Iraqi Election seems to have been a success.

[NaplesX]

It looks Like 70% + have turned out overall and some areas reach 80-95%.

A toast to all those brave people.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
A toast to all those brave people.

Best not.

They're quite strict on alcohol I hear.

[a_greer]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It looks Like 70% + have turned out overall and some areas reach 80-95%.

A toast to all those brave people. And American libs said that that part of the world couldnt handle freedom...what was USA voter turnout again?

[Anders]

Well they don´t have to drink.

Cheers NaplesX. This doesn´t negate all the bad things and there is a long way still. But today the Iraqi people showed courage :)

[Anders]

Originally posted by a_greer
And American libs said that that part of the world couldnt handle freedom...what was USA voter turnout again?

Hmm. Who said that? Did more liberals say that than rightnuts?

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Anders
Well they don´t have to drink.

Cheers NaplesX. This doesn´t negate all the bad things and there is a long way still. But today the Iraqi people showed courage :)

Yes I heard an interview of Iraqi people. Even if they heared bomb exploding around, they decided to risk their life and vote. There is hope in Iraqi people.

[rageous]

Looks more like 60%. Nothing to scoff at, but 10% is a large difference.

Does this mean MANDATE?

[midwinter]

This is very good news...high voter turnout + limited violence. Now they've got to do this 2 more times, I believe. Let's hope the result is the same.

[segovius]

Originally posted by midwinter
This is very good news...high voter turnout + limited violence. Now they've got to do this 2 more times, I believe. Let's hope the result is the same.

Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) is reporting about 30% from a CNN report. Don't know if it's current.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by rageous
Does this mean MANDATE?

Over 100 spots were being elected to the national assembly. Mandate for whom?

[segovius]

Christopher Allbritton (http://www.back-to-iraq.com/) has been blogging the election and makes some interesting observations.

Right now, as I type, I am listening to a nauseous and hypocritical crock of bull from one T Blair. If I had any doubts that this election was a sham they have been effectively dispersed.

After a rank and obscene show of sanctimonious hypocrisy that quickly glossed over the British loss of life today in the downed Hercules, we were subjected to slogans and cliches of winds of freedom' and 'breezes of democracy'.

It's the Saddam statue all over again folks. We need to face that - I wish it were all true but it isn't - and feverishly believing and wanting won't make it so, no matter how sincere and how good the cause.

There's real work to do and pretending it's been done won't cut it I'm afraid.

[Towel]

Originally posted by midwinter
+ limited violence Someone's propaganda must be working if we can characterize 8 suicide bombings and "nine other types of attacks", to quote CNN, which resulted in at least 25 dead and 70 more wounded, as "limited violence". And this with the entire country under effective martial law, with no private vehicles (for example) allowed on any streets. I can only imagine what the response would be if the state of California went through similar events on election day.

Still, sounds like most Iraqis braved the bombs and bullets. Good for them. Their bravery is the story of the day, and was a necessary Step #1 in restoring their country to them. They held up their end of the bargain, and soon it'll be time for us to hold up ours.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Towel
Someone's propaganda must be working if we can characterize 8 suicide bombings and "nine other types of attacks", to quote CNN, which resulted in at least 25 dead and 70 more wounded, as "limited violence". And this with the entire country under effective martial law, with no private vehicles (for example) allowed on any streets. I can only imagine what the response would be if the state of California went through similar events on election day.

I was expecting very large explosions. Hundreds dead. Chaos. 30 dead on a day like this? I call that limited.

As for CA: the next time CA gets invaded and liberated and forced to go through elections when there's a large and well-armed insurgency present, we'll know.

Still, sounds like most Iraqis braved the bombs and bullets. Good for them. Their bravery is the story of the day, and was a necessary Step #1 in restoring their country to them. They held up their end of the bargain, and soon it'll be time for us to hold up ours. [/B]

Yup. I'm sure we'll just move next door to "protect the emerging Iraqi democracy from the threat from Iran."

[atomic_angel]

The closest thing that I have seen to actual numbers are like this:

"Over" 14.2 millions registered to vote.
"Roughly" 8 million voted.

By my math this is about 56% (or as Fox News puts it 60%).

Still pretty good numbers given the circumstances.

My favorite statement comes from a CNN article:

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."

72% is a "very rough" estimate? Sounds like a very precise statement to me. Not like saying..."Well we think it will be between 70 and 80 percent."

I am more concerned about the next steps. What level of representation will Kurds and Sunnis have. If the Shiites are in control of creating the new constitution, what will this mean for the Kurds and (especially) the Sunnis?

To quote a great line from a favorite movie..."this is all very far from over".

I still cannot get over why they didn't choose to create a bicameral structure for the national assembly in this first go around. Create an "upper" house with equal representation (say 20 each) for the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis. Also FORCE proportional representation in the "lower" house (60/20/20) at least for this first election.

Oh well...what do I know about nation building. Clearly our revered leaders know better.

:\

[e1618978]

It looks like the Sunnis didn't get very good turnout (which will help the Shia party), but to counterbalance that there was a very large female turnout (which will hurt the Shia party, as women have the most to lose in a Theocracy).

I wonder how it will turn out?

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by e1618978
It looks like the Sunnis didn't get very good turnout (which will help the Shia party), but to counterbalance that there was a very large female turnout (which will hurt the Shia party, as women have the most to lose in a Theocracy).

I wonder how it will turn out?

well if I was being pessimistic, I would think that given a month or so, Iraq will be in full scale civil war.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by MarcUK
well if I was being pessimistic, I would think that given a month or so, Iraq will be in full scale civil war.

I'm optimistic. I'll give it 6 months before full scale civil war breaks out.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
I'm optimistic. I'll give it 6 months before full scale civil war breaks out.

It won't happen, and I will tell you why.

The ones to start the war would be Sunni, because they are the ones losing the most power. I think if civil war breaks out, the US will divide the country into three parts - Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. There are no oil wells in the Sunni areas, so they will not start a war and risk being the poor brother of three.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
It won't happen, and I will tell you why.

The ones to start the war would be Sunni, because they are the ones losing the most power. I think if civil war breaks out, the US will divide the country into three parts - Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. There are no oil wells in the Sunni areas, so they will not start a war and risk being the poor brother of three.

Here is the thing e1618978, the US has no say in what the country does from now on, now does it? Choose your answer wisely...

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
I'm optimistic. I'll give it 6 months before full scale civil war breaks out. That coming from the same line of thought that said the Iraqis would cower in fear in the face of the terrorist threats. The same line of thinking that said that the election would never even happen.

I, for one, hope you are wrong.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
That coming from the same line of thought that said the Iraqis would cower in fear in the face of the terrorist threats. The same line of thinking that said that the election would never even happen.

I, for one, hope you are wrong.

No one ever said that the election wasn't going to happen.

Edit: Nor for that matter Iraqis cower in fear of terrorist...

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Here is the thing e1618978, the US has no say in what the country does from now on, now does it? Choose your answer wisely...

If things get that out of control, I think that we would be justified in re-intervening. It is just like one of your daughters getting married - if it goes bad she will end up back at your house for a while.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
If things get that out of control, I think that we would be justified in re-intervening.

:lol: Magnificent !

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
If things get that out of control, I think that we would be justified in re-intervening. It is just like one of your daughters getting married - if it goes bad she will end up back at your house for a while.

This doesn't show much faith in the Iraqi's ability to make decisions for themselves. It also displays the imperialistic idea that the "mother nation" is a parent figure. Either we went in to, um, bring about a fully autonomous democratic process or we went in to set up a dominion like colony.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by segovius
:lol: Magnificent !

You have to admit that I am right - there is no way that the Sunnis would fail to cooperate with the other iraqs and risk divorce and poverty.

I think that they should have divided up the country in the beginning.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by e1618978
It won't happen, and I will tell you why.

The ones to start the war would be Sunni, because they are the ones losing the most power. I think if civil war breaks out, the US will divide the country into three parts - Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. There are no oil wells in the Sunni areas, so they will not start a war and risk being the poor brother of three.

I think your analysis is incorrect. I think the Shiites will declare war on the Sunnis. The Sunnis won't be the one's making the choice. Revenge and retribution are (sometimes) far more powerful forces (so it seems) in the human condition than grace and forgiveness.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
This doesn't show much faith in the Iraqi's ability to make decisions for themselves. It also displays the imperialistic idea that the "mother nation" is a parent figure. Either we went in to, um, bring about a fully autonomous democratic process or we went in to set up a dominion like colony.

I'm not the one predicting civil war - you just described the attitudes of the other side - "those savages will fall into barbarism when we leave".

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I, for one, hope you are wrong.

I hope that I am too. I just don't believe that I am.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
I think your analysis is incorrect. I think the Shiites will declare war on the Sunnis. The Sunnis won't be the one's making the choice. Revenge and retribution are (sometimes) far more powerful forces (so it seems) in the human condition than grace and forgiveness.

How do you know this? I doubt that it will happen. The head priest of the Shiites seems like a pretty reasonable fellow, and well respected as well.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
You have to admit that I am right - there is no way that the Sunnis would fail to cooperate with the other iraqs and risk divorce and poverty.

I think that they should have divided up the country in the beginning.

You fail to recognize that the boarders established by Great Britain don't recognize cultural regions. Iraqi sunnis would probably prefer to be with Arabian sunnis anyway... This isn't an island nation going into civil war, if you will...

[pfflam]

Originally posted by e1618978
If things get that out of control, I think that we would be justified in re-intervening. It is just like one of your daughters getting married - if it goes bad she will end up back at your house for a while. I think that you can count on it . . . in fact . . . I believe that when this occurs it will not look so bad for Bush since, post-election, we seem to have 'given it our all' and yet when we "re-intervene" we will just then be satisfying the requirments for the success of Bush's agenda:

In other words: when our 'good-will' efforts to 'democratize' STALL (note, they will always be coming up, just around the corner) then we will have reason to make the walls around the AMerican bases permanent . . . our presence will seem to be necessary even though it will always appear to be just contingent upon events . . .

I hope I'm wrong and that these elections get a Government in that can whip up a security force worth its name and get some stability happening so much so that Americans can leave pronto . . . but somehow I don't think that that is the real plan

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
I'm not the one predicting civil war - you just described the attitudes of the other side - "those savages will fall into barbarism when we leave".

No, I know that when Britain's colonial influences on the region ended, they intentionally drew international boarders to increase the chances of civil strife.

I also know history. Under Saddam, Iraq had the longest period of peace in its history.

[MarcUK]

gee, I sure miss Chris Cuilla round here ;)

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by e1618978
I think that they should have divided up the country in the beginning.

Problem with this is the risk of expanding the war. Now Turkey will want part of the action. They don't want and independent Kurdish state (which is what this proposal would do). Now we have:

1. Three separate (formerly Iraqi) "states"...one of which (the Sunnis) were responsible for oppressing one of the others (the Shiites).

2. We have one (the Sunnis) that (no longer) have access to the oil wealth (as you've pointed out. So what will they do? Start a war (probably with the Shiites) to get some oil.

3. We have Turkey declaring war against the new Kurdish state.

4. We have Iran joining the party (on behalf of the Iraqi Shiites...who they essentially control...or, at least support, already.)

It will be fun.

[NaplesX]

All I can say, thank whatever deity you wish that Libs are wrong so often.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
All I can say, thank whatever deity you wish that Libs are wrong so often.

:no:

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
All I can say, thank whatever deity you wish that Libs are wrong so often.

Indeed! Forward, wingnuts, to the 18th century!

[e1618978]

Originally posted by NaplesX
All I can say, thank whatever deity you wish that Libs are wrong so often.

Exactly. BTW, weren't we supposed to be dead by now? I remember some liberal in the 1970s saying that we would all be dead before the end of the century. The end of the world is neigh!

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
Exactly. BTW, weren't we supposed to be dead by now? I remember some liberal in the 1970s saying that we would all be dead before the end of the century. The end of the world is neigh!

OMG. Yeah, and there was this conservative who was arguing that the second coming would occur in 1990...

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Under Saddam, Iraq had the longest period of peace in its history.

I suppose we might need to use a looser definition of "peace" for this to be true.

;)

[SpcMs]

Originally posted by NaplesX
All I can say, thank whatever deity you wish that Libs are wrong so often.

HA! This statement couldn't possibly relate to anything going on in Iraq, right? :lol:

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
I suppose we might need to use a looser definition of "peace" for this to be true.

;)

I am not completely sure of that. Totalitarian states that aren't actively fighting rebels or other nations but do suppress political dissidents are still at peace.

Take Cuba for instance.

[e1618978]

Problem with this is the risk of expanding the war. Now Turkey will want part of the action.

3. We have Turkey declaring war against the new Kurdish state.
[/B]

I doubt it. They would have a civil war on their hands as their own ethnic Kurds took the side of Kurdistan. Also, there is no way they would get into the European Union if they did this, there would be too big a stigma of genocide. The US would drop their relations with Turkey and airlift arms to the Kurds.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
I doubt it. They would have a civil war on their hands as their own ethnic Kurds took the side of Kurdistan. Also, there is no way they would get into the European Union if they did this, there would be too big a stigma of genocide. The US would drop their relations with Turkey and airlift arms to the Kurds.

It isn't the US that is supplying the Kurds with arms... its Israel.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
It isn't the US that is supplying the Kurds with arms... its Israel.

The US gives $3 billion a year to Isreal. Anything they give away, is really from the US.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
The US gives $3 billion a year to Isreal. Anything they give away, is really from the US.

Riiiight... So the US runs Israel. Too bad Sharon doesn't know this otherwise Bush's roadmap would have been successful.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by e1618978
I doubt it. They would have a civil war on their hands as their own ethnic Kurds took the side of Kurdistan. Also, there is no way they would get into the European Union if they did this, there would be too big a stigma of genocide. The US would drop their relations with Turkey and airlift arms to the Kurds. um . . . the Turkish Kurds have been at war with Turkey for ever!!! . . . there is only a peace, beccause the Turks have their giant boot firmly on the necks of the Kurds while they grind their faces in teh ground!! . . . wake up and read the past buddy.

[SpcMs]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Riiiight... So the US runs Israel. Too bad Sharon doesn't know this otherwise Bush's roadmap would have been successful.
Or maybe Sharon does know this and Bush never really cared about the road map. It is certainly refreshing to see some connie admit this.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by SpcMs
Or maybe Sharon does know this and Bush never really cared about the road map. It is certainly refreshing to see some connie admit this.

Wait... The road map included the democratization of Iraq. So is this all, like, a, um, farce???!??!?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by pfflam
um . . . the Turkish Kurds have been at war with Turkey for ever!!! . . . there is only a peace, beccause the Turks have their giant boot firmly on the necks of the Kurds while they grind their faces in teh ground!! . . . wake up and read the past buddy.

If Turkey went to war with Kurdistan, resource limitations would lift the boot.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
If Turkey went to war with Kurdistan, resource limitations would lift the boot.

Um... what?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Um... what?

The previous poster implied that Turkey is opressing the Turkish Kurds to the point where rebellion would be impossible. Opression of this magnitude takes resources (time, money, weapons).

In wartime, Turkey would not be able to opress its minority Kurds as completely, due to diversion of those resources to the war effort. This would allow the Turkish Kurds to rebell and help Kurdistan in the war.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by e1618978
I doubt it. They would have a civil war on their hands as their own ethnic Kurds took the side of Kurdistan. Also, there is no way they would get into the European Union if they did this, there would be too big a stigma of genocide. The US would drop their relations with Turkey and airlift arms to the Kurds.

Fair enough. The break down is different...but the results (expansion of the war) isn't (much) different.

Point is...carving Iraq into three pieces would be an even bigger mess than exists now.

What we need to hope and pray for now is that whoever was elected today will craft a constitution that will honor the minority factions in the country...not destroy or opress them. If they can do that, there is a fair chance of some true, structural progress in Iraq. But we have a long way to go before this all happens.

P.S. If all of that does happen...George Bush could end up looking like a genius. Afterall, it is possible that he will have (almost) single-handedly divided the middle east, unseated a tyrannical dictator, planted a seed of freedom in the middle east, reduced our need for Saudi oil, and fired a warning shot over the bow of every other nation in the middle east. But that is getting way ahead of where we are now.

[spindler]

Here's a thought. Perhaps the possibility of democracy will make Iraqi citizens more interested in putting power into the hands of elected officials rather than the local lunatics running the mosque. Perhaps they will be less likely to fight if they have a better plan then just trusting the local guy.

Why did the British and the Americans give up their slaves in the 1800s? Is it because somehow humanity suddenly "progressed" and we realized that owning another human being was wrong? No, the population needed democracy to say it freely in an organized way. I'm sure a lot of people always thought slavery was wrong throughout the ages.

So perhaps democracy will make Iraqis more reasonable. Instead of doing something radical like joining up at the church to fight, it's much easier to leave it to the guy far away saying reasonable things. Now their is another choice other than fighting with the tribe and a lot of Iraqis will likely take it.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by e1618978
The previous poster implied that Turkey is opressing the Turkish Kurds to the point where rebellion would be impossible. Opression of this magnitude takes resources (time, money, weapons).

In wartime, Turkey would not be able to opress its minority Kurds as completely, due to diversion of those resources to the war effort. This would allow the Turkish Kurds to rebell and help Kurdistan in the war. YMBFKM (something about 'kidding me')

Turkey's oppression of teh kurds is like the modern AMerican Army being used to keep the Virgin Islands in line (not that that is happening) the discrepency of power is huge: Turkey would have a cake walk with its huge mechanized military vs some Kalishnakovs and beaten up old trucks!!

Don't you know this or are you playing some kinda game . . . the Turkish Kurds have basically been relegated to using IRA style tactics and then being subject to serious retribution and, yes, oppression . . . and Turkey is chomping at the bit: they are looking for a reason to get in there and occupy the north of Iraq . . . and put an 'end' to their own little rebel problems.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by spindler
Here's a thought. Perhaps the possibility of democracy will make Iraqi citizens more interested in putting power into the hands of elected officials rather than the local lunatics running the mosque. Perhaps they will be less likely to fight if they have a better plan then just trusting the local guy.

Why did the British and the Americans give up their slaves in the 1800s? Is it because somehow humanity suddenly "progressed" and we realized that owning another human being was wrong? No, the population needed democracy to say it freely in an organized way. I'm sure a lot of people always thought slavery was wrong throughout the ages.

So perhaps democracy will make Iraqis more reasonable. Instead of doing something radical like joining up at the church to fight, it's much easier to leave it to the guy far away saying reasonable things. Now their is another choice other than fighting with the tribe and a lot of Iraqis will likely take it.

There is a long history in this region of precisely the opposite of what you would like to see happen. Perhaps the cultural artifacts of the region can be forgotten and put aside to create something new, but it isn't like this is the first time this region has been given the chance to form a republic of its own...

[e1618978]

[Turkey's oppression of teh kurds is like the modern AMerican Army being used to keep the Virgin Islands in line (not that that is happening) the discrepency of power is huge: Turkey would have a cake walk with its huge mechanized military vs some Kalishnakovs and beaten up old trucks!!

There are about 10 million Kurds in Turkey (which has a population of 60 million) and 4 million Kurds in Northern Iraq.

The US Virgin Islands have a population of 108,000.

Not quite the same thing, but I admit that Turkey would win an all out war. Would they be willing to? I doubt it since they want to get into the EU, and winning the war would cost them dearly.

[rageous]

Originally posted by midwinter
Over 100 spots were being elected to the national assembly. Mandate for whom?

i think you missed the joke.

[Scott]

Congratulations to the Iraqis.

[e1618978]

One more thing - if Turkey was so hot on invading Kurdistan, why have they not done it yet? Kurdistan has been acting as its own country for a few years now.

BTW -

Barzani: We Do Not Care about Turkey's Comments

Speaking to journalists Massoud Barzani said " Kirkuk is a Kurdish province with a Kurdish identity. Neither Turkey nor another country has no right to make any comment about Kirkuk or any other Iraqi province. We do not care about their comments. We are not bound by those words. These things do not work by threats. An independent Kurdish state will be formed, but I do not know the exact time. The preference of the Kirkuk public will be shown after the polls. A referendum will be conducted to show the public demand."


www.kurdistanobserver.com

[e1618978]

Further investigation reveals that there are 20 million Kurds, because both Syria and Iran have significan Kurdish populations.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
Exactly. BTW, weren't we supposed to be dead by now? I remember some liberal in the 1970s saying that we would all be dead before the end of the century. The end of the world is neigh!

Nigh. The end of the world is nigh.

And Islam doesn't have priests.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by segovius
Nigh. The end of the world is nigh.

And Islam doesn't have priests.

Right. Just radical clerics (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/)™, right?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
OMG. Yeah, and there was this conservative who was arguing that the second coming would occur in 1990... Then there were these libs that said oil prices would drop just in time for GWB to take credit for it.

Then there were these libs that said the Iraqi people were not ready for freedom to vote.

Then there were the libs that said the ME would be in turmoil because of Iraq...

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Then there were these libs that said oil prices would drop just in time for GWB to take credit for it.

Then there were these libs that said the Iraqi people were not ready for freedom to vote.

Then there were the libs that said the ME would be in turmoil because of Iraq...

Then there were these neo-cons who said Iraq had WMD.

Then there were these neo-cons who said that our invading army would be greeted with flowers.

Then there were these neo-cons who tip-toed right up to the line saying that Iraq was going to get WMD and shoot them into the social security computers and cause a crisis and so we had to invade.

Then there were these neo-cons who said that Iraq would pay for itself.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
Then there were these neo-cons who said Iraq had WMD.

Then there were these neo-cons who said that our invading army would be greeted with flowers.

Then there were these neo-cons who tip-toed right up to the line saying that Iraq was going to get WMD and shoot them into the social security computers and cause a crisis and so we had to invade.

Then there were these neo-cons who said that Iraq would pay for itself. So everyone can be wrong. Glad we covered that.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So everyone can be wrong. Glad we covered that.

Yes, but some people are apparently less accountable when they're wrong than others.

[addabox]

Some people's "being wrong" get a whole bunch of other people killed and maimed.

Some people's "being wrong" costs the United States hundreds of billions of dollars and a massive erosion of its international standing.

Some people's "being wrong" means a systematic distortion of the whole idea of "intelligence" and the wanton destruction of what might be termed "consensual reality", with predictably polarizing results.

And some people's being wrong means extremely tedious, ignorant and pointlessly contentious bullshit about how "libs" thought the election would never happen and "arabs" don't have the ability to self govern.

If you have a plausible world view, why must it rely on made up shit?

[Scott]

Compared the last Iraqi election this level of turn out makes this election an illegitimate failure.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
Compared the last Iraqi election this level of turn out makes this election an illegitimate failure.

I AM SO SMART! I AM SO SMART! S-M-R-T! I MEAN, S-M-A-R-T!

[e1618978]

This is starting to degenerate, can both camps please bump back up to a higher level of conversation?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
This is starting to degenerate, can both camps please bump back up to a higher level of conversation?

I know you are but what am I?

Who died and made you Groverat?

;)
--

So...what's the next step? Has anyone seen any timeline for the seating of this general assembly? How long are they planning to take to put a constitution in place? And then how long before the next round of elections?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
I know you are but what am I?

Who died and made you Groverat?

;)
--

So...what's the next step? Has anyone seen any timeline for the seating of this general assembly? How long are they planning to take to put a constitution in place? And then how long before the next round of elections?

I have a cold, and this is my only entertainment. Hence my frequent posting lately.

I am a bit worried about the last post on www.kurdistanobserver.com - it looks like 100,000 Kurds are getting cheated out of their votes or something.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by midwinter
Has anyone seen any timeline for the seating of this general assembly?

Unknown. ASAP?

Originally posted by midwinter
How long are they planning to take to put a constitution in place?

August 15, 2005

Originally posted by midwinter
And then how long before the next round of elections?

October 15, 2005 (for the constitution)

December 15, 2005 (for the next election...of what I don't know)

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by midwinter
Indeed! Forward, wingnuts, to the 18th century!

Indeed. There's a lot of post-Constitutional Convention 'stuff' to undo.

Nothing like a challenge....

(Ha, ha: "Wingnuts")

Seriously, a Great Day. Rock-On, Iraq!

Aries 1B

[Scott]

Originally posted by e1618978
This is starting to degenerate, can both camps please bump back up to a higher level of conversation?

Congratulations to the second democracy in the Middle East, Israel and Iraq. Who's next?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Scott
Congratulations to the second democracy in the Middle East, Israel and Iraq. Who's next?

Syria?

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by Scott
Congratulations to the second democracy in the Middle East, Israel and Iraq. Who's next?

Things aren't done yet. Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves and start...well, you know, saying "Mission Accomplished" just yet.

;)

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by e1618978
Syria?

Jordan seems like a more likely bet. But again...we have a few years to go in Iraq yet.

[Scott]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
Things aren't done yet. Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves and start...well, you know, saying "Mission Accomplished" just yet.

;)

True but I'm a glass half full kind of guy.

[Sceptic]

Election was a success relative to the low expectations I had for it.

The fact that it went ahead at all is remarkable given the security situation.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Scott
True but I'm a glass half full kind of guy.

Yeah, but full of what?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So everyone can be wrong. Glad we covered that.

All I can say, thank whatever deity you wish that (neo)Cons are wrong so often.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Scott
True but I'm a glass half full kind of guy.

Optimism doesn't really make for a quality scientific life -- must be hard...

[midwinter]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
All I can say, thank whatever deity you wish that (neo)Cons are wrong so often.

Actually, considering that the neoconservatives and other I *heart* Leo Strauss folks are in power, that's rather unfortunate.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
I have a cold, and this is my only entertainment. Hence my frequent posting lately.

Get well soon.

I am a bit worried about the last post on www.kurdistanobserver.com - it looks like 100,000 Kurds are getting cheated out of their votes or something.

Prepare to get more worried.

Or make sure you only watch mainstream TV and don't go to actual sources for your news in the coming weeks.

[segovius]

^^^^ looks like the first of those reports trickling in...

Assyrian Christians claimed prevented from voting (http://www.kpho.com/global/story.asp?s=2877020&ClientType=Printable)

So that's irregularities with the Kurds and now the Christians.....they are keeping the Sunni boycott quiet but it is quite possible to get a 50 - 70 % turnout with such a boycott in place.

Looks like you're right and there really is American democracy in Iraq after all......

oh....wait....that's the problem.....

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
Yes, but some people are apparently less accountable when they're wrong than others. You mean like Kennedy and KKK Byrd?

Is that the level of accountability we are talking about?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Ah, the immortal Cicero's famous rhetorical device 'I Know I Am But What Are You' in all its pomp.

Keep it up, Naples.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Ah, the immortal Cicero's famous rhetorical device 'I Know I Am But What Are You' in all its pomp.

Keep it up, Naples. Hey the leaders of the left are open to just as much scrutiny and question as the president is.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

So let's talk about some of the two most outspoken people who like to bring up "accountability", shall we?

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So let's talk about some of the two most outspoken people who like to bring up "accountability", shall we?

No, let's stay on topic.

This from Raed Jarrar: (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/)

The "Iraqi government" is announcing confusing and wrong numbers to the public. Instead of announcing the ratio of Voters to the Eligible Voters, the numbers announced are the ratio of the Voters to the Registered Voters!!!!

For example, the number of Iraqis that registered their names in Jordan are less than 20% of the eligible voters living in Jordan, so when 90% of the registered voters go to vote, it means that less than 18% of the total number voted... 90% is not the real number that should be announced to people.......

.........The registered voters in Tikrit governorate for example are a couple of thousands out of hundreds of thousands of residents, if one thousand people went to vote today, it doesn't mean at all that the turnout is more than 50%.

More spin. More lies. More uncritical fanboy support.

Unfortunately this all adds up to more mayhem and chaos for the Iraqi people while the architects of the disaster sit tight in luxury and greedily count their gains from the disorder whilst planning even more destruction.

[groverat]

Dear PO residents,

From this post on, anything that does not deal directly with Iraqi elections will be deleted.

And maybe some stuff above this if I feel peckish.

Love,
me

p.s. - Keep it real.

p.p.s. - *hugs*

[dmz]

I guess I was mistaken on WHICH finger gets dipped in the ink!

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/134/1492/1024/alyawarinkymiddlefinger.jpg

Sergovious, does this have a special cultural significance? Or could this have some "hidden message" for the rest of the ME?

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
I guess I was mistaken on WHICH finger gets dipped in the ink!

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/134/1492/1024/alyawarinkymiddlefinger.jpg

Sergovious, does this have a special cultural significance? Or could this have some "hidden message" for the rest of the ME?

good one :lol:

[midwinter]

Perspective? I should admit that my inclination is to see this election as a major milestone and a remarkable achievement.


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.


source (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/31/2335/87390)

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
Perspective? I should admit that my inclination is to see this election as a major milestone and a remarkable achievement.

source (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/31/2335/87390)

The situation is not the same - the North Vietnamese still were holding on to their territory.

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
Perspective? I should admit that my inclination is to see this election as a major milestone and a remarkable achievement.



source (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/31/2335/87390)

That's a remarkable find.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
All I can say, thank whatever deity you wish that Libs are wrong so often.


Like most things Nappy you've got that backwards.:no:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You mean like Kennedy and KKK Byrd?

Is that the level of accountability we are talking about?


No. More like Reagan and the Contras where he just couldn't remember, or Nixon where what he did was " justified and he'd do it again ", or Bush where there were those WOMD in Iraq and Saddam was such a big threat.;)

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
The situation is not the same - the North Vietnamese still were holding on to their territory.

So are the Sunnis...

[timmy o'tool]

Originally posted by e1618978
Exactly. BTW, weren't we supposed to be dead by now? I remember some liberal in the 1970s saying that we would all be dead before the end of the century. The end of the world is neigh!
Do you really think it is wise to make jokes about the left making dooms day prophesies?

[Placebo]

I'm unabashedly happy for this, and I'm not going to deny it because of my political standpoint. This is really good. And yet, it doesn't validate Bush's presidency, because Kerry would have done the same thing. Ah well.

[timmy o'tool]

First, congratulations to the people of Iraq, it took courage.

The news of the elections has been very sparse here in the states. It kind off makes me nervous. I work at a newspaper and there was way less news about it than I thought there would be. I think 4 generic stories came over the a.p all day. I was expecting several hunred. Maybe there is something they don't want us to know about.

Media Blackout?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Placebo
I'm unabashedly happy for this, and I'm not going to deny it because of my political standpoint. This is really good. And yet, it doesn't validate Bush's presidency, because Kerry would have done the same thing. Ah well. No Kerry would have pulled troops out. Your memory must be slipping.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8980
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/05/20/kerry_could_back_antiabortion_judge/
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/20/1084917705394.html?oneclick=true

"If elected, Kerry said, he will see that virtually all US combat troops will be out of Iraq, away from what he called "the death zone," by the end of his first term."

Nice try.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by timmy o'tool
First, congratulations to the people of Iraq, it took courage.

The news of the elections has been very sparse here in the states. It kind off makes me nervous. I work at a newspaper and there was way less news about it than I thought there would be. I think 4 generic stories came over the a.p all day. I was expecting several hunred. Maybe there is something they don't want us to know about.

Media Blackout? By who?

Fox was 10 min updates on it for 24 hours.

I flipped through all the rest and saw nothing... nada.

Self imposed, media blackout maybe.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
No Kerry would have pulled troops out. Your memory must be slipping.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8980
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/05/20/kerry_could_back_antiabortion_judge/
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/20/1084917705394.html?oneclick=true

"If elected, Kerry said, he will see that virtually all US combat troops will be out of Iraq, away from what he called "the death zone," by the end of his first term."

Nice try.

by the end of his first term. That's four years. Are you saying that Bush plans on keeping them there forever?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
by the end of his first term. That's four years. Are you saying that Bush plans on keeping them there forever? His plan ranged from 6 MONTHS!... to 4 years.

Meaning he didn't have a plan, and would have went any way the political wind blows.

Duh.

Bush has been pretty steadfast - However long it takes to make Iraq free and secure.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
His plan ranged from 6 MONTHS!... to 4 years.

That is a plan.

Bush has been pretty steadfast - However long it takes to make Iraq free and secure.

That is not a plan.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by midwinter
That is a plan.



That is not a plan.

Oh. That. Was. Priceless.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
That is a plan.



That is not a plan. if you say so.

Hey, do you "progressives" ever answer questions or comments directed at you, or do you always leave it to your buddies to do it for you?

I can handle that you don't, I just wonder if I am the only one that notices it.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
if you say so.

Hey, do you "progressives" ever answer questions or comments directed at you, or do you always leave it to your buddies to do it for you?

I can handle that you don't, I just wonder if I am the only one that notices it.

And now the subject gets changed.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
if you say so.

Hey, do you "progressives" ever answer questions or comments directed at you, or do you always leave it to your buddies to do it for you?

I can handle that you don't, I just wonder if I am the only one that notices it.

There are just more of us here -- when we ask you to answer a question, it takes a good long while until another conservative comes along who is able to answer it, and it is more likely that you will try than say when you ask a liberal a question here and midwinter shows up or tonton or ... well you get the idea.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
There are just more of us here -- when we ask you to answer a question, it takes a good long while until another conservative comes along who is able to answer it, and it is more likely that you will try than say when you ask a liberal a question here and midwinter shows up or tonton or ... well you get the idea. So your answer is 'NO'?

[giant]

Originally posted by groverat
Dear PO residents,

From this post on, anything that does not deal directly with Iraqi elections will be deleted.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So your answer is 'NO'?

No. I am fairly certain that if poster XXX feels like his point has been addressed by another poster, then you won't get a direct response. If he doesn't he will probably respond.

I was just trying to offer an alternate explanation of the trend you see.

You have to understand that I am a scientist and this is what I do for a living, you know, find all explanations that fit the available data and only settle on the one that fits the data best (if you settle at all)...

Try it some time, its fun(TM).

[midwinter]

I don't even know what the question is.

But I do want to know when we're pulling troops out, now that the Iraqi elections mean that the sweet, sweet bootheels of freedom have marched over them.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
And now the subject gets changed. Here, answer this question, if you can...

How long do you plan on helping your mom/dad/wife/son/freinds?

Fill in the one that applies to you. Please layout your exit strategy. And give us a timeframe that you plan on getting out. How much help is too much?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Here, answer this question, if you can...

How long do you plan on helping your mom/dad/wife/son/freinds?

Fill in the one that applies to you. Please layout your exit strategy. And give us a timeframe that you plan on getting out. How much help is too much?

Actually the most appropriate question is:

How long do you plan on helping the old man you nearly beat to death with a broom handle and continue to pound every time he speaks out?

[e1618978]

[Assyrian Christians claimed prevented from voting (http://www.kpho.com/global/story.asp?s=2877020&ClientType=Printable) /B]

I think that both of our stories are the same situation. The ballot boxes did not arrive, and the Kurds blamed the election authority, and the Assyrians blamed the Kurds.

It must have been solved, because otherwise there would have been a big rant on the kurdistanobserver website.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually the most appropriate question is:

How long do you plan on helping the old man you nearly beat to death with a broom handle and continue to pound every time he speaks out? OK so hardeeharhar can't/won't answer the question. Next. Anyone?

Anyone?

Beuller...

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Here, answer this question, if you can...

How long do you plan on helping your mom/dad/wife/son/freinds?

Fill in the one that applies to you. Please layout your exit strategy. And give us a timeframe that you plan on getting out. How much help is too much?

I'd rather those question sbe asked, and that answers, REAL ANSWERS, be provided by our current president.

Nevertheless, see Giant's post a few above this.

We now have a timeline for the construction of a new Iraqi government, which is very exciting. Honestly. The question, obviously, is whether or not a limited occupation force will be retained in the country once freedom is done marching on them. Will the ME be able to handle an American military presence in Iraq? They freaked out over a small force in SA.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
I'd rather those question sbe asked, and that answers, REAL ANSWERS, be provided by our current president.

Nevertheless, see Giant's post a few above this.

We now have a timeline for the construction of a new Iraqi government, which is very exciting. Honestly. The question, obviously, is whether or not a limited occupation force will be retained in the country once freedom is done marching on them. Will the ME be able to handle an American military presence in Iraq? They freaked out over a small force in SA. The timeline has been known for a while. Why do act like it is just now being revealed?

Maybe your own doubts are gone. Some of us had faith in people.

You guys are funny how you rewrite events as other events happen.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
I'd rather those question sbe asked, and that answers, REAL ANSWERS, be provided by our current president.

Nevertheless, see Giant's post a few above this.

We now have a timeline for the construction of a new Iraqi government, which is very exciting. Honestly. The question, obviously, is whether or not a limited occupation force will be retained in the country once freedom is done marching on them. Will the ME be able to handle an American military presence in Iraq? They freaked out over a small force in SA. Oh yeah. So you won't answer the question?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
The timeline has been known for a while. Why do act like it is just now being revealed?

Maybe your own doubts are gone. Some of us had faith in people.

You guys are funny how you rewrite events as other events happen.

The timeline wasn't known for a while -- unless you consider a month a while.... There were still calls by the UN and locals to call off these elections about a month ago...

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh yeah. So you won't answer the question?

Dude. Read Groverat's post. Then read Giant's post repeating the salient bits of Groverat's post. Then ask yourself what my playing into your analogy "trap" has to do with anything.

Make it about the Iraq elections.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The timeline wasn't known for a while -- unless you consider a month a while.... There were still calls by the UN and locals to call off these elections about a month ago... It is about the Iraq elections. You 'progs' love to play dumb when it suits you. Boy does it.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It is about the Iraq elections. You 'progs' love to play dumb when it suits you. Boy does it.

The timeline wasn't set until about a month ago. You 'cons' are just dumb.

[NaplesX]

I will save you progressives from losing too many brain cells, since this is not a question that requires massive doobage to come up with an enlightened answer:

1. Kerry made multiple plans and never committed to one.

2. Bush made one commitment regardless of how many plans were made.

It's called commitment. Of course, your leaders are asking when we can "get out" of it.

The election is one step in fulfilling that commitment.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It is about the Iraq elections. You 'progs' love to play dumb when it suits you. Boy does it.

Jesus. OK. I'll play your little game:

I will help my family and loved ones until it hurts. Sometimes, I'll bring along a gun and make them let me help them. My parents? I'll keep helping them until it literally begins to cost me my own health, until, like my grandmother, I have to be dragged kicking and screaming away from my own parents, who have caused me 3 heart attacks and a stroke due to the stress they caused. And then, eventually, my own health at stake, I'll put them in a nursing home or in some kind of care facility, just like everyone else in America.

I'll feel bad about it, too.

So. You wanna flesh out that analogy of yours?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The timeline wasn't set until about a month ago. You 'cons' are just dumb. Not according to major players in the interim government.

[timmy o'tool]

Originally posted by NaplesX
By who?

Fox was 10 min updates on it for 24 hours.

I flipped through all the rest and saw nothing... nada.

Self imposed, media blackout maybe.

and Fox news is know for "Fair and Balanced" reporting:lol:

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Not according to major players in the interim government.

Ok. So if I have a group of 1000 major seismologist who are asked to randomly pick out a date in the next three years for the next major earthquake to occur at least one of them is bound to get it right. So according to you, we will have known for a while when the next quake is going to occur.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The timeline wasn't set until about a month ago. You 'cons' are just dumb. Scientist huh?

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2005/Jan/05-434629.html

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Scientist huh?

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2005/Jan/05-434629.html

You don't really pay attention to the news do you?

Edit: Here, since I am nice I found a link to an article dated Jan 4, 2005:Linky (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6784606/)

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by timmy o'tool
and Fox news is know for "Fair and Balanced" reporting:lol: Apparently not is Boston :lol:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No. I am fairly certain that if poster XXX feels like his point has been addressed by another poster, then you won't get a direct response. If he doesn't he will probably respond.

I was just trying to offer an alternate explanation of the trend you see.

You have to understand that I am a scientist and this is what I do for a living, you know, find all explanations that fit the available data and only settle on the one that fits the data best (if you settle at all)...

Try it some time, its fun(TM). I am certain that you are right. I personally try to answer questions directed at me.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You don't really pay attention to the news do you?

Edit: Here, since I am nice I found a link to an article dated Jan 4, 2005:Linky (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6784606/) linkies, I like linkies...

http://quickstart.clari.net/voa/art/ee/2004-10-28-voa58.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html

Paul Bremer said today:

Essentially "That this is a result of a carefully planed set of events." In a news interview.

You are correct to imply that plans were fluid, but the plans were there. And this date has been the same for a year now and hasn't changed.

Let's get real. Please.

EDIT: And as far as post Election plans, I saw an outline on Fox and CNN at least 6 months ago, I mean it was during the campaigns, before the conventions, at least.

[midwinter]

naples: I think you're misreading my post. I wasn't pretending that the timeline had just emerged. I was suggesting that now that the first steps have been taken (without the feared delays), we're locked in to the timeline (probably a good thing).

But what about the questions I asked? How long will we be there? What will the ramifications of our continued presence there be after a democratic gov't has been empowered? What shape will our presence there take? Cold war Germany? Post-war Japan?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
naples: I think you're misreading my post. I wasn't pretending that the timeline had just emerged. I was suggesting that now that the first steps have been taken (without the feared delays), we're locked in to the timeline (probably a good thing).

But what about the questions I asked? How long will we be there? What will the ramifications of our continued presence there be after a democratic gov't has been empowered? What shape will our presence there take? Cold war Germany? Post-war Japan? Truly no-one knows. But I will predict a swift capture of Zarqawi and his thugs along with the rounding up of the SH holdouts, that they now believe, SH trained prior to the war for this exact situation. This election has shown the Iraqi people that they have the power to stand up to the terrorists. The Iraqi security forces' morale is/will be through the roof, and is a major victory. I can guarantee that their respect level among the people has gone through the roof. Evey kid of honorable people there wants to be a cop, after Sunday. If not that they want to be just like the American soldiers.

Why do I say this? I think many an Iraqi kid saw their parents dance and celebrate and the obvious relief in their parents face. That is what I call winning over a whole generation in one day.

I think we will only be there in forces over 5 figures (I'm saying 30,000 or less) for 2 years.

Role models are important and sunday millions showed their happy faces. Terrorists can't compete with that. They can't.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Truly no-one knows. But I will predict a swift capture of Zarqawi and his thugs along with the rounding up of the SH holdouts, that they now believe, SH trained prior to the war for this exact situation. This election has shown the Iraqi people that they have the power to stand up to the terrorists. The Iraqi security forces' morale is/will be through the roof, and is a major victory. I can guarantee that their respect level among the people has gone through the roof. Evey kid of honorable people there wants to be a cop, after Sunday. If not that they want to be just like the American soldiers.

Why do I say this? I think many an Iraqi kid saw their parents dance and celebrate and the obvious relief in their parents face. That is what I call winning over a whole generation in one day.

I think we will only be there in forces over 5 figures (I'm saying 30,000 or less) for 2 years.

Role models are important and sunday millions showed their happy faces. Terrorists can't compete with that. They can't.

Ok. Good. We've finally got some cards on the table and back in the ballpark of being OT.

Let's lay out some more predictions then we'll know who to tell to stfu as events unfold during the next few weeks.

Here's mine - will be interested to hear others:

Zarqawi will not be captured. Ever. In fact 'Zarqawi' will step up his campaign with further outrages.

The insurgency will continue - it will move into another area (not because of the elections or any related issue - it is already happening and it is because of accessibility to new and different weapons). That area is: the downing of US/UK aircraft and the establishment of effective 'no-fly' zones in certain areas of the country.

The insurgents utilise far more planning and have access to far more weapons than the US can conceive of. NaplesX is right about one thing - they planned for this before the invasion and the plan is proceeding according to plan. They treat this as a war - they are not just a bunch of random shopkeepers (well, some are).

Reports will start to emerge in greater detail about the voting irregularities: the refusal of food rations for non-votes for example, the disappearing ballot boxes, the suppression of the Kurdish and Sunni vote.

Alawi will retain a hold on power.

He will do this by means of a power-sharing deal with Sistani. This benefits everyone (well nearly): the US takes the credit and the elections are proved 'democratic' and 'inclusive', Shi'i's finally gain power and remain neutralised (remember, they have not been fighting the US except for Sadr and they are the majority), Alawi is still on the throne, the Kurds will be thrown some sort of sop.

Sunnis, however will become more pissed off. If the Shi'i move against them (as is very likely, though not immediately) then that will be war. I don't see that as a factor straight away though and other events are in the pipeline which will make it moot.

Things will chug along till April/May and 'everything in the garden will be rosy'. Insurgents will still be ongoing but played down or, perhaps more likely, lost in the din of the winger crowing, news suppression and propaganda - btw: this suppression has already moved up a gear: no news in the US about the shot down British Hercules and the deaths of the UK soldiers and very possibly, US soldiers on board. That's the pattern.

The month of May will see the British general election which Blair will win, partly on the strength of Iraq.

June or July will see the invasion of Iran - no ground troops this time: just massive arial bombardment which will prove (of proof is needed) that the plan really is a Crusade as Bush admitted and is yet another mistake.

A more costly one.

Impossible to project past this point except to predict that whatever happens the wingers will support and justify it with the usual vacuous and inane platitudes whilst people die in droves.

[tonton]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I will save you progressives from losing too many brain cells, since this is not a question that requires massive doobage to come up with an enlightened answer:

1. Kerry made multiple plans and never committed to one.

2. Bush made one commitment regardless of how many plans were made.

It's called commitment. Of course, your leaders are asking when we can "get out" of it.

The election is one step in fulfilling that commitment.

When you stubbornly commit to a bad plan, it's called stupidity.

[Harald]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Evey kid of honorable people there wants to be a cop, after Sunday. If not that they want to be just like the American soldiers

...

That is what I call winning over a whole generation in one day.

You are absolutely INSANE. Clinically, I think.

Those kids you talk about, every single one of them, have seen examples of US troops mistreating ordinary Iraqis. Smashing down the door of their brother-in-law, imprisoning their uncle, torturing the dad of their friend.

And now they all want to be US troops?

Does the word 'Falluja' mean anything to you?

They. Hate. Us. You've gone to work in the Kool Aid FACTORY hombre.

And now we won them over in one day because they had their first democratic election?

Yeh, that's right Naples. And they'll greet us with flowers in the streets, and we'll find the WMD, and the population will kick out the Saddam remnants.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
Ok. Good. We've finally got some cards on the table and back in the ballpark of being OT.

Let's lay out some more predictions then we'll know who to tell to stfu as events unfold during the next few weeks.

Here's mine - will be interested to hear others:

Zarqawi will not be captured. Ever. In fact 'Zarqawi' will step up his campaign with further outrages.

The insurgency will continue - it will move into another area (not because of the elections or any related issue - it is already happening and it is because of accessibility to new and different weapons). That area is: the downing of US/UK aircraft and the establishment of effective 'no-fly' zones in certain areas of the country.

The insurgents utilise far more planning and have access to far more weapons than the US can conceive of. NaplesX is right about one thing - they planned for this before the invasion and the plan is proceeding according to plan. They treat this as a war - they are not just a bunch of random shopkeepers (well, some are).

Reports will start to emerge in greater detail about the voting irregularities: the refusal of food rations for non-votes for example, the disappearing ballot boxes, the suppression of the Kurdish and Sunni vote.

Alawi will retain a hold on power.

He will do this by means of a power-sharing deal with Sistani. This benefits everyone (well nearly): the US takes the credit and the elections are proved 'democratic' and 'inclusive', Shi'i's finally gain power and remain neutralised (remember, they have not been fighting the US except for Sadr and they are the majority), Alawi is still on the throne, the Kurds will be thrown some sort of sop.

Sunnis, however will become more pissed off. If the Shi'i move against them (as is very likely, though not immediately) then that will be war. I don't see that as a factor straight away though and other events are in the pipeline which will make it moot.

Things will chug along till April/May and 'everything in the garden will be rosy'. Insurgents will still be ongoing but played down or, perhaps more likely, lost in the din of the winger crowing, news suppression and propaganda - btw: this suppression has already moved up a gear: no news in the US about the shot down British Hercules and the deaths of the UK soldiers and very possibly, US soldiers on board. That's the pattern.

The month of May will see the British general election which Blair will win, partly on the strength of Iraq.

June or July will see the invasion of Iran - no ground troops this time: just massive arial bombardment which will prove (of proof is needed) that the plan really is a Crusade as Bush admitted and is yet another mistake.

A more costly one.

Impossible to project past this point except to predict that whatever happens the wingers will support and justify it with the usual vacuous and inane platitudes whilst people die in droves. Well there you go. Progressive's bleak future in a nutshell.

Seg, I really think you need learn some words like hope and faith and possibility. Instead of doom, gloom and despair. But hey that seems to be the democratic motto, these days.

The difference in our predictions show our completely different outlook on life and the world.

It kind of illustrates the divide that exists on this matter.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Well there you go. Progressive's bleak future in a nutshell.

Seg, I really think you need learn some words like hope and faith and possibility. Instead of doom, gloom and despair. But hey that seems to be the democratic motto, these days.

The difference in our predictions show our completely different outlook on life and the world.

It kind of illustrates the divide that exists on this matter.

Ok, what if some of these come to pass ? Will you change your 'optimistic' outlook or will you dissimulate ?

What if the US invades Iran for example ? I know you would support it but that's not the kind of optimism the world needs imo.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
Ok, what if some of these come to pass ? Will you change your 'optimistic' outlook or will you dissimulate ?

What if the US invades Iran for example ? I know you would support it but that's not the kind of optimism the world needs imo. You love to read into things. I would LOVE to see all muslim countries to embrace Israel and it's space in the ME. I would LOVE for the world to focus on helping one another.

Iran is a totally different creature and invasion is not on the table right now. I think you will see an all out diplomatic effort with Iran, which I agree with.

As far as if my positive outlook will change, sure when the US stops trying to help, because it seems that would spell sure failure for the Iraqi people. Until that happens I will be optimistic.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You love to read into things. I would LOVE to see all muslim countries to embrace Israel and it's space in the ME. I would LOVE for the world to focus on helping one another.

Iran is a totally different creature and invasion is not on the table right now. I think you will see an all out diplomatic effort with Iran, which I agree with.

As far as if my positive outlook will change, sure when the US stops trying to help, because it seems that would spell sure failure for the Iraqi people. Until that happens I will be optimistic.

And there's the problem - what you see as 'help', others see as something more sinister.

[groverat]

Straighten this thread up immediately or it will be closed very very soon.