Author |
Message |
   
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1343 Registered: 10-2005
| Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 12:53 pm: |
|
WHY NOT LET THEM VOTE? [Jonah Goldberg-NRM] Here's an old idea that I've been noodling again for a while: Why not let the Iraqis have a referendum on whether US forces should stay? Here are some reasons, off the top of my head, and in no particular order: 1. The formation of the government is the last major political benchmark for the Iraqis, and it's not going well. Sectarian feelings have hardened and there are few events left that can foster a sense of national unity. But a national referendum on whether Americans should stay would be exactly that. 2. If Iraqis vote yes on continuing America's presence -- which I think they would -- the Iraqi people will feel more "bought-in" to America's project. 3. It will once again signal that America is on the side of democracy while many of its opponents are not. 4. It will (further) pull anti-American elements into the electoral process. 5. It will take the burden off the new government of seeming like a lap dog to the gringos. The president and prime minister can say "I'm bowing to the will of the people" or "this issue has been settled by the people already" whenever presented with that charge. 6. It would deflate the impact of the "occupiers" epithet against Americans. 7. It would send an important signal to opponents of the war in Europe and America about the nature of the project. Could Ted Kennedy really say this is a war for Bush's ego or for oil with so much spittle if the Iraqi people poured into the polls to ask for America to stay? 8. It would help American troop morale. 9. It would take the heat off allies -- current or future -- when it comes to helping in the war effort. 10. It would marry Iraqi nationalism to democratic norms and force Iraqis to think very seriously about what their country would like if America left. 11. Even the American media would have to celebrate such an event. 12. It would further bind the next president -- Democratic or Republican -- to finishing the job in Iraq. 13. It would have Bush talking on issues where he's best. Now, what if Iraqis voted no? Well, some of the above points would still hold true. Democracy will have been strengthened in Iraq. America's commitment to democracy will have been reaffirmed in a profoundly dramatic way. The long debate leading up to the vote will have changed the tone and served to teach not only Iraqis, but the region, about how democracy works. Etc. And while I certainly think it would be bad if Iraqis voted America out of their country, I can think of no more honorable and face-saving way for U.S. forces to exit Iraq than after a vote of this sort. It certainly beats watching people hang from the bottom of helicopters. I think the referendum would have to be worded carefully and cleverly, and I can think of other problems and benefits, but I think as thought experiment there's enough here to noodle.
|
   
tjohn
Supporter Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4276 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 12:56 pm: |
|
I would imagine that those who would vote for a continued American presence ARE NOT those currently fighting us. This vote idea assumes a sort of rationality in human behavior that doesn't really exist, at least, no in then short-term. |
   
Hoops
Citizen Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1209 Registered: 10-2004

| Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 1:08 pm: |
|
the idea is laughable. We are not going anywhere regardless of any 'democratic' vote. We are building PERMANENT military bases. We have spent BILLIONS of dollars on creating a little bit of America in the middle east. Some of the bases are large enough to be their own city. There is no way this administration pulls troops out of Iraq. We are an occupying force and have no plans to be anything else, except maybe colonizers |
   
Chris Prenovost
Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 850 Registered: 7-2003
| Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Hoops, you are dead wrong. Do not try and shove this already horrible situation into your narrow idological framework. Go back to the sixties. SLK, I for one think the idea has a lot of merit. Your arguments hold a lot of water. We blundered into that poor country based on a series of Presidential lies and obfuscations. And now we are stuck. We must make the best of a bad situation. Your idea seems a good place to start.
|
   
Hoops
Citizen Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1212 Registered: 10-2004

| Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Chris, if I am wrong then please explain why we require PERMANENT military bases. I dont think my ideas are narrow btw. I think they are human. Why did we invade a nation that did not threaten us? Why are we threatening another nation that does not threaten us in Iran? The real enemy is sitting in the mountains of Pakistan laughing at us while we do his work recruiting more Al Qaeda sympathizers. No plan to get out ever
|
   
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1344 Registered: 10-2005
| Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Hoops- Think about it, what country would possibly hate a US military base on their soil (permanent or otherwise), other than a foolish one? It guarantees security on a massive scale that some of these countries otherwise wouldn't have (along with other perks). It is not like the US, says "we are putting a base here and you are going to like it." It is a negotiated deal where both sides make out. How many countries do you ever hear complain about a USM in their presence? Chris- I wish it were my idea but it isn't, but it sounds practical to me, especially since you always hear the argument that the Iraqi people do not want us there. Why don't we ask them? -SLK
|
   
Hoops
Citizen Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1214 Registered: 10-2004

| Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Quote:Think about it, what country would possibly hate a US military base on their soil (permanent or otherwise), other than a foolish one?
Have you absolutely lost your mind? Bin Laden's reason to attack America was because of the air base we used to have in Saudi Arabia. Lets look at your other statement - America blows up all of the Iraqi communications infrastructure, most of its power generation capability, destroys its military totally, and you claim we asked permission to build these bases? Sure, they could have said no. Too funny. It takes a lot of courage to complain about the bully on the block SLK. American Military Bases in Foreign Countries In the article above is this gem -
Quote:While there is every reason to believe that the impulse to create ever more lily pads in the Third World remains unchecked, there are several reasons to doubt that some of the more grandiose plans, for either expansion or downsizing, will ever be put into effect or, if they are, that they will do anything other than make the problem of terrorism worse than it is. For one thing, Russia is opposed to the expansion of U.S. military power on its borders and is already moving to checkmate American basing sorties into places like Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. The first post-Soviet-era Russian airbase in Kyrgyzstan has just been completed forty miles from the U.S. base at Bishkek, and in December 2003, the dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, declared that he would not permit a permanent deployment of U.S. forces in his country even though we already have a base there.
and this
Quote:By far the greatest defect in the "global cavalry" strategy, however, is that it accentuates Washington's impulse to apply irrelevant military remedies to terrorism. As the prominent British military historian, Correlli Barnett, has observed, the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq only increased the threat of al-Qaeda. From 1993 through the 9/11 assaults of 2001, there were five major al-Qaeda attacks worldwide; in the two years since then there have been seventeen such bombings, including the Istanbul suicide assaults on the British consulate and an HSBC Bank. Military operations against terrorists are not the solution. As Barnett puts it, "Rather than kicking down front doors and barging into ancient and complex societies with simple nostrums of 'freedom and democracy,' we need tactics of cunning and subtlety, based on a profound understanding of the people and cultures we are dealing with -- an understanding up till now entirely lacking in the top-level policy-makers in Washington, especially in the Pentagon." In his notorious "long, hard slog" memo on Iraq of October 16, 2003, Defense secretary Rumsfeld wrote, "Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror." Correlli-Barnett's "metrics" indicate otherwise. But the "war on terrorism" is at best only a small part of the reason for all our military strategizing. The real reason for constructing this new ring of American bases along the equator is to expand our empire and reinforce our military domination of the world.
Explain to me how we are not an imperialist nation and why the whole world is happy to see us again. |
   
Foj
Citizen Username: Foger
Post Number: 1242 Registered: 9-2004
| Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 10:34 pm: |
|
14 US bases. 14 reasons to kill US troops. |
   
Mustt_mustt
Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 566 Registered: 8-2003
| Posted on Monday, May 1, 2006 - 9:36 am: |
|
SLK, You say via Goldberg that "It will once again signal that America is on the side of democracy while many of its opponents are not." That's a slap in the face of history. America has never been on the side of democracy. It has systematically dismantled democratically elected govts over time through coups in South America, Middle east and Asia. This nation has propped up dictatorial regimes and military juntas elsewhere to further its own interests. Actually Iraq and Iran are classic examples. America is reaping what it has sown. |
   
Tom Reingold
Supporter Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13975 Registered: 1-2003

| Posted on Monday, May 1, 2006 - 9:38 am: |
|
And it seems that attempts to manipulate these governments backfire into the opposite of the desired effect.
|
   
Bob K
Supporter Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11370 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Monday, May 1, 2006 - 9:44 am: |
|
I think this is an interesting idea. I have heard various Administration officials state that if the Iraqi government asks us to leave we will leave. Also, I remember seeing a poll a couple of years ago that said something like 70% of the Iraqi people wanted us to leave, although if it came to a vote the results might be different. There is a difference between wishing for something and having the wish come true.
|
|