30 Jan 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI had'nt seen that yet. I guess it's a matter of comparision though. While I wish noone died like this, this is common there and the day could have been quite bloodier.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6874656/
Doesn't sound very quiet to me, but the Iraqis haven't had many peaceful days in the last quarter century.
30 Jan 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Dodger11if the death toll of the local population is that high,
And they're holding elections today because who made it possible?
if the locals lose so much infrastructure,
if the election process seems so unrepresentative (most popular candidates forcibly removed from the electoral process before election),
if the winner seems almost certainly destined to a rapid assasination,
then surely that should not be the path to future elections.
i would not choose it for my country ... i am sure you would not want it for your own.
elections are often a good idea ... but this way is not the best way (it is also not quite the worst way).
a serious mistake was made.
30 Jan 05
Originally posted by TucoLivesdo not think this .... you only lead yourself astray.
today we shall be free of the u.s tyrants!!!
it is not possible.
the u.s. is a massively powerful and influential country affecting all countries.
to be unnafected by england 100 years ago was a mostly innappropriate dream.
even after the u.s. troops leave ... coke and macdonalds and "capitalism" and "free trade" and a great barage of other u.s. influences will continue.
this is life ... live with it.
the only way any country will be free of us influence is through decline of the us ... unfortunately another country will then take their place ... or worse several countries will and they will fight over the treasures they can find.
better is to accept their position and peacefully and gently find a happy way through.
30 Jan 05
Originally posted by Paul DiracWell, Paul, I'm sure that as a tireless advocate of Bush's efforts in Iraq, you've defended him publically from his many detractors for the last three years. I bet you have grown more and more embarassed as each fresh excuse from the administration (Iraq has been building nuclear weapons, Iraq is in violation of a UN resolution 1441, Iraq has been deceiving Hans Blix and weapons inspectors, the people will welcome us with flowers, Iraq has strong ties to Al Qaeda and the attacks on 9/11) has, in the light of better evidence, been shown to be insufficient or untrue. You've been forced to endure humiliation from your opponents. "Remember when you said . . .? Looks like you were wrong like we said." You've had to suck it up and continue doggedly to the newest line from Scott McClellan, desperately clinging to the hope that this one would stick.
Yep. Saddam Hussein would surely have held free elections long ago, if it weren't for U.S. meddlng. And if he lost fair and square, he would have retired peacefully to a villa in the desert. Yeah.
I know it has to have been difficult and so I pity you. I will spare you a long response demonstrating how invading sovereign nations on false pretenses simply to ensure a free election is neither legitimate, nor wise. I will not quarrel with you about whether elections in which the electorate must endure fear of death or injury in order to vote and where some regions were unable to participate because the threat is too great are not really "free" at all.
In some respects, you are right. Sadaam would never have held a "free" election. By invading Iraq, we have given them something like one. We have undermined our credibility in the international community, severly strained relations with longstanding allies, given Osama Bin Laden a boost to recruitment, and have started a war which has killed almost 1,500 US soldiers and well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. If after all the hype and posturing by this administration for the last three years, a "free" election is all this war boils down to then clearly we have made a big mistake.
I really hope it turns out well. I hope the Iraqi people are able to build a strong nation in which the people have a real voice. We'll just have to keep our fingers crossed and our heads out of our asses.
30 Jan 05
Contrary to the hype, Iraqis have voted by secret ballot for a National Assembly every 4 years since 1980 (see http://countrystudies.us/iraq/72.htm). These elections seem to have been just as "free" as the ones being held today: in both the candidates had to be okayed by an election committee made up of the dominant power in Iraq (before 2003 the Baath party, today the US). This is also the first time I ever heard of an election being managed by an occupying foreign country ever being called "free" but the meanings of words seem particulary mallable in the hands of people like GW.
31 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NyxieThis is very disturbing: a post should not be modded because of its political content. These are FORUMS, for Zeus' sake! Here's part of the post:
It seems the first post in this thread has been modded....
today we shall be free of the u.s tyrants!!!
Modding this is no more appropriate than modding RWingett because he's an atheist or RBHill because he's a Born Again. I don't care how many n's alerted that post; this is a Debate forum and people should be able to express unpopular views. This is complete BS (this post will probably get modded, too).
EDIT: And apparently a even more innoucous post by Dodger11 about who made Iraqi elections possible has been modded. This is just plain silly.
31 Jan 05
I just watched Senator Joseph Lieberman being interviewed on the news. He said, "We [Americans] should be proud of what happened today [in Iraq]. It would not have been possible without the American military." He was asked what the situation would be in Iraq today if the Gore/Lieberman ticket had won in 2000. He said that while Gore would ultimately have made the decisions, he himself would have "advocated for the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq."
Senator Ted Kennedy doesn't see things that way, I will admit.