Do you want failure in Iraq? [Archive]

Anders

01-30-2005, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Common Man
I think that there is a sector of people who would rather see complete civil war in Iraq than see Bush get over. These people enjoy the daily reports of violance, as it feeds their hate for Bush and all he stands for. They know that if Iraq develops a stable gov and an economy, Bush will go down in history as a determined visionary and not as a clueless mad man. Are you one of these people?

I am against the war and think its probably the worst foreign policy decision made in a long time by the west. And I was against sending danish soldiers to fight to win a wrong war.

But the future always begins now. To pull out now would plunge Iraq into chaos IMO and would serve noone. I don´t think it will matter with regards to terrorism what we do now. The infrastructure men have been trained, Iraq has been a training ground for the lower ranks and enough people have been radicalized by the combination of western action and eager recruiters to be a problem for the next many years. What we must do now is to transform our engagement to rebuilding and social support.

segovius

01-30-2005, 10:27 AM

I'll step up (and Scott I think you've over-posted the t-shirt enough now) as the ritual sacrifice:

In the terms of this thread: yes, I am one of those people.

I want failure for Bush (for 'Iraq' as you would have it) because his 'democracy' and 'freedom' are obscene lies and his success will only confirm a lie.

I want failure for Bush (for 'Iraq' as you would have it) because that will ensure the safety of innocent Iranians for a while longer - thousands of Iranians, possibly hundred of thousands, will live a little longer.

I want failure for Bush (for 'Iraq' as you would have it) because I support the right of an invaded nation to fight against the invaders.

I want failure for Bush (for 'Iraq' as you would have it) because the Iraqi people suffered too much under Saddam to suffer again under another Ba'athist thug like Alawi.

I want failure for Bush (for 'Iraq' as you would have it) because Bush's agenda in the ME is part of a carefully planned (but badly executed) Straussian agenda and it is an agenda that must be defeated at any cost - they made this the lynchpin. They are the ones who must be defeated wherever they choose the battlefield.

Yes, Bush is a visionary - or perhaps the frontman for a group of visionaries, (he could also simultaneously be a clueless madman btw, although I think he is not) and of course, as you say, if he 'wins' he will 'go down in history'.

However, I do not wish his defeat for that reason as you simplistically (and somewhat cluelessly yourself) suggest - I oppose him and wish for the defeat of his agenda because I genuinely regard it as 'evil'. Or what you would term evil if you were me.

Anders

01-30-2005, 10:27 AM

Oh and about Bush? I could not care less. He (and his administration) is a failure. He deliberately let us into a war on false premises (all the noble lie stuff), TOTALLY misjudged how to fight the war, doesn´t understand the war on terror etc etc. What other people think of him doesn´t matter. He doesn´t have to fuck up totally in Iraq to be a failure. To wish him to fail in Iraq would be comparable to using "false arguments".

Scott

01-30-2005, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by segovius
... (and Scott I think you've over-posted the t-shirt enough now) ...

Yea and I think you've reached your limit for Attack Threads on Christianity.

e1618978

01-30-2005, 10:41 AM

70% of Iraqis voted - they even lined up at polling stations that had been bombed - they just dusted things off and kept going.

This is the turning point - I don't see how we could fail now.

segovius

01-30-2005, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Scott
Yea and I think you've reached your limit for Attack Threads on Christianity.

You probably do - seeing as I have never attacked the doctrines of Christ but rather actually support them it seems like the sort of thing you might think.

If thinking is the right word.

You should do some research on Halabja btw, I think Giant can help you out there - I know you bought the t-shirt (so to speak) but I think you were sold a pup.

Originally posted by e1618978
70% of Iraqis voted - they even lined up at polling stations that had been bombed - they just dusted things off and kept going.

This is the turning point - I don't see how we could fail now.

Firstly, who are 'you' ? This is not about you it is about the Iraqi people.

That's reason one where you will fail btw - the folks down home on the ranch might buy it but to people on the ground it doesn't fly all that well.

Reason 2: We don't know the results yet but we do know more or less the most likely possibilities (put here in hugely over-simplified terms - it's probably best):

1) Alawi wins

2) Sistani wins.

If 1) then the insurgency will continue because as we all know, Alawi is a Ba'athist thug and US puppet and the insurgents will keep at him. If this option occurs basically nothing has changed. And the elections will be highly suspect. Which they are already.

if 2) then you have a Iran-leaning theocracy - I highly doubt you'd see that as success.

Either way then you should watch for reason 3: civil war. It's coming. If you want I can explain why.

Reason 4: your 70% is a crock. Linky ?

You know, you guys never cease to amaze me - I have a grudging repect in a way. you are the ones who are 'picking yourself up and dusting yourselves down'.

You are consistently and irrevocably proved wrong - yet you still keep going, somehow keep believing, it's like religion.

45 minutes, WMD, liberation and roses, Abu Ghraib - you just keep going. It's like the terminator. No reality ever impinges. Unbelievable.

In a few weeks we'll be knee deep in civil war and you'll have just moved onto the next 'point'. It's incredible.

Anders

01-30-2005, 11:25 AM

Wow. It really sounds like you wish for it just to have something to poke at the rightnuts

e1618978

01-30-2005, 11:35 AM

Reason 4: your 70% is a crock.

Its on the front page of cnn.

segovius

01-30-2005, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Anders
Wow. It really sounds like you wish for it just to have something to poke at the rightnuts

Maybe it sounds like that to you - not much I can do about that other than to ask you to examine your filters.

Or you could believe me when I assure you that's not my position.

I think I gave my reasons in the fourth post. Don't recall 'having something to poke at the rightnuts' being among them.

segovius

01-30-2005, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
Its on the front page of cnn.

The Independent Election Commission of Iraq clarified an earlier estimate of a 72 percent turnout in Sunday's election, saying that the "figures are only very rough, word-of-mouth estimates gathered informally from the field."

Ok, I can't believe this figure but I'm not sure how they assess 72% - 72 % of who ? All available voters ?

We'll see I guess. If it's true it means the Sunni boycott didn't kick in which is good for the process. That would be one of my main complaints against the election - I had taken it as a given that the Sunnis would abstain and thus make the election unrepresentative.

If it wasn't that way then that's good news. For Iraq - not for any particular party.

Also I would say respect to those that did turn out to vote - we can all agree they were seriously risking their lives and that's worth something from any side of an argument and can not be dismissed.

But this election is a sham. Nothing is going to get solved here.

groverat

01-30-2005, 11:52 AM

I want Bush to go down in flames.

I want the Iraqi people to have peace and a government of their choice.

Unfortunately for my first goal, the American right-wing have a difficult time realizing that the strength and resolve of the Iraqi people to pull themselves up to great successes on their own and despite outside incompetence will merely be seen as Bush's god-guided hand ably guiding the noble savages.

Anders

01-30-2005, 11:54 AM

We have a winner.

Common Man

01-30-2005, 11:55 AM

Regardless of the outcome of this election, the pro-Bush people will call it a success and the anti-Bush people will call it a failure. There is no way around that.

I am very torn as to what the majority of Iraqi people want. My best guess is they:

1. Want security
2. Want the foreign troops out
3. Want a Gov, and an economy and jobs and the best lives that they can carve out.

I doubt that the average Iraqi wants to spend the rest of his or her life out inthe street chanting "death to the Americans" and blowing things up. I also doubt that the average Iraqi is doing that now.

segovius, if you would rather see the dying and destruction go on indefinately to prove your point, then I really don't know what else there is to say. I have little faith in Bush. I want to have faith in the will of the Iraqi people.

Common Man

01-30-2005, 12:03 PM

groverat, for your point 2 to occur, we have to accept that the Bush followers will take credit. They will say what they will say as they always have. We don't have to belive them.

This thread comes from a conversation I had with a few people last night who basically told me that they want Iraq to go into massive civil war so that "people will see how wrong Bush is". That makes no sense to me.

hardeeharhar

01-30-2005, 12:10 PM

I think a weak Iraqi state is a bad thing, hence: I didn't support the war because I thought it would produce a weak state (and for the last 2 years it has), and I support the autonomous rule of Iraqis now and support the growth of a republic there. However, because of the US's influence in this process and the distrust that exists because of that, I don't feel that this will be a catalytic event for democracy in the region.

Gon

01-30-2005, 12:15 PM

Like Anders, I don't care about Bush. He's but one man.

Like Segovius, I hope for almost anything that hinders the pro-war agenda of the US administration. Heavy coalition casualties ASAP could serve to prevent the next war. I also hope the new Iraqi government would democratically, unilaterally rip apart any oil and reconstruction deals made by the CPA, and renegotiate everything based on free market, lowest-and-highest-bid principles with no favoritism.

I think even though Iraq plunging into a nasty civil war could further show the failure of the aggression policy, it would not only hurt Iraqis who don't deserve it. Historically I don't see that the public opinion in the US is swayed by any amount of enemy or civilian casualties. As long as the gov't says it is defending "freedom" it doesn't matter how many people who are not our people have to bite dust.

segovius

01-30-2005, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Common Man
segovius, if you would rather see the dying and destruction go on indefinately to prove your point, then I really don't know what else there is to say. I have little faith in Bush. I want to have faith in the will of the Iraqi people.

Personally, I do not want to have faith in the will of the Iraqi people - I already have absolute faith in their will.

Which is why if the Shi'i list under Sistani wins and an Iran-leaning theocracy of some sort is installed then I will say yes, democracy has worked.

Not because I want this to happen but because I know for a fact that that is the majority wish.

I also very strongly believe (or suspect if you prefer) that this will never happen in a million years.

Thus my position is that we are facing a fraudulent enterprise and a massive deceit. It is not a question of 'wanting killing to continue', it is a question of wanting REAL freedom to prevail.

I just don't believe Bush ever wanted or intended freedom and I don't believe it will happen. People are talking about the first elections since Saddam - but that is not strictly true - they are the first elections ever. The British when they occupied Iraq never once countenanced elections for the same reason that these ones now will be 'weighted'. So much for democracy then - and nothing has changed.

There is no way in hell that the US are going to allow the possibility of a pro-Iranian theocracy. No way. They want to effect regime change in Iran ffs. The insurgents are the only thing that stands between Iran and the death and chaos that has been visited upon Iraq. There fighting is saving thousands of innocent lives in that sense.

If that to you is supporting death and destruction then there's very little I can say - thousands have died needlessly on all sides for the lies that this election is a symbol of, for good or ill. Thousands more will die if it succeeds and Bush takes his 'mandate' into Iran.

I won't support more death and destruction than what it takes to stop vastly more death and destruction. Call that what you will.

Common Man

01-30-2005, 12:23 PM

"Heavy coalition casualties ASAP could serve to prevent the next war. " Gon

I disagree. I think that would only fuel the fire of the American war machine. The anti-war brigage keeps insiting that "America does not have the stomach for American casualties. As soon as the body bags start coming back Americans will loose the will for war". I don't think that this is true. 911 seeded a a desire in this natiion to clean house in the middle east and that desire has not yet faded.

Gon

01-30-2005, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Common Man
"Heavy coalition casualties ASAP could serve to prevent the next war. " Gon

I disagree. I think that would only fuel the fire of the American war machine. The anti-war brigage keeps insiting that "America does not have the stomach for American casualties. As soon as the body bags start coming back Americans will loose the will for war". I don't think that this is true. 911 seeded a a desire in this natiion to clean house in the middle east and that desire has not yet faded. I think the effect will be a compound one. Fact is, casualties cost money for treatment, make it harder to hire more soldiers, make the soldiers demand more protective equipment. It can make war fiscally less tolerable, not only stop the Congress from voting pro war.

Anders

01-30-2005, 12:36 PM

Fiscal barriers have never hold Bush back from anything :p

Common Man

01-30-2005, 12:42 PM

segovius. First, I understand Bush and his agenda. I am not naive to hit.

I see the need for give and take in Iraq at this point. Will the new Gov really be independent? Probably not. There will be an American hand in it for quite some time. However, is it worth it to the Iraqi people to sacrifice some of their autonomy to move forward with their lives?

What have they gained from all of this?

1. SH is out

2. SH's sons are not waiting in the wings to take over from their dad.

3. They live on a wealth of oil, which will generate foreign investment and jobs and hopefully opportunity for Iraqi entrepreneurs.

4. They see their future as uncertain today. They saw it as certain 3 years ago.

What have they lost?

1. A lot of people
2. Some pride
3. Tremendous property damage.

If the election turnout is near what has been reported, then I think that the Iraqi people want to move forward.

Powerdoc

01-30-2005, 12:54 PM

I don't wish failure in Iraq, like Anders I was agains this war.

But I don't want a failure there, just to back up my claims. This would be childish beyond words. For the Iraqi people, and for our mother earth in general I hope the best for them.

The only sad thing, is that I am not very optimistic for the moment. I just hope it will improve.

Gon

01-30-2005, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Anders
Fiscal barriers have never hold Bush back from anything :p I made my last post in a hurry. I'll elaborate..

It's obvious there is no fiscal discipline in the US gov't right now and an absolute lack of money is not going to stop anything.

However, they can't go endlessly into debt, no matter how it appears right now. Loaners' interest in servicing the US will wane. And if the government doesn't loan the money, they will have to squeeze it out of their own subjects.
Either way, tightening taxes, interest rates, the constant visible struggle to control what the media says about the war, soldiers coming home in a coffin, soldiers coming home with their limbs and eyes missing, lack of recruits for the army, resulting manpower shortages and ever higher personnel costs, dead kids lying on the street on CNN, tortured prisoners of the US speaking out, troops quitting and getting replaced with inexperienced and vulnerable ones... all that has the compound effect I was talking about.

All that contributes to war weariness. You would see it more clearly if the opponent was anything other than a small, ragtag band of rebels, if the opponents had more popular support, and if the terrain was anything other than flat desert. If the US had tried to occupy Yugoslavia using ground forces after bombing the Serbs, things would have turned unspeakably ugly.

hardhead

01-30-2005, 01:49 PM

Common Man, this is a fair question since the majority od A.I.ers were probably against the Iraq invasion. Also, I'm glad YOU asked because it seems that since you came onboard, you've become more open minded, as far as your posts go...

Even among the "progressives" here at AI, there are differences of opinion. I've been a Conservative Republican most of my adult life and chose to become an Independent. Scott, that t-shirt of yours just lumps everyone together who was against the invasion. It's funny in the ignorance, err, limited viewpoint it represents.

g-rat basically took the overall words out of my mouth. That's more or less how I feel.

I'm glad the death toll went no higher than it did. I was expecting it to be much worse. 70% turnout seems optimistically high, but if it's true, more power to the Iraqi people. I hope SOME stability will come out of these elections.

The bottom line remains. The original reason given to us for going into Iraq to begin with appears to;
A- Have been an out and out LIE.
B- Based on tragically erroneous information.

pfflam

01-30-2005, 01:56 PM

I want the Iraqis to vote in a Government of their own choosing: ideally a strong willed pro-Iraqi Government that will NOT allow the US to build permanent (or these 'indefinite') bases in Iraq.

So, next week, if the Government in power asks the US to leave and we do, then that would be great:

Bush could wear it on his sleave for all I care . . . but I know that it would actually be a defeat for his agenda, since his real agenda is keeping forces in Iraq.

Personally what I hope for is that somehow someone will step forward and let the truth be known about the real agenda, its long-standing time table and the extent to which the lies were intentional
as well as,
that Iraq gets the vote out and that miraculously, they spontaneously decide to become a moderate inclusive and multi-cultural nation state that, supports women and uses its recources for the betterment of its citizenry . . . not multi-rnational corporations

spindler

01-30-2005, 10:22 PM

I'm anti-Bush all the way but if Iraqis wind up in a permanently good situation I'll be happy to accept that Bush got lucky even if he is incompetent.

I don't know who's nuttier, the usual people on the right or Segovius on the left. He seems incapable of viewing anything as other than a conspiracy theory. Even if Saddam is gone, Iraqis are prospering, and there is no violence in Iraq 5 years from now he will still be saying that it's bad because Iraq is now a U.S. puppet. He seems incapable of simply saying "If the U.S. gets the job done and Iraq becomes a democracy than I will admit the other side had some good ideas that worked."

Iraq made a good deal of progress today so let's put down the comspiracy theories. It appears that Iraqis may be somewhat reasonable and may actually jump at the idea of the checks and balances of democracy. They may actually realize that it's better to have laws that ensure rights to everyone rather than having to trust their local cleric.

segovius

01-31-2005, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by spindler
[BI don't know who's nuttier, the usual people on the right or Segovius on the left. He seems incapable of viewing anything as other than a conspiracy theory. Even if Saddam is gone, Iraqis are prospering, and there is no violence in Iraq 5 years from now he will still be saying that it's bad because Iraq is now a U.S. puppet. [/B]

Firstly, five years from now, ten years, ten minutes - the situation is the same, violence or no violence it boils down to this:

If Iraq is independent and not a puppet = that's good

If Iraq is a US puppet = that's bad

Why should anyone be a puppet of anyone, let alone the US ? And why do you support that ? Hardly freedom is it - being a puppet.

So that's my first objection: hypocrisy.

Secondly, I have not mentioned conspiracy theories but here are some facts:

These elections were not democratic. You may settle for a name above a reality but I won't.

These elections were not Bush's baby. He opposed the format and he opposed one-person one-vote for a long time. In fact he initially just wanted to install Chalabi without an election.

Then he came up with the notorious 'Bremer plan' for government based on regional councils and when this raised the prospect of civil war and Sistani stepped in they backed down.

Sistani issued a fatwa and started agitating for free elections and Bush opposed this through the means of Bremer who was an incompetent. Eventually with thousands of Iraqis protesting on the streets demanding elections in line with a UN resolution Bush had to agree.

That is the truth my friend.

You don't hear that so you don't know that. And there is much else you don't hear and don't know - perhaps don't even want to know.

So it's probably best not to sit there and tell us that everything in the garden is rosy because the same people as did all that say so - after they 'said so' a hundred times before with toppling statues, WMD, Mission Accomplished or whatever.

You may not ever want to wise up but I would really rather you didn't try to call me out on it because I do if you don't mind.

tonton

01-31-2005, 05:13 AM

I would like to see every citizen of Iraq happy, rich, and their homes filled with flowers and playful children.

If that happens, I'll give George his due respect.

But if more Iraqis end up being killed or living in poverty under the new arrangment than were being killed or living in poverty under Saddam Hussein, then I'll demand accountability.

So far, it doesn't look good for George. I truly hope things start changing, though I doubt they will. And of course, I don't wish for failure. I don't need to be able to say "I told you so" to feel good about myself.

Now, George has already been wrong about or failed in regard to so many things. Where's the accountability for the WMD lie? Where's the accountability for the number of civilian Iraqi deaths? Where's the accountability for the dead American soldiers? Where's the accountability for the rampant spending? Where's the accountability for the diplomatic failure of America in the eyes of the world?

Even if the elections are a success, and Iraq develops into a model for the Muslim world, there still needs to be accountability for the horrendous failures of this administration.

So I don't hope for George's failure. I have witnessed it and I recognize it. And I hope it stops.

segovius

01-31-2005, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by tonton
I would like to see every citizen of Iraq happy, rich, and their homes filled with flowers and playful children.

If that happens, I'll give George his due respect.

But if more Iraqis end up being killed or living in poverty under the new arrangment than were being killed or living in poverty under Saddam Hussein, then I'll demand accountability.

So far, it doesn't look good for George. I truly hope things start changing, though I doubt they will. And of course, I don't wish for failure. I don't need to be able to say "I told you so" to feel good about myself.

Now, George has already been wrong about or failed in regard to so many things. Where's the accountability for the WMD lie? Where's the accountability for the number of civilian Iraqi deaths? Where's the accountability for the dead American soldiers? Where's the accountability for the rampant spending? Where's the accountability for the diplomatic failure of America in the eyes of the world?

Even if the elections are a success, and Iraq develops into a model for the Muslim world, there still needs to be accountability for the horrendous failures of this administration.

So I don't hope for George's failure. I have witnessed it and I recognize it. And I hope it stops.

Well said.

spindler

01-31-2005, 07:15 AM

segovius wrote:

"If Iraq is independent and not a puppet = that's good
If Iraq is a US puppet = that's bad
Why should anyone be a puppet of anyone, let alone the US ? And why do you support that ? Hardly freedom is it - being a puppet.
So that's my first objection: hypocrisy."

Again, I think you have lost sight of reality. It's far, far better to be a puppet of the U.S. than to be under Saddam. Singapore is not a perfect country, in that it is a police state but yet average person there makes $25000 a year. Who's doing better Singapore or Iraq?

So let's say Iraq was a "puppet" of the U.S. and we had our hands in everything they do. Wouldn't no violence in Iraq be a great thing? Wouldn't it be great if the newspapers, large or small could freely speak their mind? Wouldn't it be great if foreign companies were providing all kinds of jobs to Iraqis even the Iraqis aren't getting their fair share of the profits? Wouldn't it be great if an Iraq could set up his own business without being shaken down by the local authorities? Bush wants to abuse democracy but the abuses are tiny compared to living under a dictatorship.

I don't like when big U.S. corporations get to abuse their power. But that is in no way comparable to living under a dictator. If you believe that the minor imperfections to democracy that George Bush wants for Americans are comparable to living under a dictatorship, you have slipped into a hypothetical fantasy world.

Anders

01-31-2005, 07:40 AM

Thats not a fair way of describing the situation. Saddam is gone, thats a fact. So where it goes from here should not be compared to Iraq under Saddam, but how it could have gone otherwise from this point on.

groverat

01-31-2005, 07:48 AM

So let's say Iraq was a "puppet" of the U.S. and we had our hands in everything they do. Wouldn't no violence in Iraq be a great thing? Wouldn't it be great if the newspapers, large or small could freely speak their mind? Wouldn't it be great if foreign companies were providing all kinds of jobs to Iraqis even the Iraqis aren't getting their fair share of the profits? Wouldn't it be great if an Iraq could set up his own business without being shaken down by the local authorities? Bush wants to abuse democracy but the abuses are tiny compared to living under a dictatorship.

You are essentially approving of wholesale corruption that has cost, at this point, tens of thousands of lives. That is absolutely sickening.

Past that, it is rare that the puppet states of empires are free of violence and oppression, rare bordering on non-existant.

segovius

01-31-2005, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by spindler
Again, I think you have lost sight of reality. It's far, far better to be a puppet of the U.S. than to be under Saddam. Singapore is not a perfect country, in that it is a police state but yet average person there makes $25000 a year. Who's doing better Singapore or Iraq?

How is it better ? I am not saying it is or it isn't - I want to know why you think it is....hold, on....you just told me: money.

Ok, for you that would be better. For me - I wouldn't judge by that. Nor I suspect would the majority of Iraqis.

I know you cannot conceive of money not being the be all and end all of everything so we'll leave that one there.

So let's say Iraq was a "puppet" of the U.S. and we had our hands in everything they do. Wouldn't no violence in Iraq be a great thing? Wouldn't it be great if the newspapers, large or small could freely speak their mind? Wouldn't it be great if foreign companies were providing all kinds of jobs to Iraqis even the Iraqis aren't getting their fair share of the profits? Wouldn't it be great if an Iraq could set up his own business without being shaken down by the local authorities? Bush wants to abuse democracy but the abuses are tiny compared to living under a dictatorship.

If you think that there will be no violence in Iraq after this election you are in cloud cuckoo land.

Regardless of whether these elections were fair (and I say they weren't), regardless of who gets in there will be more violence.

This election has no bearing on it - it is even possible that there was little violence at the polls because the election is insignificant to the 'terrorists'. There campaign will continue regardless - it never was to stop 'democracy', that is just another Bush lie.

One more point: who says democracy is the only answer ? I am more interested in Iraq being a stable country with no internal strife and posing no threat to others. Democracy is not the only way to achieve this and in terms of the Islamic paradigm and the region in general there are significant doubts as to whether it could ever work. We shall see.

Bush wants to abuse democracy but the abuses are tiny compared to living under a dictatorship.

It's the same:

Abu Ghraib: same prison as Saddam, same shit.

Alawi: Ba'athist Thug

Arrests: As in Saddam era - arrests without charge.

Corruption: $9 Billion missing from Iraq oil revenue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4216853.stm)

Free Press: non existent. Sadr newspaper is banned as are many others that are critical of the occupation to varying degrees. One man was arrested this week for one such publication which has been shut down.

Torture and summary execution: rife - Alawi himself may be implicated in the unlawful killings - ie murder.

To me, whenever a winger wheels out the 'better than under Saddam' slogan I always feel the acid test is a simple one: whether you are alive.

How many Iraqis now dead would have been alive under Saddam ? How many now being tortured would not be being tortured under Saddam ?

There will be some overlap but I'd like to see the figures.

Unfortunately, just like under Saddam, we never will and will have to make do with some lies instead.

I don't like when big U.S. corporations get to abuse their power. But that is in no way comparable to living under a dictator. If you believe that the minor imperfections to democracy that George Bush wants for Americans are comparable to living under a dictatorship, you have slipped into a hypothetical fantasy world.

I'll stick to my hypothetical fantasy world rather than join you in your actual one I think.

Common Man

01-31-2005, 01:16 PM

Segovius said:

These elections were not Bush's baby. He opposed the format and he opposed one-person one-vote for a long time. In fact he initially just wanted to install Chalabi without an election.

Then he came up with the notorious 'Bremer plan' for government based on regional councils and when this raised the prospect of civil war and Sistani stepped in they backed down.

Sistani issued a fatwa and started agitating for free elections and Bush opposed this through the means of Bremer who was an incompetent. Eventually with thousands of Iraqis protesting on the streets demanding elections in line with a UN resolution Bush had to agree.

So the Iraqis are getting their way? Bush did not shove his will down their throats? Many of the decisions to be made will be negotiated decisions between the US, the Iraqis and probably others (UN, Arab nations). This is how things get done in the political process. Disagreements and arguing are the tools used to perfect a plan.

segovius

01-31-2005, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Common Man
So the Iraqis are getting their way? Bush did not shove his will down their throats? Many of the decisions to be made will be negotiated decisions between the US, the Iraqis and probably others (UN, Arab nations). This is how things get done in the political process. Disagreements and arguing are the tools used to perfect a plan.

I agree that Bush did not shove these elections down people's throats - it is the hijacking of 'democracy' as a meme i mostly object to and Blair is a far more sickening proponent of this than Bush. In fact, I have little against Bush myself as I have stated many times. It's the people behind him that are the problem. So really, this is not about Bush - I posted that response to some overzealous fanboy cheerleading.

The issue I have with the election is that it is a sham. One would expect Sistani's list to triumph although we will not know that for a while. I would support this personally and if I had a vote I would vote for the Shi'i but there are two big 'buts':

1) I have this idea that Alawi will somehow 'win'. If this happens I will be very suspicious about the legitimacy of these elections but we need to wait on this one before comment. We'll see when we start getting results.

2) If Alawi does not win then Sistani will. Now I would support Sistani but not at any cost. If he wins without the Sunnis voting then this to me is not true democracy.

As I believe either of these two circumstances will occur then I can't join in the euphoria.

However, if it turns out the Sunnis did vote, there were no irregularities (long shot -we are hearing of many) and all was as 'fair and just' as can be expected under the circumstances then I'll agree it is the will of the people and none of us can really start slagging that off.

We're quite a way from that position though now imo. We need more details in the coming weeks though.

Jubelum

01-31-2005, 01:45 PM

Liberal Democrats have a vested interest in failure in Iraq. Good news for Iraq and Bush is bad news to Democrats. When American troops die, LibDems see opportunity and votes.

But, these are the "loyal" opposition. right.

Horse... shit.

:no:

Jubelum

01-31-2005, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by tonton
I would like to see every citizen of Iraq happy, rich, and their homes filled with flowers and playful children.

If that happens, I'll give George his due respect.

We don't even have that mini-topia here in the states. Or anywhere in the world. Give me a break. Set the bar so high that no (republican) person can meet them in your estimation, then claim failure. Typical. So typical.

Your "goal" is a cop-out. If GWB personally cured AIDS and cancer and ended world hunger, you would still trash the man. That's it.

"It is not the critic that counts..."

:rolleyes:

hardeeharhar

01-31-2005, 01:51 PM

segovius

01-31-2005, 01:56 PM

Jubelum

01-31-2005, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Could you try a little to step out of your Amero-centric reductionist sensory deprivation tank whilst expressing opinions in this thread please ?

The issue is Iraq not the US and there are many posters here who aren't in America, will not be in America and couldn't give a flying *** about US political infighting. In fact I'm one of them.

Try to address the issue from a global perspective - we might get somewhere.

Sorry there, Professor Sego. Please don't hurt my GPA. 8)

From the global perspective, let me be clear. There are people across the world that hate GWB as well, and seeing our nation get slammed in Iraq makes them happy. What carries in the "US political infighting" carries across the world. That is the nature of two-sided conflicts, friend.

Lotsa people hate the US. And seeing the US fail, at anything, is good news for them. There are a lot of people who profit in many ways from US failure.

segovius

01-31-2005, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Jubelum
Sorry there, Professor Sego. Please don't hurt my GPA. 8)

From the global perspective, let me be clear. There are people across the world that hate GWB as well, and seeing our nation get slammed in Iraq makes them happy. What carries in the "US political infighting" carries across the world. That is the nature of two-sided conflicts, friend.

Lotsa people hate the US. And seeing the US fail, at anything, is good news for them. There are a lot of people who profit in many ways from US failure.

Well, that's true - but lots of people outside the US don't recognise the Rep/Dem demarcation as being a left/right one.

From a European view the Dems are far more right-wing than most European political parties so it really is a moot point.

Look - the easiest solution is for you guys to disband the Dems and get some hardcore Commies in there instead - then malcontents like me will be happy and what the wingers who constantly demonise the 'left' will become accurate overnight, thus making them honest by default.

Everyone's a winner :D

Yevgeny

01-31-2005, 03:29 PM

Well, I would say that there are a good deal of Democrats (+ more left leaning Americans) out there who want Iraq to fail so that Bush goes down. Not to mention Europe.

This is sad for several reasons.

First of all, because it really doesn't do justice to the Iraqi people who as we saw, want democracy. You can hate Bush and still want Iraq to go well for the Iraqi people, but some people hate Bush so much that they would sell 25 million foreigners out just to be right. I have nothing but contempt for people who are in this category. People in this category say garbage like "gosh it is strange to impose democracy", as if somehow democracy is only legitimate if the people overthrew Saddam themselves. Democracy can create inherent legitimacy in a populace through a vote like the one we just had. People who would deny freedom to Iraqis are contemptable bastards who have freedom and yet would deny it to others under a pretense of moral superiority. Why not read what iraqis say about the election? (http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/). http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/
http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/siteimages/emotional2.jpg
http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/siteimages/emotional.jpg

The other sad reason is a purely political reason, mainly that the Democratic party is currently trying to commit suicide by continuously opposing Iraq. Over here we get to see pictures of veiled women crying because they are filled with joy at being able to vote. Old men crying at the chance to vote sells well over here. These images are incredibly powerful in a nation where we think that people should have a right to vote. I think that the Dems are going to oppose the war, and then find that in two years that things are actually going rather well at which point they will loose further credibility with voters. I do not want a single party to rule Washington, even if it is my own party.

Yevgeny

01-31-2005, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Look - the easiest solution is for you guys to disband the Dems and get some hardcore Commies in there instead - then malcontents like me will be happy and what the wingers who constantly demonise the 'left' will become accurate overnight, thus making them honest by default.

Everyone's a winner :D

Howard Dean is working on this by attempting to become chair of the DNC. Ok, that's just a joke, he was a moderate democrat up until his presidential bid where he cast himself as a good anti war leftist.

You do realize that if we had the Republicans and a properly leftist party that 90% of Americans would be republicans, right?

segovius

01-31-2005, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Yevgeny
You do realize that if we had the Republicans and a properly leftist party that 90% of Americans would be republicans, right?

Yeah, I had kind of suspected that :D

tonton

01-31-2005, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Jubelum
We don't even have that mini-topia here in the states. Or anywhere in the world. Give me a break. Set the bar so high that no (republican) person can meet them in your estimation, then claim failure. Typical. So typical.

Your "goal" is a cop-out. If GWB personally cured AIDS and cancer and ended world hunger, you would still trash the man. That's it.

"It is not the critic that counts..."

:rolleyes:

You're wrong. If GWB personally cured AIDS and cancer and ended world hunger, I'd praise him for curing AIDS and cancer and ending world hunger. Then I'd trash him for holding prisoners without charge in Gitmo Bay, for lying to invade another country to promote his personal ideals, for restricting the rights of Gays, women and non-Christians, for marking up unprecedented debt that my daughter and her children will have to pay back some day...

One success does not a good president make. And even so, we haven't yet seen a single success from this presidency. Sure if Iraq is successful it will be a huge one. But it won't be a blanket excuse for all of Bushco's other failures.

timmy o'tool

01-31-2005, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Jubelum
Liberal Democrats have a vested interest in failure in Iraq. Good news for Iraq and Bush is bad news to Democrats. When American troops die, LibDems see opportunity and votes.

But, these are the "loyal" opposition. right.

Horse... shit.

:no:
You’re a good little American aren't you? If you don't agree with the war or more specifically the excuses I mean reasons to go to war, well then you just want to see American soldiers die. Is that right? This kind of thinking pisses me off to no end. You can suggest that liberal are taking advantage of the loss of life in Iraq, but that is just more "horse shit" redneck redirect. The truth is no one wants to see the end of the senseless violence than me, but I guess that sort of thinking is beyond you. I mean, why would I oppose a war from the beginning if I was only going to use the casualties to gain political power. Now if all turns out for the best, great. I for one would hope the Iraqis could find a way to turn lemons into lemonade. And in my opinion the only one here who has treated the American soldiers like they are disposable good ole' W.