Iraqi elections

Originally posted by sh76
Although turnout was down from 2005 levels, turnout was still higher than in, say, the United States (which is pretty sad for us, but I digress).

Turnout in Anbar province was 61%. This time, the Sunnis clearly turned out to vote. There was some violence of course, as the insurgents continue their last ditch effort in what seems like their lost cause to prev ...[text shortened]... n will be viewed as a great turning point in the history of the Middle East?

Just a thought.

It takes a stunning amount of collective amnesia to accept this. The purpose of the invasion and objective was to create an Arab puppet state willing to allow permanent US military bases in the heart of the Middle East, to accept foreign domination of the Iraq economy and to be friendly toward Israel. These true objectives were shown by the actions of the CPA which "democratically" imposed a Constitution and a full set of laws on the Iraqi people. Hundreds of foreign corporations set up shop in Iraq as the Iraqi economy was destroyed by the war and occupation.

However, continued resistance by Iraqis to occupation ended these dreams; most foreign companies fled by 2004-05 (except the heavily subsidized US security companies like Blackwater, who can shoot down Iraqis with impunity). In the periodic elections that have been allowed, Iraqis have consistently voted for the bloc which most opposed the continued presence of American troops and corporate interests.

So, tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead; millions displaced. An economy absolutely ruined; power, water and other essentials are still often unavailable in the country. And in the end this great ideological crusade is likely to result in a government which is hostile to the US, perhaps as hostile to it as Saddam was (those with long term memories will remember that the Reagan administration was quite friendly to Saddam).

It's a credit to the Iraqi people that they appear to be making a good effort at keeping the country together under almost impossible circumstances. But the "shudders of revulsion" that history will view will be those in response to the ultimate failure of this neocon, neocolonial exercise in power politics which brought untold suffering and mass death and destruction to Iraq.

Originally posted by sh76
Although turnout was down from 2005 levels, turnout was still higher than in, say, the United States (which is pretty sad for us, but I digress).

Turnout in Anbar province was 61%. This time, the Sunnis clearly turned out to vote. There was some violence of course, as the insurgents continue their last ditch effort in what seems like their lost cause to prev ...[text shortened]... n will be viewed as a great turning point in the history of the Middle East?

Just a thought.

i thought al-Maliki was already elected, back in whenever.

I think overthrowing Saddam got the US respect from the Arab world, no1. The occupation is a different issue.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
i thought al-Maliki was already elected, back in whenever.

He was. This election is about his party trying to maintain power.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It takes a stunning amount of collective amnesia to accept this. The purpose of the invasion and objective was to create an Arab puppet state willing to allow permanent US military bases in the heart of the Middle East, to accept foreign domination of the Iraq economy and to be friendly toward Israel. These true objectives were shown by the actions of th ...[text shortened]... se in power politics which brought untold suffering and mass death and destruction to Iraq.

Why does the initial purpose of the invasion matter in this regard?

Even accepting your allegations as to the Bush administration's agenda (which I don't), my point was that in the long run, the establishment of a stable democracy in Iraq could be a good thing. That has nothing to do with whether the initial goals of the invasion were met.

I know you'll think I'm naive for saying this, but I don't think that Bush envisioned a permanent large scale US presence in Iraq. The first goal was to topple Hussein. Bush probably thought that a democratic government would spontaneously form that would naturally be friendly to the country that liberated them from Hussein's tyranny. Was Bush naive on that point? Yes. Was he wrong on that point? Yes, again.

To get inside Bush's head before the invasion (if you're interested in doing so), you should read "The case for democracy" by Anatoly Sharansky. Bush reportedly read it and was much influenced by it. Bush has a somewhat simplistic view on things. He sees things in black and white. He doesn't like the estate tax, for example, so he fought tooth and nail to get rid of it, in spite of the lack of a compelling reason to do so and broadening budget deficits. This simplistic view of the World was undoubtedly his greatest undoing as President. In Bush's mind, Democracy is the natural desire of every person and every society. By deposing a ruling despot and giving a society a chance to install a democracy, they will do it and be happy that they've done it.

That was the driving force behind the invasion, overly simplistic and of questionable justification as it may have been.

Originally posted by sh76
Why does the initial purpose of the invasion matter in this regard?

Even accepting your allegations as to the Bush administration's agenda (which I don't), my point was that in the long run, the establishment of a stable democracy in Iraq could be a good thing. That has nothing to do with whether the initial goals of the invasion were met.

I know you'll t ...[text shortened]... invasion, overly simplistic and of questionable justification as it may have been.

How do you successfully defend the U.S. from the ideology of Islamic Totalitarianism without having to kill everyone in the Middle East?

That was the question Bush had to answer after 9/11. Ignoring it wasn't an option, and negotiating with an amorphous group of suicidal/homicidal maniacs wasn't an option. Bush's answer was to confront their ideology with ours, by attempting to establish two democratic governments smack dab in the middle of their back yard.

I'll grant you that it's simplistic, and the bungling that ensued showed how naive they were about what they were getting into. But if establishing democracy in the Middle East wasn't the answer, how do you answer the question that Bush had to answer as President after 9/11?

Originally posted by sh76
Why does the initial purpose of the invasion matter in this regard?

Even accepting your allegations as to the Bush administration's agenda (which I don't), my point was that in the long run, the establishment of a stable democracy in Iraq could be a good thing. That has nothing to do with whether the initial goals of the invasion were met.

I know you'll t ...[text shortened]... invasion, overly simplistic and of questionable justification as it may have been.

I wouldn't rate that as even naive; it's just stupid talk. "Getting inside Bush's head" is a useless endeavor except if one wants some air.

Your thesis hardly explains why the CPA in the first few months attempted to perform a Friedmanist restructuring of the Iraqi economy by fiat. Privatization of government firms, slashing of corporation tax rates, allowing foreign companies to buy up 100% of Iraqi assets with no taxes on profits taken out of the country. What does any of that have to do with Iraqi democracy? In fact, the CPA in 2003 handpicked an Iraqi "Governing Council" without the muss and fuss of elections. How exactly was this "democratic government" going to "spontaneously arise" when the foreign occupiers forbade elections? In the first year of occupation alone, the CPA cancelled a constituent assembly, drafted an Iraqi Constitution without allowing Iraqis to elect the drafters, called off dozens of local and provincial elections and refused to hold national elections. Some "democracy"!

Either your memory is very poor or you never paid attention to what was going on in Iraq.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
How do you successfully defend the U.S. from the ideology of Islamic Totalitarianism without having to kill everyone in the Middle East?

That was the question Bush had to answer after 9/11. Ignoring it wasn't an option, and negotiating with an amorphous group of suicidal/homicidal maniacs wasn't an option. Bush's answer was to confront their ideology he answer, how do you answer the question that Bush had to answer as President after 9/11?

Attacking the most secular Arab nation in order to fight Islamic Fundamentalism is imbecilic.

Neo-Cons had been pushing for an invasion of Iraq long before 9/11.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Attacking the most secular Arab nation in order to fight Islamic Fundamentalism is imbecilic.

Neo-Cons had been pushing for an invasion of Iraq long before 9/11.

You didn't answer the question.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
You didn't answer the question.

The question takes for granted that Islamic Fundamentalism is some type of existential threat to the US. I regard that premise as nonsense.

9/11 should have been treated in the same manner as the Oklahoma City Bombing i.e. as a terrorist act by a bunch of criminals. Certainly getting even more deeply involved in the Middle East was the opposite of what a sane foreign policy required.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The question takes for granted that Islamic Fundamentalism is some type of existential threat to the US. I regard that premise as nonsense.

9/11 should have been treated in the same manner as the Oklahoma City Bombing i.e. as a terrorist act by a bunch of criminals. Certainly getting even more deeply involved in the Middle East was the opposite of what a sane foreign policy required.

A bunch of criminals? Ah, welcome back to 9/10/2001.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
"The ends justify the means"

I always defended Bush and supported the war. However the fact that he lied to us to get there really, really pisses me off.

Regardless of the ins and outs of the war (and I agree it liberated the iraqi people from a dictator), this war was really a waste of money and a waste of lives.

If you consider the economic and human cost of the war you'll see it would have been better to just leave things as they were, the US didn't have the right to invade iraq even if there was a good reason to do so.

Furthermore, it is impossible to make sure every country in the world has a democratic government, and if that was really Bush's goal (to "spread democracy"😉 why did he invade iraq? why not cuba, zimbabwe, or any other dictatorship? whats so special about iraq? oh wait, the oil.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
A bunch of criminals? Ah, welcome back to 9/10/2001.

A platitude is not a replacement for a logical policy.

Originally posted by sh76
[b]Although turnout was down from 2005 levels, turnout was still higher than in, say, the United States (which is pretty sad for us, but I digress).

Give them a little more time. Soon they will be as cynical as those in the states. Their voting numbers should then decrease accordingly. 😛

Originally posted by sh76


But is it possible, I mean possible, that one day, the removal of Saddam Hussein and his replacement by a power sharing democracy rife with secterian harmony to have the extremists shuddering in revulsion will be viewed as a great turning point in the history of the Middle East?

Just a thought.[/b]

So if it turns out to be a "success", where is the US off to next? Iran?

BTW: How would you define "success" in Iraq?