, they don’t decide in their own national interest to invade Kuwait again and go for all that oil and “liberate” the poor oppressed Kuwaitis? What, democratic governments don’t invade their neighbors (quote, G.W. Bush)? Hard argument to make considering our own actions over the last couple of years.

It is my own belief that this will be a particularly nasty period, because it will in essence be an endless guerilla war. Even our professed friends, like Pakistan, have a huge percentage of their own populations who are anti-US, so even where we have allies, we will have enemies. Are we going to secure Iraq’s borders? We can't even secure the Mexican border, and recognizing a Mexican who can't speak English is a whole lot easier to identify than it is for an American who doesn't even speak the language to recognize an Iraqi from an Iranian from a Pakistani (the old "they all look the same to me" syndrome).

Yes my friends, I am the proverbial pessimist you really don't want to hear from, the very same pessimist who warned that Iraq had no WMD, no Nukes, who laughed at the idea we would be greeted as liberators, who doubted that Iraq oil would pay for what we destroyed, whose eternal pessimism predicted another Vietnam quagmire in direct contradiction to what the majority in this country believed because they wanted to believe that good intentions triumph over all evils (because God IS on our side) and every movie has a happy ending.

Whenever I posted my pessimistic attitudes before, I often ended with "but I hope I am wrong". I would love to see Iraq become the Elysian Fields, but once again it just does not seem logical.

So, piss on this pessimist for his rotten attitude, I have gotten very used to it, I'll even give you the ammo: Un-American, does not support our troops, sympathizer, subversive, fifth columnist, flag burner. I'll tell you what though. If you would care to lay some cold hard cash on whether or not things will be better in Iraq two years from now, I will cover all bets to the limits of my meager finances, looks like I've got a winner and I ain't lost one yet.

There is one sad note to all this. I see no possible way out. I fear I will leave this earth many years before our sons and daughters are out of Iraq and the Middle East. If you choose to believe this is truly the beginning of the end, I respect your opinion, but to me it looks more like the end of the beginning. In retrospect, I still remain one of the few who believes we would have been a whole lot better off if we had never started down the road to Iraq.

I do recommend if you have some money to invest, go with Halliburton, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin and the other defense contractors, I see lots of new orders about to come in. Better yet, buy Yen. Or Euros. Countries at war with huge deficits are just too unstable financially.

Yes, I know it is a lot easier just to believe that an election will solve it all than to try to explore all the other possibilities of how this might play out. Sorry if I burst your balloon.

NOTE: All pronouns are generic and not aimed personally at any person or thought posted in this thread or elsewhere. This whole post is pure conjecture supplied for amusement purposes only. For anyone who does not understand that, yes, I may well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth, how could I possibly know?

Be sure to stay tuned for the sequel: WWIII, USA vs.The World, the Economic Wars.

[montelinn]

The USA vs The World Economic War is already under way. The Iraq war is a piece of cake compared with the world economy. You can't beat the US in an all out war. But what is the most important thing to the US? Money? *%@^up the money; you win.

[Hermit of Hogscald]

It seems most people missed it, but yesterday the Prime Minister of Venezuela threatened to cut off shipments of oil to the USA and instead sell it to China instead in direct protest of US foriegn policy. China of course will be paying for that oil in US dollars. I suspect the he is doing vocally what many other countries are doing or planning to do quietly.

The world remembers aggressor nations and the damage they wrought very well. Remember how they came together when Iraq became an aggressor? They cannot confront us militarily, they know if threatened overtly, we will not hesitate to crush those who we see as a threat, they remember "better dead than red", and they have reason to fear the only country in history to use a nuclear weapon. Their defense against an aggressive US policy will be economic, not military, and the war is well underway, and our enemies hold the necessary raw materials and are rapidly gaining the financial means to make it a reality.

[Kim Yonkee]

I actually caught than one, Hermit. I remembered it because we were on St. Croix earlier this year ... which is the site of the Really Enormous Refinery that processes Venezuelan oil.

There's a gas station right next to the refinery. Back when gas was something like $1.40/gallon on the US mainland, it was over $8.00/gallon at the gas station next door to the refinery.

And why? Because the gas produced at the refinery is shipped to the US, then shipped BACK to St. Croix before it is poured into the storage tanks that are about 100 feet from the refinery where it was produced in the first place.

Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with your post. Just having A Moment here.

Astute analysis about Iran, as always. One other little bit is ... the leader who dragged the majority to the polls in the first place is a man who can't even vote. And why? Because he's Iranian. Talk about an efficient method of carrying out an occupation! Who needs Humvees when you've already got the hearts and minds?

President Bush advised us tonight, in his State of the Union address, that "Iran is the only state sponsor of terrorism."

I believe we know how to decode that particular secret message ... do we not?

So, sorry, I won't be taking you up on your bet. I like a certain amount of abuse but, as you know, there's a dress code. http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/wink.gif

Can't hardly wait to see the President's budget. We'll be cutting some "non-performing domestic programs" so we can pay for the "democratization" of Iraq. Iran. Syria. Saudi Arabia. The Rest of the World, as We Know It. Or so he tells us.

Maybe we're going to carpet bomb the Arab peninsula with our non-performing widders 'n orphans?

[tracy1]

Hermit,

Do you think it would be possible to quantify what "better" would be?

I do not want to wager as I think betting brings out the worst in people, but I do think it would be interesting to put some numerical (verifiable) factors down and track it over the next twelve months.

Some ideas:

Total US troops in Iraq down from current levels.

Fewer casualties among Itaqis and Americans in next 12 months vs prior 12 months

Oil revenue increases

Better frequency of utilities (not sure we could find statistics however)

Any thing else we could come up with?

[Hermit of Hogscald]

How about something very simple, like whether we need more or less troops to insure our "security".

[RWhite]

I'm sorry Kim, but I seem to have lost my Captain Macho decoder ring. Could you get the President to just tell us the truth about his intentions instead of using "the code?"

[Another Texan]

Very early results in...
"Partial results show the United Alliance, backed by Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, leading with more than one-million votes.

The Alliance's nearest rival so far is the list of candidates led by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, with about 360,000 votes."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0203-11.htm

[tracy1]

No wonder he wanted elections!!! Just joshing, but one could see a certain conflict of interest.

This makes for a very interesting dynamic.

If Sistani (should we refer to him as "White Knight" from here on out?) is elected, his interests are then joined at the hip with Bush

If he does good things, then Bush looks good, if he does bad things, then Bush looks bad.

Who would have thought that one of the most powerful Islamic clerics and George Bush could ever have allignment of interests!!

Someone call hell and see what the temperature is.......

[Hermit of Hogscald]

Did Sistani actually run as a candidate? I am not familiar with the names actually on the ballots, but the impression I got from the above article was that Sistani was endorsing the ticket. You know, sort of the Arab version of Dick Cheney, sitting out of the line of fire, but pulling the strings that make the puppet dance.

Looks like they might end up with a "secular democracy", sort of like what we are presently converting our own government into. I would guess the new Iraqi constitution will carefully avoid that seperation of church and state that we are presently struggling with.

[Kim Yonkee]

Originally posted by RWhite:
I'm sorry Kim, but I seem to have lost my Captain Macho decoder ring. Could you get the President to just tell us the truth about his intentions instead of using "the code?"

Heheeee. That's GREAT, RWhite! I want one! I want a Captain Macho decoder ring. Maybe I'll luck out and find yours.

Sure, I'll be happy to smoke President Bush out of his hole and bring him to justice. Problem is, when I get arrested, the case will probably be tried in somebody else's court, so ... just bake me a cake with a file in it and maybe correct my homework while I'm working on becoming a jailhouse lawyer, will you?

Hermit, as I understand the system, it was too risky to name the candidates for this election. So Sistani basically had what we'd call a "slate."

Iraqis went to the election... thinking they were going to vote for a President ... actually voting for the group of people who will write the Iraqi Constitution. <font size=-2>(In the immortal words of Gamer Pyle, "Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!)</font>

There's no shame in not knowing who was on the ballot, Hermit. Iraqi voters didn't know either.

[Kim Yonkee]

tracy1, I just saw your post.

RE: what you said?

Yes ... right, exactly!

http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/smile.gif

[becsflowers]

"see what the temperature is"

37 degrees and rising....


I called on the 'hot line'....

[This message has been edited by becsflowers (edited 02-03-2005).]

[Neener Neener]

Had a few guests over this evening. We were trying to guess what new name Bush is planning to give Iraq. Something like Bushelvania, Bushraq, My very own membership in OPEC. What did you think the end goal was going to be for the war in Iraq, democracy? Don't you remember where the Bush family money comes from?

As an aside, I'm new at this but I'm learning lots hanging with you guys.U B Cool.

[Hermit of Hogscald]

Originally posted by tracy1:
Who would have thought that one of the most powerful Islamic clerics and George Bush could ever have allignment of interests!!


Haven't you ever heard the old joke about the ugly old man who approached a beautiful young girl at a party and asked "Excuse me Miss, but would you sleep with me for one million dollars?"

"Why of course I would!" she answers.

"Well then" he cackles, " will you sleep with me for ten dollars?"

Shocked, she replies "What do you think I am, a common whore?"

"We have already established that Hon, now we are just haggling over the price!"

If we haven't come to understand that our representatives in government are just common whores, albiet very expensive ones, then we haven't been paying much attention to the legislation and foriegn policies lately, have we? All you have to do is throw enough money into the equation. If you do, we will sleep with anyone. Want your representatives ear? Make a two million dollar campaign donation, it gets a lot more action than any email you ever sent. Ask any lobbyist. Most of them used to be politicians.