Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
I'll second that!sabro said:
(I would say "I'll drink to that!", but it's early still.)
The Iraqi Elections
- Thread starter Brooker
- Start date
(I would say "I'll drink to that!", but it's early still.)
Brooker
Anjin
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
- Ethnic group
- Mainly: Italian, German, Scottish, Irish
I think the Iraqi people deserve a lot of credit. But what I want to know is, are the changes that are taking place truly going to lead the Iraqi people to a better future and (speaking broadly here) is it America's prerogative to dictate what's best for other countries?
Bear in mind, Iraq is made up of several groups who hate eachother and have been itching for the chance to exterminate eachother for centuries. If chaos and civil war breaks out (either before or after U.S. troops leave) you couldn't really say that their lives have improved much.
All we can do is speculate. I guess only time will tell how this turns out.
And I'd like to say that I didn't intend for this to be an anti-Bush thread. I just don't think we should be congratulating ourselves too much just yet about what's going on in Iraq. The election is a baby step, and for all we know, a baby step right off the edge of a cliff. And I think anyone should feel a little awkward when a country (any country!) is overthrowing governments at will and reinstating their own form of government. Let's try to put our partisan beliefs aside for a second and look at the facts. This is a frighteningly unstable situation no matter how you look at it. But, once again, we'll just have to wait and see.
Bear in mind, Iraq is made up of several groups who hate eachother and have been itching for the chance to exterminate eachother for centuries. If chaos and civil war breaks out (either before or after U.S. troops leave) you couldn't really say that their lives have improved much.
All we can do is speculate. I guess only time will tell how this turns out.
And I'd like to say that I didn't intend for this to be an anti-Bush thread. I just don't think we should be congratulating ourselves too much just yet about what's going on in Iraq. The election is a baby step, and for all we know, a baby step right off the edge of a cliff. And I think anyone should feel a little awkward when a country (any country!) is overthrowing governments at will and reinstating their own form of government. Let's try to put our partisan beliefs aside for a second and look at the facts. This is a frighteningly unstable situation no matter how you look at it. But, once again, we'll just have to wait and see.
Censport said:
My bad. Though I've noticed that in none of his posts here does Shooter452 mention carpet bombing as a solution.
Censport said:
This doesn't seem likely. Its quite a digression from the subject at hand, but the neo-liberal economic reforms the occupation authority hoisted on Iraq without the consultation of the Iraqis themselves prior to the handover have proven themselves to be completely incompatable with the development of a middle class in every country they have been practiced in throughout the developing world. Democracy in and of itself does not guaruntee the development of a middle class if the elected leadership is incapable of managing the economy.
Censport said:
Well its obviuosly quite difficult to form a reliable tally given that the people who should have been in charge of doing so (ie the US occupation authority and the handpicked interim government following the handover) have refused/been unable to do so.
100,000 sounds like an understatement if anything given that the US death toll stands at about 1450 with an additional 10,000 wounded, almost all of them inflicted in urban combat. That would be about 10 Iraqi dead for every American killed or wounded which sounds quite low to me, given the experiences of past armies in counter-insurgency wars. The might of American weaponry means that for every soldier hit they are probably inflicting several times as many casualties on the enemy who do not have body armor, tanks and trained medical personell to treat them. Neither do the civilians who get caught in the crossfire, whose deaths largely go unreported.
There are also large numbers of deaths from non combat related caused directly attributable to the war. Infant mortality rates and malnutrition - for which reliable statistics are available - are both up since the war began. The murder rate in Baghdad alone is 25 times what it was before the war. The list goes on.
Whatever faults there may be in the Lancet study, by any reasonable estimate the number of people killed in this war is undoubtedly higher than 100,000.
Censport said:
So...you feel comfortable labelling me a pampered, enlightened armchair quarterback just because I question the war? Thats a shot below the belt.
Censport said:
This is EXACTLY what I thought was going to happen which is EXACTLY why I've been opposed to this bloody war from day one.
Censport said:
I'm sure they did take measures to minimize civilian casualties, but this is a war being fought mostly in populated areas and the number of civilian casualties is very high despite those best efforts.
Censport said:
What exactly has invading Fallujah done to stop the insurgency? The US has lost over 300 soldiers killed since they invaded Fallujah, making this the deadliest three month period of the war. Only about 1/3 of those casualties were inflicted in Fallujah itself, the insurgency seems to be carrying on as always elsewhere.
Censport said:
As are all politicians including the president.
Censport said:
I've just read the transcript of that speech and nowhere in it does he say the elections are illegitimate.
Censport said:
No, they voted to give the PRESIDENT the authority to launch the war. It was still President Bush who gave the order, not Kerry and Kennedy who were just going along with his plan.
Censport said:See? Now you're being progressive.Just kidding! Don't shoot! :relief:
All right, lets call a cease fire. White flag! :wave:
mad pierrot
I jump to conclusions
Well, I?fm finally getting around to posting part 2....
Here it goes....
I?fm going to make lots of parallels between Afghanistan and Iraq here. I?fm well aware of the discrepancies between the two, but for our purposes it will be good enough for general discussion. Secondly, I?fm going to use a lot of personal experiences, so there won?ft be excessive links to all the liberal, overly progressive media outlets I?fll be accused of using. Lastly, I was waiting for some information before writing this post, and I still haven?ft gotten it yet, but I?fll fill you in on the details as I get them.
On to the elections?c
I?fm glad they happened. I could sit here and nit-pick all day, but instead of being negative I?fll just say they were a step in the right direction, and I?fm happy for everyone.
Now, getting back to my last post on this subject, I said I had two points. On the first point: I think it?fs obvious that there is a disparity between Censport and few with most of the people here on that particular issue. (At least according to the polls.) That?fs fine. I happen to believe that?fs there is overwhelming evidence supporting the side of the issue I?fm defending. BUT, I will defend your right to tell me otherwise.
On to my second point: Things we are doing or have done wrong in Iraq. (Disclaimer: These view do not represent the views of Jref or anything else. It?fs my personal opinion. Feel free to scrutinize me as needed.)
Again, I?fm going use examples from Afghanistan to illustrate where our policies have failed, as many of them will in Iraq if we don?ft change our approach.
My main beef is the lack of collaboration with the right people. Prime example in Afghanistan: All the corrupt warlords involved in the Karzai Administration. Time after time, the United States has support and armed tribal militia only to have them come back and bite them in the ass. We need to stop doing this. So far, this won?ft be much of a problem in Iraq, I think. But we still have to deal with the other side of this. We need to start supporting the right people. This has been a problem in Afghanistan and Iraq. Take for example, Mr. X. (I?fll fill you in on his name later, this is a real person.) Mr. X lived in Kabul under the Taliban. Mr. X ran a school that taught with forbidden books, teaching about democracy, America, and free trade. Whenever the Taliban came knocking on his door, he maintained that his school was teaching the Koran. So, he kept on teaching in Kabul despite the constant threat of death if discovered by the Taliban. Today, he is no longer safe in Kabul. He lives in a psuedo-military style encampment about 50 miles from the city. When American forces arrived, Mr. X had hoped to be a part of the political process but was instead ostracized from it. Americans simply refused to work with him. Now that the Karzai government is in place, and multiple warlords are involved in the government (would love to see him killed) Kabul is no longer safe now that?fs he?fs gone public. Similar treatment towards people like Mr. X has taken place in Iraq. (I'm looking for the specific article right now.) Worse yet, some of those people who could have potential aided the U.S. have been jailed or killed. It?fs generally not a good way to gain popular support by jailing well known democrats and installing corrupt puppets in fledgling governments.
I happen to known someone who has been in Afghanistan before and after the regime change. I?fve also been in email contact with a young Afghan student there right now. Here?fs what I?fve learned from them: Most people there blame America for the Taliban. (Much like many Iraqis blame America for Saddam.) They are well aware of the fact that the U.S. armed and supported the Taliban during the conflict with the Soviets. To my understanding, their view of the Karzai regime is cynical at best. To them, it?fs just another corrupt American backed government, except this one can?ft even control the country outside of the capital. Now, the countryside is raging with conflicts from warlords that we armed to fight the Taliban. It?fs the same old story. Beyond that, their standard of living is worse today. For lack of a better way to make money, people are growing opium again, producing more than ever before. Most of the people of Iraq share this dim view of the US?fs presence and suffer from the same lack of basic necessities. Couple worse living conditions with a government you have no reason to trust, backed by another government you definitely don?ft trust, and what do you get? Former uninvolved civilians now taking pots shots at US troops to vent their frustrations.
In conclusion I?fll try and sum things up as best I can. (I didn?ft plan on writing this much!) The situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been deteriorating. People are attacking US troops more, not less. Elections did help, but it?fs not going to stop a crappy infrastructure and general mistrust of the US from growing. Something needs to be changed in the way we?fre dealing with ?gthe situation.?h
As I?fve said in all my posts, I could be wrong. Seeing how negative my outlook is on current events, I sincerely hope I am.
------------------------------------
edit*
What the hell. Here's a link about those casualty figures.
HERE.
Christ, I could use a beer now, too.
:relief:
Here it goes....
I?fm going to make lots of parallels between Afghanistan and Iraq here. I?fm well aware of the discrepancies between the two, but for our purposes it will be good enough for general discussion. Secondly, I?fm going to use a lot of personal experiences, so there won?ft be excessive links to all the liberal, overly progressive media outlets I?fll be accused of using.
Lastly, I was waiting for some information before writing this post, and I still haven?ft gotten it yet, but I?fll fill you in on the details as I get them.On to the elections?c
I?fm glad they happened. I could sit here and nit-pick all day, but instead of being negative I?fll just say they were a step in the right direction, and I?fm happy for everyone.
Now, getting back to my last post on this subject, I said I had two points. On the first point: I think it?fs obvious that there is a disparity between Censport and few with most of the people here on that particular issue. (At least according to the polls.) That?fs fine. I happen to believe that?fs there is overwhelming evidence supporting the side of the issue I?fm defending. BUT, I will defend your right to tell me otherwise.
On to my second point: Things we are doing or have done wrong in Iraq. (Disclaimer: These view do not represent the views of Jref or anything else. It?fs my personal opinion. Feel free to scrutinize me as needed.)
Again, I?fm going use examples from Afghanistan to illustrate where our policies have failed, as many of them will in Iraq if we don?ft change our approach.
My main beef is the lack of collaboration with the right people. Prime example in Afghanistan: All the corrupt warlords involved in the Karzai Administration. Time after time, the United States has support and armed tribal militia only to have them come back and bite them in the ass. We need to stop doing this. So far, this won?ft be much of a problem in Iraq, I think. But we still have to deal with the other side of this. We need to start supporting the right people. This has been a problem in Afghanistan and Iraq. Take for example, Mr. X. (I?fll fill you in on his name later, this is a real person.) Mr. X lived in Kabul under the Taliban. Mr. X ran a school that taught with forbidden books, teaching about democracy, America, and free trade. Whenever the Taliban came knocking on his door, he maintained that his school was teaching the Koran. So, he kept on teaching in Kabul despite the constant threat of death if discovered by the Taliban. Today, he is no longer safe in Kabul. He lives in a psuedo-military style encampment about 50 miles from the city. When American forces arrived, Mr. X had hoped to be a part of the political process but was instead ostracized from it. Americans simply refused to work with him. Now that the Karzai government is in place, and multiple warlords are involved in the government (would love to see him killed) Kabul is no longer safe now that?fs he?fs gone public. Similar treatment towards people like Mr. X has taken place in Iraq. (I'm looking for the specific article right now.) Worse yet, some of those people who could have potential aided the U.S. have been jailed or killed. It?fs generally not a good way to gain popular support by jailing well known democrats and installing corrupt puppets in fledgling governments.
I happen to known someone who has been in Afghanistan before and after the regime change. I?fve also been in email contact with a young Afghan student there right now. Here?fs what I?fve learned from them: Most people there blame America for the Taliban. (Much like many Iraqis blame America for Saddam.) They are well aware of the fact that the U.S. armed and supported the Taliban during the conflict with the Soviets. To my understanding, their view of the Karzai regime is cynical at best. To them, it?fs just another corrupt American backed government, except this one can?ft even control the country outside of the capital. Now, the countryside is raging with conflicts from warlords that we armed to fight the Taliban. It?fs the same old story. Beyond that, their standard of living is worse today. For lack of a better way to make money, people are growing opium again, producing more than ever before. Most of the people of Iraq share this dim view of the US?fs presence and suffer from the same lack of basic necessities. Couple worse living conditions with a government you have no reason to trust, backed by another government you definitely don?ft trust, and what do you get? Former uninvolved civilians now taking pots shots at US troops to vent their frustrations.
In conclusion I?fll try and sum things up as best I can. (I didn?ft plan on writing this much!) The situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been deteriorating. People are attacking US troops more, not less. Elections did help, but it?fs not going to stop a crappy infrastructure and general mistrust of the US from growing. Something needs to be changed in the way we?fre dealing with ?gthe situation.?h
As I?fve said in all my posts, I could be wrong. Seeing how negative my outlook is on current events, I sincerely hope I am.
------------------------------------
edit*
What the hell. Here's a link about those casualty figures.
HERE.
Christ, I could use a beer now, too.
:relief:
Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
I don't remember who suggested that. They say memory is the first thing to go....senseiman said:
Thing is, they'll now be able to decide their own economic policies, which will be very to watch. Not just from America, but the other middle-eastern countries will be watching as well. But you're quite right, that a mismanaged Democracy will not bring about a middle class.senseiman said:
Sumimasen. That wasn't directed at you, it was a generalization of critics as a whole. I should've clarified, and I apologize about that.senseiman said:
I'll take a look at it too. Do you have a link?senseiman said:
Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
Oops, forgot something...
Here's a column by an avowed Democrat about the Iraqi election that some of you might find conversationally stimulating:
Mark Brown, Chicago Sun-Times
Disclaimer: I'm not saying it's definitive, just interesting. It's being offered in the interest of conversation fodder.
Here's a column by an avowed Democrat about the Iraqi election that some of you might find conversationally stimulating:
Mark Brown, Chicago Sun-Times
Disclaimer: I'm not saying it's definitive, just interesting. It's being offered in the interest of conversation fodder.
Mark Brown is using that huge word-- IF. If this turns out okay, then we will have to change our opinion.
I however disagree. We invaded a sovereign nation on a very thin and now discreditied premise. We killed thousands of civillians and incited an insurgency that continues to kill. Tomorrow, hopefully, things will be better. But- If by violating basic laws, we can improve the lives of our victims does this justify breaking and entering?
The US has a history of invading and rebuilding countries. (We don't keep them anymore). We seem to honestly try to break what we fix and we usually pay billions into that economy. But still, I don't see too many third world countries lining up for the priviledge of being invaded.
I however disagree. We invaded a sovereign nation on a very thin and now discreditied premise. We killed thousands of civillians and incited an insurgency that continues to kill. Tomorrow, hopefully, things will be better. But- If by violating basic laws, we can improve the lives of our victims does this justify breaking and entering?
The US has a history of invading and rebuilding countries. (We don't keep them anymore). We seem to honestly try to break what we fix and we usually pay billions into that economy. But still, I don't see too many third world countries lining up for the priviledge of being invaded.
Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
Back to the topic....
Yeah, those leftists, they really had faith in the Iraqi people...
John Kerry, from his closing statement at the first presidential debate:
"They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."
Mary Beth Cahill (Kerry's campaign manager) echoed that a month later:
"It's not safe enough to have elections, which are scheduled in January. There is no way that people could go to the polls in that country right now."
What was their plan? "The Kerry plan would be to have an international consensus, not to go it alone, to get other countries into Iraq with us, so that we could carry out elections and we could move Iraq to be a free nation."
Wow, we got it done without bothering Kofi Annan! Of course, now he can't claim any credit. Doesn't mean he won't try.
Speaking of Kofi The Korrupt...
September 2004: "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now"
Also in September 2004, third-world election expert Jimmy Carter on NBC:
"I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there."
Around the same time, Hungarian-born election-buyer George Soros said:
"All my experience ... has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means." He also said: "Iraq would be the last place I would choose for an experiment in introducing democracy."
That's probably because he doesn't have a military (paid protestors don't count) and his experience has taught him that elections can be bought. And of course there's better places for Soros to experiment with democracy; Iraq doesn't exactly have a concentration of college students.
Yep, they're backing the Iraqi people all the way....
Yeah, those leftists, they really had faith in the Iraqi people...
John Kerry, from his closing statement at the first presidential debate:
"They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."
Mary Beth Cahill (Kerry's campaign manager) echoed that a month later:
"It's not safe enough to have elections, which are scheduled in January. There is no way that people could go to the polls in that country right now."
What was their plan? "The Kerry plan would be to have an international consensus, not to go it alone, to get other countries into Iraq with us, so that we could carry out elections and we could move Iraq to be a free nation."
Wow, we got it done without bothering Kofi Annan! Of course, now he can't claim any credit. Doesn't mean he won't try.
Speaking of Kofi The Korrupt...
September 2004: "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now"
Also in September 2004, third-world election expert Jimmy Carter on NBC:
"I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there."
Around the same time, Hungarian-born election-buyer George Soros said:
"All my experience ... has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means." He also said: "Iraq would be the last place I would choose for an experiment in introducing democracy."
That's probably because he doesn't have a military (paid protestors don't count) and his experience has taught him that elections can be bought. And of course there's better places for Soros to experiment with democracy; Iraq doesn't exactly have a concentration of college students.
Yep, they're backing the Iraqi people all the way....
I'm definitely surprised that the elections went so well. I'm certain that Kerry, Cahill and Kofi are too. But I'm not certain that anyone is disappointed.
Elections are step one. Security, rebuilding an economy, quelling an insurgency, writing a constitution, governing the country.... more big steps to follow.
I agree with Soros in that Democracy can't be imposed by military means-- It is up to the Iraqi people now to carry this forward.
I am a bit embarassed that their voter turnout is higher than ours.
Elections are step one. Security, rebuilding an economy, quelling an insurgency, writing a constitution, governing the country.... more big steps to follow.
I agree with Soros in that Democracy can't be imposed by military means-- It is up to the Iraqi people now to carry this forward.
I am a bit embarassed that their voter turnout is higher than ours.
Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
Japan? Afghanistan? El Salvador? Nicaragua? I'm sure I'm missing a few...sabro said:
Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
According to Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a "stable democracy" under his rule. 100% of the vote couldn't be wrong, eh?
mad pierrot
I jump to conclusions
Actually, he wasn't. He was appointed.
More to write later! (On lunch break yet again!)
mad pierrot
I jump to conclusions
Oops!
One more thing before my lunch break is over.
(Couldn't help but want to post this after I read it.)
A poignant reminder as to why the Bush administration and the mainstream media should be judicious about how they spin Sunday's election, I close with the opening paragraphs of an article from the Sept. 4, 1967, edition of The New York Times: "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."
We all know how that story ended.
One more thing before my lunch break is over.
(Couldn't help but want to post this after I read it.)
A poignant reminder as to why the Bush administration and the mainstream media should be judicious about how they spin Sunday's election, I close with the opening paragraphs of an article from the Sept. 4, 1967, edition of The New York Times: "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."
We all know how that story ended.
The Vietnam story is really funny. Hopefully, the USG & the ol' colonials gets spanked again in Iraq.
Hitler had a lot more success in getting the french to support his occupation, than the U.S. has had in Iraq so far.
Hitler had a lot more success in getting the french to support his occupation, than the U.S. has had in Iraq so far.
Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
You have an odd sense of humor.Sr Pasta said:
You're actually HOPING that?!?!? Guess you were cheering when the WTC fell, eh?Sr Pasta said:
Ah, that explains where you're coming from. Was Hitler setting up elections in France so they could choose their own leaders? What was his exit strategy?Sr Pasta said:
Censport said:
In Japan democracy was established more than 6 years after the war had ended whereas in Iraq the war shows no sign of ending any time soon. I would hardly hold up Afghanistan as a model of democracy just because they had an election, warlords still control most of the country there. In Nicaragua, the US supported a neo-fascist movement that had no interest in democracy whatsoever and it was the Sandinistas who established democracy in that country.
Perhaps it is possible to establish some sort of facade democracy through military means, but to establish a real democracy by military means isn't possible.
Censport said:
WTC was an illegal attack. So was the occupation of Iraq. Getting the USG & UK kicked out of Iraq is just as important as it once was to get the british kicked out of the U.S.
Censport said:
Hitler had as much of an "exit" strategy as Bush: swap your own soldiers for recruits from the occupied country. If that doesn't work, let your soldiers stay.
There's no way the USG will let go of all that oil without a fight, whatever the iraquis vote for. As in all colonial adventures, they'll have to get spanked before they leave.
Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
There's an entire thread dedicated to the question of legality concerning the Iraq war. Secondly, it's not an occupation any more than I've occupied Mexico when racing there. The longer we have to stay, the closer it'll come to being an occupation, but what we're doing now is called stabilizing, rebuilding and restructuring. Once the region and government is stabilized, once they don't need us, we're gone. (Disclaimer: As with any US policy, that is subject to change with the next administration. Better hope this gets wrapped up before 2009.)Sr Pasta said:
What it sounds like you want is for the terrorists to "kick" the coalition troops out of Iraq, which will never happen under this president. As long as they try to fight, we'll fight back. Now if you wanted Iraq to get back on its feet and for the new government to tell the US "Your job is done here, thanks. Now kindly pack up and leave.", then you're being reasonable and have the Iraqi citizens' well-being in mind. But it certainly sounded like the former was your desire, and you don't care what kind of chaos we leave the Iraqis with, as long as the US appears defeated.
The main problem with your logic being Hitler intended to command those forces, not leave them under the direction of a new government chosen by the French citizens.Sr Pasta said:
Gee, it's pretty much been our country for the last two years, and I still don't have my oil well! Doesn't Bush realize I've got motorcycles to feed?!?!? Alas, there seems to be something amiss with your conspiracy theory.Sr Pasta said:
This thread has been viewed 3316 times.