I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet. Election day in Iraq had a better turnout than ANY US election (72%)! I heard the mayor of Baghdad plans/wants to erect a statue of George W. Bush to honor him. Now I don't care what your political views, if you don't see all this as a good thing . . . well never mind that wasn't a very kind thought.
Taste of Freedom for Iraq
- Thread starter RWIndiana
- Start date
Fushigi
Storage Is My Life
Is it a good thing that Saddam is out? Debatable. To us he was evil, but we're not Iraqi citizens and we don't live in that culture. The number of people who still fight for his cause today has to make you believe that at least some percentage of the Iraqi citizenry liked him & his rule (regardless of how tyrannical we perceived it to be). On the flip side, there are also plenty of Iraqi citizens who are glad he's out. So it's a coin toss. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, however, and go ahead and say 'yes'.
Is it a good thing that the US did a pre-emptive strike against a nation that was not a threat? No.
Is it a good thing that >1000 Americans have died on foreign soil in a US-initiaited war to eliminate a non-threat and supposedly free non-Americans in a non-ally country? No. Especially since there's no guarantee or even high probability that the 'new' Iraq will be an ally. Unless the US rigs the vote, that is.
Is it a good thing that the US is going into massive debt in addition to losing lives? No. Every billion $ the government spends on the war works out to be almost $4 per person or $7 per taxpayer. Multiply that by however many billions we're up to and add 10+ years of interest to it since this debt is financed to see the true economic cost per US citizen.
Is it a good thing the Iraqi people can elect their own government now? Yes in theory, but a winner has yet to be declared. And once declared & installed into office it will take time to see whether or not they are actually better for the Iraqi people than Saddam was. The jury is still out on this one.
Obviously, I am against the war and I take issue with a lot of the ways the Bush administration is handling things. However, I wish the best for the Iraqi people. I do hope they get the government they want and that their country can prosper under whatever leadership they wind up with.
Is it a good thing that the US did a pre-emptive strike against a nation that was not a threat? No.
Is it a good thing that >1000 Americans have died on foreign soil in a US-initiaited war to eliminate a non-threat and supposedly free non-Americans in a non-ally country? No. Especially since there's no guarantee or even high probability that the 'new' Iraq will be an ally. Unless the US rigs the vote, that is.
Is it a good thing that the US is going into massive debt in addition to losing lives? No. Every billion $ the government spends on the war works out to be almost $4 per person or $7 per taxpayer. Multiply that by however many billions we're up to and add 10+ years of interest to it since this debt is financed to see the true economic cost per US citizen.
Is it a good thing the Iraqi people can elect their own government now? Yes in theory, but a winner has yet to be declared. And once declared & installed into office it will take time to see whether or not they are actually better for the Iraqi people than Saddam was. The jury is still out on this one.
Obviously, I am against the war and I take issue with a lot of the ways the Bush administration is handling things. However, I wish the best for the Iraqi people. I do hope they get the government they want and that their country can prosper under whatever leadership they wind up with.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Perhaps we can invade Saudi Arabia and force democratic elections there!
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Hey, speaking of despotic leaders mistreating their rebellious citizens... has anyone noticed what Putin's been doing in Russia lately? I'm sure there's a Reagan-era conservative with a hard-on for the push past St. Petersburg SOMEWHERE in the present administration. Too bad Putin and King George get along so damned well.
Heh. Somehow you guys crack me up. Never have I known such prejudice as there is among the Bush haters. Tsk tsk.
Those who still "support" Saddam are either terrorists or just plain extremists. There are far more people in this country who support Bush than people over there who ever supported Saddam, yet many act as if Bush is worse than Saddam. Why would you support someone who willfully and uselessly murders thousands of his own citizens?
"I'll give it the benefit of the doubt . . ." What doubt? How is democracy not better than tyranny? Do you really think that most of the people in Iraq enjoyed being threatened with their lives if they didn't vote? Now they can choose to vote for whoever they please without fear of being shot. To say you don't know which one is better is sheer stupidity, willing ignorance, and dumb denial.
Where do you get the idea that Saddam was not a threat? Every person with a brain knows that he was. Clinton knows, Bush Sr. knows, even Kerry agreed. Many liberal Democrats, including past presidents (and Ted Kennedy himself), have commented on the threat that Saddam posed. Bush finally did something about it. I don't agree with Bush on everything, but I don't disagree with something simply because he believes it. It doesn't matter what he would say or do, you and your Bush-hating-cult members would still be negative on every turn.
No it's not good that 1000 Americans have died. It was good to eliminate the threat and free souls who desire to be free (if there was anyone who did NOT want to be free, believe me, someone would have found them and put them on the front page of every paper). I'm not sure why liberals would care about 1000 people dead for a real cause when they don't care about the four million killed by abortion in our country.
No it's not good that the US has a large debt. This is where I wish Bush would shape up, slim down some bills and reduce spending on frivolous things. Of course, if Kerry had won, he could spend twice as much and not get any criticism from the liberal nay-sayers.
"Is it a good thing the Iraqi people can elect their own government now? Yes in theory . . .", I hope you don't mind if I paraphrase: "but hopefully everything will collapse and Iraq will plunge into total chaos and then we can point to Bush and other pseudo-conservatives/conservatives because they are all a bunch of evil cretans who only want to destroy the world." I know you want it to go bad. You would rejoice if it did.
"Obviously, I am against the war . . . "
War is wrong, war is evil. I certainly don't disagree there. On the other hand, what do you do if you see your neighbor beating and killing his own wife and children? Do you risk getting involved? Or do you let the tyrant go and let the helpless family fend for themselves? That's not something I will argue too long on, as a believer in non-resistance. I believe the government is there for a reason. But I also believe killing is sin, and I can not do it. However, our government is not Christian (there are those who would claim otherwise, but they are wrong), and can not be expected to always act as a Christian church should act.
Here's a rundown of a few of the predictions of the liberals (written by someone in another group, not me)
1) They claimed we'd lose 10s of thousands of our soldiers in the war. Wrong - we only lost around 1500...an unbelievably low number compared to the naysayers own estimates.
2) They claimed that Saddam's elite Republican Guard was a fierce fighting force and the streets would run with blood once we got to Baghdad. They claimed we'd find out what fighting was all about. Wrong - the Guard (not so elite) mostly split and run.
3) They claimed most Iraqi's would view us as occupiers and oppressors rather than liberators. Wrong - the Iraqi's begged us not to leave.
4) Then they claimed Iraq couldn't hold free elections by Jan. 30 and that we HAD to move the date back. Wrong - Elections WERE held on Jan. 30 and they were a smashing success!!
Who in the world would be dumb enough to continue believing mass media after the last two years? Not those who can think for themselves, obviously.
Interesting Washington Times article today:
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naysayers tight-lipped since success of Iraq vote
By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 2, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptics of President Bush's attempt to bring democracy to Iraq have been largely silent since Iraqis enthusiastically turned out for Sunday's elections.
Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros and left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore were among critics of the administration's Iraq policy who had no comment after millions of Iraqis went to the polls in their nation's first free elections in decades.
The Carter Center determined that the security situation in Iraq was going to be too dangerous to send election monitors, so the Atlanta-based human rights organization founded by former President Jimmy Carter posted its personnel in neighboring Jordan.
Despite widespread predictions of spectacular terrorist attacks on election day in Iraq, fewer than 50 were killed, and the 60 percent turnout for the elections was much higher than many predicted.
Asked whether the Carter Center had a comment on the election, spokeswoman Kay Torrance said: "We wouldn't have any 'yea' or 'nay' statement on Iraq."
Mr. Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.
Mr. Soros, the Open Society Institute founder who contributed millions of dollars to groups seeking to prevent Mr. Bush's re-election, had denounced as a "sham" the administration's plans for a democratic Iraq.
"To claim that we are invading Iraq for the sake of establishing democracy is a sham, and the rest of the world sees it as such," Mr. Soros said in a Washington speech in March 2003, adding that "the trouble goes much deeper."
"It is not merely that the Bush administration's policies may be wrong, it is that they are wrong," Mr. Soros said in the speech. "Because we are unquestionably the most powerful, [the Bush administration claims] we have earned the right to impose our will on the rest of the world."
Mr. Soros' Web site (www.georgesoros.com) has no reference to the Iraqi elections. Its latest comments are in a Jan. 26 op-ed article on what Mr. Soros calls Mr. Bush's "ambitious" second inaugural address.
"Mr. Soros has not released any statements about the elections in Iraq," said Soros spokesman Michael Vachon. "He has been traveling since Sunday on various foundation projects and hasn't had occasion to comment."
Mr. Vachon said Mr. Soros' "position regarding the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and his criticism thereof have been consistent."
In his Jan. 26 article, published in more than 20 newspapers, including the Toronto Globe and Mail, Mr. Soros said he agrees with Mr. Bush's goal to spread democracy around the world, "and have devoted the past 15 years and several billion dollars of my fortune to attaining it," but accused the president of "Orwellian doublespeak."
"Mr. Bush is right to assert that repressive regimes can no longer hide behind a cloak of sovereignty," wrote Mr. Soros, 74, who made his fortune as an international currency trader. "But intervention in other states' internal affairs must be legitimate."
There has been no comment since the Iraq elections from Mr. Moore, the Academy Award-winning filmmaker who characterized the Iraqi insurgents as "Minutemen," and predicted "they will win."
The last posting from Mr. Moore on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) is dated Jan. 10 and concerns "Fahrenheit 9/11" being named best dramatic movie in the People's Choice Awards. An e-mail to Mr. Moore requesting comment was not returned.
On the day before the elections, Mr. Moore featured a link to a column in the New York Times with the headline, "A Sinking Sensation of Parallels between Iraq and Vietnam." On the day after the elections, Mr. Moore linked to a story in the left-wing Nation magazine titled "Occupation Thwarts Democracy."
Moorewatch.com, a site dedicated to countering the filmmaker's political statements, knocked Mr. Moore for "failing to acknowledge [the Iraqi people's] achievement."
"I find it telling that the man who has lamented such great concern for the kite-flying, tea-sipping Iraqi people featured in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' can't be bothered to string together a few words of admiration for those same people who braved the threat of death to cast their votes this past weekend," the anti-Moore Web site said. "It seems Moore only admires the Iraqi people when they validate his agenda of hating George Bush."
Some administration critics, however, saw the Iraqi elections as reason to revise their opinion of Mr. Bush.
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown, who has consistently opposed Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq, wrote for yesterday's edition that "it's hard to swallow," but "what if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?"
The Chicago columnist wrote that he was struck by "television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces."
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
Those who still "support" Saddam are either terrorists or just plain extremists. There are far more people in this country who support Bush than people over there who ever supported Saddam, yet many act as if Bush is worse than Saddam. Why would you support someone who willfully and uselessly murders thousands of his own citizens?
"I'll give it the benefit of the doubt . . ." What doubt? How is democracy not better than tyranny? Do you really think that most of the people in Iraq enjoyed being threatened with their lives if they didn't vote? Now they can choose to vote for whoever they please without fear of being shot. To say you don't know which one is better is sheer stupidity, willing ignorance, and dumb denial.
Where do you get the idea that Saddam was not a threat? Every person with a brain knows that he was. Clinton knows, Bush Sr. knows, even Kerry agreed. Many liberal Democrats, including past presidents (and Ted Kennedy himself), have commented on the threat that Saddam posed. Bush finally did something about it. I don't agree with Bush on everything, but I don't disagree with something simply because he believes it. It doesn't matter what he would say or do, you and your Bush-hating-cult members would still be negative on every turn.
No it's not good that 1000 Americans have died. It was good to eliminate the threat and free souls who desire to be free (if there was anyone who did NOT want to be free, believe me, someone would have found them and put them on the front page of every paper). I'm not sure why liberals would care about 1000 people dead for a real cause when they don't care about the four million killed by abortion in our country.
No it's not good that the US has a large debt. This is where I wish Bush would shape up, slim down some bills and reduce spending on frivolous things. Of course, if Kerry had won, he could spend twice as much and not get any criticism from the liberal nay-sayers.
"Is it a good thing the Iraqi people can elect their own government now? Yes in theory . . .", I hope you don't mind if I paraphrase: "but hopefully everything will collapse and Iraq will plunge into total chaos and then we can point to Bush and other pseudo-conservatives/conservatives because they are all a bunch of evil cretans who only want to destroy the world." I know you want it to go bad. You would rejoice if it did.
"Obviously, I am against the war . . . "
War is wrong, war is evil. I certainly don't disagree there. On the other hand, what do you do if you see your neighbor beating and killing his own wife and children? Do you risk getting involved? Or do you let the tyrant go and let the helpless family fend for themselves? That's not something I will argue too long on, as a believer in non-resistance. I believe the government is there for a reason. But I also believe killing is sin, and I can not do it. However, our government is not Christian (there are those who would claim otherwise, but they are wrong), and can not be expected to always act as a Christian church should act.
Here's a rundown of a few of the predictions of the liberals (written by someone in another group, not me)
1) They claimed we'd lose 10s of thousands of our soldiers in the war. Wrong - we only lost around 1500...an unbelievably low number compared to the naysayers own estimates.
2) They claimed that Saddam's elite Republican Guard was a fierce fighting force and the streets would run with blood once we got to Baghdad. They claimed we'd find out what fighting was all about. Wrong - the Guard (not so elite) mostly split and run.
3) They claimed most Iraqi's would view us as occupiers and oppressors rather than liberators. Wrong - the Iraqi's begged us not to leave.
4) Then they claimed Iraq couldn't hold free elections by Jan. 30 and that we HAD to move the date back. Wrong - Elections WERE held on Jan. 30 and they were a smashing success!!
Who in the world would be dumb enough to continue believing mass media after the last two years? Not those who can think for themselves, obviously.
Interesting Washington Times article today:
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naysayers tight-lipped since success of Iraq vote
By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 2, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptics of President Bush's attempt to bring democracy to Iraq have been largely silent since Iraqis enthusiastically turned out for Sunday's elections.
Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros and left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore were among critics of the administration's Iraq policy who had no comment after millions of Iraqis went to the polls in their nation's first free elections in decades.
The Carter Center determined that the security situation in Iraq was going to be too dangerous to send election monitors, so the Atlanta-based human rights organization founded by former President Jimmy Carter posted its personnel in neighboring Jordan.
Despite widespread predictions of spectacular terrorist attacks on election day in Iraq, fewer than 50 were killed, and the 60 percent turnout for the elections was much higher than many predicted.
Asked whether the Carter Center had a comment on the election, spokeswoman Kay Torrance said: "We wouldn't have any 'yea' or 'nay' statement on Iraq."
Mr. Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.
Mr. Soros, the Open Society Institute founder who contributed millions of dollars to groups seeking to prevent Mr. Bush's re-election, had denounced as a "sham" the administration's plans for a democratic Iraq.
"To claim that we are invading Iraq for the sake of establishing democracy is a sham, and the rest of the world sees it as such," Mr. Soros said in a Washington speech in March 2003, adding that "the trouble goes much deeper."
"It is not merely that the Bush administration's policies may be wrong, it is that they are wrong," Mr. Soros said in the speech. "Because we are unquestionably the most powerful, [the Bush administration claims] we have earned the right to impose our will on the rest of the world."
Mr. Soros' Web site (www.georgesoros.com) has no reference to the Iraqi elections. Its latest comments are in a Jan. 26 op-ed article on what Mr. Soros calls Mr. Bush's "ambitious" second inaugural address.
"Mr. Soros has not released any statements about the elections in Iraq," said Soros spokesman Michael Vachon. "He has been traveling since Sunday on various foundation projects and hasn't had occasion to comment."
Mr. Vachon said Mr. Soros' "position regarding the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and his criticism thereof have been consistent."
In his Jan. 26 article, published in more than 20 newspapers, including the Toronto Globe and Mail, Mr. Soros said he agrees with Mr. Bush's goal to spread democracy around the world, "and have devoted the past 15 years and several billion dollars of my fortune to attaining it," but accused the president of "Orwellian doublespeak."
"Mr. Bush is right to assert that repressive regimes can no longer hide behind a cloak of sovereignty," wrote Mr. Soros, 74, who made his fortune as an international currency trader. "But intervention in other states' internal affairs must be legitimate."
There has been no comment since the Iraq elections from Mr. Moore, the Academy Award-winning filmmaker who characterized the Iraqi insurgents as "Minutemen," and predicted "they will win."
The last posting from Mr. Moore on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) is dated Jan. 10 and concerns "Fahrenheit 9/11" being named best dramatic movie in the People's Choice Awards. An e-mail to Mr. Moore requesting comment was not returned.
On the day before the elections, Mr. Moore featured a link to a column in the New York Times with the headline, "A Sinking Sensation of Parallels between Iraq and Vietnam." On the day after the elections, Mr. Moore linked to a story in the left-wing Nation magazine titled "Occupation Thwarts Democracy."
Moorewatch.com, a site dedicated to countering the filmmaker's political statements, knocked Mr. Moore for "failing to acknowledge [the Iraqi people's] achievement."
"I find it telling that the man who has lamented such great concern for the kite-flying, tea-sipping Iraqi people featured in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' can't be bothered to string together a few words of admiration for those same people who braved the threat of death to cast their votes this past weekend," the anti-Moore Web site said. "It seems Moore only admires the Iraqi people when they validate his agenda of hating George Bush."
Some administration critics, however, saw the Iraqi elections as reason to revise their opinion of Mr. Bush.
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown, who has consistently opposed Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq, wrote for yesterday's edition that "it's hard to swallow," but "what if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?"
The Chicago columnist wrote that he was struck by "television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces."
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
You need to stop getting your ideas about what other people think from Fox news, RW.
In my opinion the war was entirely unjustified. There is no evidence of a link between Al Queda and Iraq. There were no WMDs - as UN Inspectors said, despite what members of the administration claim. Hussein was the head of state of a foreign nation. We had no more right to interfere with Iraq on that level than we would to declare Quebec sovereign from Canada. There were no active preperations for war against our country nor any of its allies. We have and will continue to spend a great deal of money on this foolish effort by a very shallow and intellectually deficient man to distract the public from more legitimate threats in North Korea and from Al Queda. Those resources could and should have been used elsewhere. Perhaps we could've thrown a billion or so dollars at teaching GWB the correct pronunciation of the word "nuclear", for example.
In the end, our nation was essentially an unprovoked aggressor. We were a bully beating up on a far weaker state. There was no urgent need to invade Iraq, something that was blatantly obvious in the spring of 2003, before the war began. There are places in the world that are far worse than Iraq in Humanitarian terms (Sudan springs to mind). There's no proven link between terror and Iraq (although I'm sure the country is NOW a terrorist breeding ground). There were no WMDs, nor even any compelling evidence that there MIGHT HAVE BEEN. In short, I sincerely believe that the ultimate motivation for the war was to insure GWB's reelection in 2004.
In my opinion the war was entirely unjustified. There is no evidence of a link between Al Queda and Iraq. There were no WMDs - as UN Inspectors said, despite what members of the administration claim. Hussein was the head of state of a foreign nation. We had no more right to interfere with Iraq on that level than we would to declare Quebec sovereign from Canada. There were no active preperations for war against our country nor any of its allies. We have and will continue to spend a great deal of money on this foolish effort by a very shallow and intellectually deficient man to distract the public from more legitimate threats in North Korea and from Al Queda. Those resources could and should have been used elsewhere. Perhaps we could've thrown a billion or so dollars at teaching GWB the correct pronunciation of the word "nuclear", for example.
In the end, our nation was essentially an unprovoked aggressor. We were a bully beating up on a far weaker state. There was no urgent need to invade Iraq, something that was blatantly obvious in the spring of 2003, before the war began. There are places in the world that are far worse than Iraq in Humanitarian terms (Sudan springs to mind). There's no proven link between terror and Iraq (although I'm sure the country is NOW a terrorist breeding ground). There were no WMDs, nor even any compelling evidence that there MIGHT HAVE BEEN. In short, I sincerely believe that the ultimate motivation for the war was to insure GWB's reelection in 2004.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
I just want to point out that this election was mainly to elect legislators. They weren't choosing more important posts like president, prime minister, fuhrer, ayatollah, or whatever other name they may ultimately choose to hold the highest elected office there. Whenever elections for that high post are held, I'd put a 50/50 chance that Saddam or some close relative will be reelected. What will the US do then, nullify the election because the Iraqis chose someone unpalatable to Washington? Despite the feelings of Bush towards him, and the long list of atrocities he orchestrated in Iraq, he still enjoys some measure of popular support because he made the day-to-day functions of the country run smoothly, and kept crime in check. Since the American occupation there have been disruptions in food and water supplies, and electricity has been off as much as on. Don't underestimate the appeal of choosing someone known to simply make things work, regardless of the methods they use. There are all kinds of reasons despots come to power, but mainly they put food on the table when nobody else will. Hilter brought Germany from a defeated, poor nation to within one step of conquering the world in less than a decade. It was the most efficient state the world has ever known. His popular appeal was stemmed from this. So much so, in fact, that the populice was happy to turn a blind eye to the genocide going on right under their noses. And don't think if things get really bad in the US something similar couldn't happen here so we end up with our own Hilter or Saddam.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
RWIndiana -- Your dog has been wagged
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
The only goal should have been to not have the war in the first place.
Free elections in a conquored nation are bullshit when there was no valid reason to conquor the nation in the first place.
Free elections in a conquored nation are bullshit when there was no valid reason to conquor the nation in the first place.
Jake the Dog
Storage is cool
RWIndiana said:
and those four point prove what? it's a joke if it's an attempt to discredit "libs". Ok so maybe they got those wrong but how does that compare to getting arguments about WMD, Saddam threats, etc wrong? how is it that republicans seem to disregard the death of 10's of thousands of innocent people based on wrong/false premises of WMD, Saddam threats, is something that is a REAL discredit?
I'm wondering how the supposed 60% turnout figure can be used as a valid measurment of success? I mean they haven't had an election for how long? let see what happens after two or three or better yet ten elections. I'm also wondering if it valid to presume that Iraqi know how to vote. have been properly educated with a full understanbding of their rights and the power of their vote? for us it's easy and we these things we take for granted but then most of us have grown up in voting democracies. the Iraqi's haven't. are/were they really ready to to vote?
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
True, You can't claim success for something that does not have an end date.
The relatively percentage of people voting shows that they do believe that they can affect their own future. This is an important development in the psychological growth of the Iraqi people as well as pragmatically moving toward an election.
The relatively percentage of people voting shows that they do believe that they can affect their own future. This is an important development in the psychological growth of the Iraqi people as well as pragmatically moving toward an election.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
If you're feeling magnanimous, the whole thing is a glorious experiment, with millions of human beings as the lab rats.
I'm more cynical. When someone with a genuine ounce of understanding thinks there's even a chance for this experiment to succeed, then I'll take notice. Until then, please digest your data (from Fox in particular) with several charcoal tablets and whatever other digestive aids you fancy.
Democracies need to be self-sustainable for there to be any point to them. That is, they need to come from within, not without. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in Fantasy Land - oh wait, that's where many Americans (i.e. Dubya supporters) live. Sorry, my mistake. I didn't mean to ruin your childish fantasies with any kind of harsh reality regarding the human condition.
I've had a bad day. Anyone foolish enough to pit their own feeble intellect against mine is more than welcome ... (does that hint of megalomania give you some idea of *how* bad a day? Or how many glasses of whisky I've consumed? Are you feeling lucky, punk?)
I'm more cynical. When someone with a genuine ounce of understanding thinks there's even a chance for this experiment to succeed, then I'll take notice. Until then, please digest your data (from Fox in particular) with several charcoal tablets and whatever other digestive aids you fancy.
Democracies need to be self-sustainable for there to be any point to them. That is, they need to come from within, not without. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in Fantasy Land - oh wait, that's where many Americans (i.e. Dubya supporters) live. Sorry, my mistake. I didn't mean to ruin your childish fantasies with any kind of harsh reality regarding the human condition.
I've had a bad day. Anyone foolish enough to pit their own feeble intellect against mine is more than welcome ... (does that hint of megalomania give you some idea of *how* bad a day? Or how many glasses of whisky I've consumed? Are you feeling lucky, punk?)
roflol, I love it. You guys never cease to cause me unquenchable glee. I would explain why but that would take the fun out of it.
If they wanted to vote, then yes, they are ready to vote.
Humm, dangerous line of thinking here . . .
If they wanted to vote, then yes, they are ready to vote.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
The fact that the majority of the political parties in the Iraqi election did not release the actual names of their candidates "for security reasons" suggests otherwise.
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Mercutio said:
That might be relevant if they were not voting on a parliamentary system. That is, they did not vote for individuals but for political parties and coalitions, based on the views embodied in their respective platforms – which, as Berman pointed out, were widely circulated.[/url]
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
And by the way I let slide your typical exageration in "the majority of the political parties".
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
time said:
I think your statement is appropriately steeped in humility. No argument here.
Life is an experiment. Anyone who thinks they have the road map by which to make every decision in life is severly deluded.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
RWIndiana said:
Are you arguing with Dubya again?
sechs said:
lol Sech. I think you and I would get along well. We should meet for a cup of coffee sometime. Well actually I don't like coffee. But I like your sense of humor.
Howell said:
Howell, very good point I think. What is painfully obvious is that there will always be those who say we could/should have done it a better way. And you know what? Statistically, they are 100 percent right, 100 percent of the time. The question is, what exactly have they ever accomplished?
time
Storage? I am Storage!
But we do have a road map. It's called history. Some people can't or won't read it.Howell said:
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
time said:
How do you propose to go forward using only that which exists in the past. Do you propose some sort of Groundhog's day scenario or perhaps you are just shooting from the hip resulting in non-sense. For instance, what history do you propose we relive? France's?
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Handruin said:
Suppose you just bought a house, right. What did you take from history that enabled you to make a good decision on whether or not to by the house?
Assuming you have never bought a house, you undoutedly hired some experts to advise you. And even if you have bought a house before you'ld be a fool not to hire an expert, someone who does that for a living.
Once you've lived in the house for awhile you begin to notice things that the experts missed. In the basement of the house of a friend of mine they recently had several termite inspections done (several quotes). The first inspector caught no signs of problems. The second inspector had inspected the house a few years before and had trouble finding the old signs he knew were there. The last inspector pretty quickly found where a previous owner had TAPED (!) over the termite tunnels and then painted to hide the tape. You can not anticipate everything, even by employing experts.
The upshot is no situation is repeatable where human beings are concerned. For reasons not the least of which is that everyone attempts to learn from those who have gone before. The more educated the analysis the closer to reality the guestimate may be. But in reality everything is a guestimate.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
Mike Carlton made these rather pertinent obervations in the Sydney Morning Herald:
Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to replace a light bulb?
A: None. As the President and Secretary Rumsfeld have made clear, the light bulb is doing a great job and we and our coalition allies are encouraged by the progress it is making.
Of course we regret any lack of incandescence in the bulb at this time, but it is serving the nation honourably in the cause of peace, despite what the terrorists and their friends in the liberal media would have the world believe. And that is why the President is going to Congress to request an additional $500 billion to enhance the ongoing illuminative program. Secretary Rice will also be having talks with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon to further integrate the bulb into the Middle East peace process. Anyway, why do you hate freedom?
...
George Bush had barely finished pronouncing the Iraqi elections a "resounding success" before the [Murdoch] myrmidons were rushing to their word processors. Indeed a resounding success, they agreed. Beyond the most optimistic hopes. Democracy had arrived on the wings of eagles, and arrived to stay. A triumph for the President's policies, which would ignite the flame of freedom throughout the Middle East. Blah blah.
They have a Bourbon talent to learn nothing and forget nothing, this lot. It is the very same gang who assured us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that he was thick as thieves with Osama bin Laden and certainly behind the September 11 attack. The same toadies who trumpeted the inevitable success of shock and awe, who boasted that the war would be a cakewalk, who foretold that the streets of Baghdad would be strewn with flowers to welcome the liberators, followed by the swift restoration of public order and the soaring resurrection of the Iraqi economy with oil at $US20 a barrel.
The courage of Iraqis in queuing to vote was admirable, but a cautious person with a sense of history might think it wildly premature to call a resounding success. You get some interesting stuff on the internet, such as this excerpt from a story published in The New York Times back in 1967: "Washington, Sept 3. United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of the 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 national election based on the incomplete returns reaching here... A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."
Plus ca change, but of course there is nothing the rabid right commentariat loathes more than a Vietnam analogy from us grizzled baby boomers. I leave myself open. So I was startled to see The Australian's amusing foreign affairs pontiff, Greg Sheridan, trot one out himself on Thursday.
Hailing the election as "a magnificent moment in Iraqi history", Sheridan asserted that the coming Iraqification [sic] could be compared with the policy of Vietnamisation, which had been "highly successful and resulted in the defeat of the Vietcong insurgency".
Up to a point, Lord Copper. Surely the rotten edifice of Vietnamisation came crashing down but a few years later after one hefty shove from Hanoi. To quote good old Pyrrhus, "Another victory like that over the Romans and we are undone."
Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to replace a light bulb?
A: None. As the President and Secretary Rumsfeld have made clear, the light bulb is doing a great job and we and our coalition allies are encouraged by the progress it is making.
Of course we regret any lack of incandescence in the bulb at this time, but it is serving the nation honourably in the cause of peace, despite what the terrorists and their friends in the liberal media would have the world believe. And that is why the President is going to Congress to request an additional $500 billion to enhance the ongoing illuminative program. Secretary Rice will also be having talks with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon to further integrate the bulb into the Middle East peace process. Anyway, why do you hate freedom?
...
George Bush had barely finished pronouncing the Iraqi elections a "resounding success" before the [Murdoch] myrmidons were rushing to their word processors. Indeed a resounding success, they agreed. Beyond the most optimistic hopes. Democracy had arrived on the wings of eagles, and arrived to stay. A triumph for the President's policies, which would ignite the flame of freedom throughout the Middle East. Blah blah.
They have a Bourbon talent to learn nothing and forget nothing, this lot. It is the very same gang who assured us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that he was thick as thieves with Osama bin Laden and certainly behind the September 11 attack. The same toadies who trumpeted the inevitable success of shock and awe, who boasted that the war would be a cakewalk, who foretold that the streets of Baghdad would be strewn with flowers to welcome the liberators, followed by the swift restoration of public order and the soaring resurrection of the Iraqi economy with oil at $US20 a barrel.
The courage of Iraqis in queuing to vote was admirable, but a cautious person with a sense of history might think it wildly premature to call a resounding success. You get some interesting stuff on the internet, such as this excerpt from a story published in The New York Times back in 1967: "Washington, Sept 3. United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of the 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 national election based on the incomplete returns reaching here... A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."
Plus ca change, but of course there is nothing the rabid right commentariat loathes more than a Vietnam analogy from us grizzled baby boomers. I leave myself open. So I was startled to see The Australian's amusing foreign affairs pontiff, Greg Sheridan, trot one out himself on Thursday.
Hailing the election as "a magnificent moment in Iraqi history", Sheridan asserted that the coming Iraqification [sic] could be compared with the policy of Vietnamisation, which had been "highly successful and resulted in the defeat of the Vietcong insurgency".
Up to a point, Lord Copper. Surely the rotten edifice of Vietnamisation came crashing down but a few years later after one hefty shove from Hanoi. To quote good old Pyrrhus, "Another victory like that over the Romans and we are undone."
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Why, this opinion piece is nothing but a condemnation of political rhetoric. Of all people I'd expect the cynical Aussies to dismiss rhetoric as pedantics. Never the less by stooping to address rhetoric, this article becomes itself pedantic. Hardly pertinent to the topic at hand at all.
Look beyond the rhetoric to the substance. Just because rhetoric has been attached to a good thing does not chnage it from being a good thing.
Look beyond the rhetoric to the substance. Just because rhetoric has been attached to a good thing does not chnage it from being a good thing.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Iraqi Election Successful
Thousands of ballots thrown out and another recount
Thousands of ballots thrown out and another recount
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
War's stunning price tag: Economists estimate between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. LA Times. Registration required; get an id from BugMeNot.