| Author | Message | ||
     sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13048 Registered: 10-2001  |
Gotta give Dubya a BIG W for this one. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 688 Registered: 3-2003 |
Two months ago, there was a steady drumbeat in the media to postpone the election due to violence. The past week I noticed a subtle media shift to-well there might not be the violence originally expected, and the media began to show the Iraqi excitement towards voting. This election starts the process with another electing leaders to come later this year. It isn't perfect, but it is a vital change which will benefit all of the Iraqi people. A further plus may be the reaction of the Iranian people who are somewhat frustrated with their backwards and violent theocracy. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13049 Registered: 10-2001 |
And a big fat F for the UN. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7409 Registered: 5-2001 |
I agree that the turnout is great. As was the case in Afghanistan people seem to be buying into the concept of controlling their own destiny. However, this is only the beginning. I hope that the fact that so many people risked their lives to vote will give whatever government comes out of the election enough credibility that the Iraqi military and police will be willing to fight and possibly die for their fellow countrymen and women. In the end this is what must happen if our little incursion into Iraq can be deemed a success. | ||
| Ginny Brown Citizen Username: Ginny_brown Post Number: 6 Registered: 1-2005 |
A statistician who was a grad school teacher quipped to the class one day that "statisticians make the difference!" Meaning that you need to look at the details behind the numbers that are spit out at us. Maybe informed citizens will search for the details and find out the facts. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1218 Registered: 9-2001  |
Finally something is going sort of right in Iraq. It is too early to tell how this will turn out, but initial reports are encouraging. Sunnis boycotted in large numbers, and we need to see if the new government will have the diplomatic skills to integrate Sunni and Kurds into Iraq or marginalizes them. The most encouraging reports regard women (at least urban women) realizing that their vote is in private and they need not vote for mullahs. Iraq is less under the sway of clerics so far, and may avoid the Iranian model yet. I wonder how Bush and cons and Sbenois will feel if the elected Iraqi government kicks us out, or starts moving closer to Iran. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1514 Registered: 1-2003  |
Sunni, Sunni, Sunni. I'm tired of these cries. Look, low Sunni turnout could be a good thing. If they stayed home because of fear of being killed by the insurgents, then as they see their friends and countrymen participatin, they will get jealous and mad at the insurgents for keeping them from being a part of the new Iraq. The insurgents lose support. If they boycotted because they don't want the Shia to rule, or don't like democracy, or don't like the US or whatever. then they freely chose not to participate, and they will learn ov er the next year or so what a mistake that was. As they see that... The insurgents lose support. Would anyone have called South Africa's elections illegitimate if the 20% of white Africanners boycotted, but trunout was 72%? Of course not. Personally I think Sunni turnout is more out of fear than anything else. That is a nail in the coffin of Zarquowi and the insurgency. I agree with Sbenois. This is a biw "W" for W. But its an even bigger "W" for Iraq and the middle east. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7410 Registered: 5-2001 |
It will be awhile before we know the actual turnout in Sunni areas. The 72% figure, btw, excludes three Sunni dominated provinces. I think a fair number of Sunnis didn't vote out of fear instead of as a boycott. The insurgents/terrorists are very good at intimidation, excellent at car bombing, but it appears when they had to go face to face with US and Iraqi forces during the elections they wimped out. This paragraph is pretty much a paraphrase of an Army General's comments I heard on TV a couple of days ago. I think he was right on. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2897 Registered: 12-2001  |
I have to say that this election is exciting. The reaction of other Arab nations is really interesting. This is a great day for the Bush Administration and also a great day for the United States. I have to give Bush points for being so steady in the Iraq mission. So for now, I will enjoy this day. Actually, I was really disappointed when Kennedy called for a withdrawal from Iraq last week. The fact is that once we invaded Iraq, withdrawal was not an option and the steadiness of the Bush Administration since then has been exactly the right thing. Now, if we can finally start to build up a self-reliant Iraqi security forces, then we might just have one for the history books. | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 164 Registered: 8-2003 |
This is just plain good news no matter what your opinions are about Bush or the war. Myself, I’m about as far opposed to this war as anybody. I felt it was premature with respect to the danger from Hussien, counterproductive to political progress in the Arab world, and unnecessarily antagonistic to our allies. I still believe it was one of the stupidest things the U.S. government has done in decades. However, once we invaded and destroyed the Iraqi government – their entire civil and military infrastructure – we owned it. We still own it and we have years of nation-building left ahead of us. The Teddy Kennedy cut-and-run approach is completely unrealistic. It’s far too early to predict how this will play out. There is still immense potential for civil war within Iraq and for general instability in the region. But a high voter turnout is a tangible achievement that let’s us entertain some real optimism for the future. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4395 Registered: 10-2001  |
More proof that American liberals are stupid and hate democracy. Up to 72% is unbelievable. American soldiers should be proud. If we change the thinking in Iraq (and this vote says we have), there is hope for the Middle East. I thank god Bush was re-elected. Imagine if Kerry/Kennedy were calling the shots now. Probably would have called off the whole damn election just to throw some weight around. | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 165 Registered: 8-2003 |
Strawberry, The imagination game cuts two ways. Imagine if Al Gore had been elected in 2000. We never would have invaded Iraq. Saddam still wouldn't have any WMD. Instead, maybe we would have put 100,000 troops into Afghanistan and captured Osama bin Laden. Fought the real war on terror instead of the war we've, got based on faulty intelligence and government lies. But it's just imagination, because we got Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Feith and their 12-year-old agenda to invade Iraq whether it was a good idea or not. As for your claim that this vote has changed the thinking in Iraq, I wouldn't count the chickens before they hatch. To me, the vote proves the Iraqi population is willing to stand up to the insurgents. That's a fantastic thing. But it doesn't prove that they won't be at each other's throats soon. We have a long way to go to learn whether Iraq will be the vanguard of modernization in the Arab world or just another dysfucntional country ravaged by civil war. As I've said before regarding Bush, I will be happy to give credit where credit is due. But so far, all we have are baby steps. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4397 Registered: 10-2001 |
which is better then no steps at all. And Al Gore is a jack •••. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13053 Registered: 10-2001 |
Straw is right about that.
Sorry. I don't agree. If Al Gore had been President we'd have Saddam Hussein still in power with a serious and continuing uncertainty as to whether he has WMD that can fall into the hands of terrorists. We'd also have two or three UN toothless resolutions begging him to fess up. The man to blame for the Iraqi situation is not Bush, it's Hussein. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4398 Registered: 10-2001 |
and the UN and those who decided Saddam had no reason to concern himself with sanctions. Oil for food made the man billions. Imagine that, start a war with a neighbor, set their oil wells on fire and kill some Americans on top of that who come to defend. AND HIS PUNISHMENT? BILLONS OF DOLLARS!!! no wonder he had no weapons. He was more concerned with his stolen money.(and since everyone including Bill Clinton swore he was armed and ready, he figured he had the world by the balls anyway) He figured wrong. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 675 Registered: 5-2004  |
I had planned to post about this all day, but when i finally got home and read the thread, MJ's line "This is a biw "W" for W. But its an even bigger "W" for Iraq and the middle east." and bottomline's post of 8:56 pretty much said everything I would have said. Like Bush or hate him, from what we know so far, this election couldn't have been expected to come off much better than it did. To quote th NY Lottery folks, "Congratulations to all you winners out there." | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 691 Registered: 3-2003 |
I meant to post this earlier. Let's not forget to thank our troops. As in our troops. They have been spread thin from Afghanistan in 11/01 to Iraq thru today, 1/30. What family sacrifices and personal sacrifices they have undergone to get us where we are today! So Bush has a big win! He knows that it wouldn't have been possible without our military. And that tragic tsunami, the major relief on the scene rather quickly came from whom? Our military. They are a major credit to our country. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13055 Registered: 10-2001 |
Absolutely. When the heavy lifting has to be done, it's not the UN or the French or the Germans doing it. It's the military of the USA. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4399 Registered: 10-2001 |
 | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3051 Registered: 8-2003 |
I think more Sunnis didn't vote out of fear of getting killed than actually boycotted the election, but we'll have to wait and see. If Gore was in office, we'd have another Kosovo in Afghanistan IF he chose to act, and no movement towards freedom in Iraq. Meaning, a net zero additional freedom anywhere. What was that Kosovo plan? Someone ask Clinton, who's easily reachable nowadays. This post is from the Washington Times, but I'd like to see the New York Times in it's equally partisan manner dispute this article or -- even better -- tell us how well it's going in Kosovo. And Kennedy wants to retreat and turn Iraq over to the international community? Here's what it would look like: "The Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com What's going on in Kosovo? By James D. Zirin Published January 30, 2005 Remember Kosovo? That was our last military engagement before September 11, 2001. In March 1999, we bombed Kosovo to blazes under the auspices of NATO, ostensibly to protect the 90 percent majority Kosovar Albanians against the "ethnic cleansing" savagery of Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed dismay that the NATO allies had failed to involve the Security Council in its decision to use force in the Balkans. Sound familiar? Later, without any clear exit strategy, our forces entered the province under the auspices of NATO and the United Nations to drive out the Yugoslavian army that was murdering Albanian Muslim civilians. Security Council Resolution 1244, mandating an international administration of Kosovo, visualized a final political settlement within three years and recognized that Belgrade, which had displaced 700,000 Albanian Kosovars, had lost its right to sovereignty over the province. Ironically, we wound up still there almost six years later mostly protecting the Serbian minority against the repression of the Albanians. With America's eye on Iraq, it is easily forgotten that Kosovo has since 1999 been a U.N. protectorate run by the Security Council at an annual cost of $350 million. We now have a reduced force of some 2,000 troops constituting 15 percent of the U.N.-NATO peacekeepers, pending resolution of the province's final status. At such low force levels, there is little political impetus to do anything. Unfortunately, according to a recently released report of the International Crisis Group, "time is running out in Kosovo," and there is the distinct possibility of a return to violence and instability if a settlement is not achieved. Kosovo Albanians are anxious over their unresolved status. Kosovo's Serbs distrust the Albanian track record of dealing with minorities and may invite Serbia's armed forces to help them if agreement cannot be reached shortly. Deadly rioting broke out in March 2004 over independence-related issues. The looming specter is of renewed armed conflict and regional instability. Everyone agrees there are four basic elements to a settlement: (1) Protection of minority rights. (2) A guarantee Kosovo will not be partitioned. (3) A solution that does not include making Kosovo part of a greater Albania. (4) And independence from Belgrade's rule. The vexing problem is that it has been nearly six years since we bombed Kosovo's capital Pristina, and there is not even a timetable or process in place for resolving Kosovo's status. As Mr. Annan's Special Representative observed last August when he arrived in Pristina, "I think there's a limit to how long you can keep a place in limbo." The way forward is easily limned but elusively achieved as it calls upon bitter ethnic enemies to live together peacefully. The six-member "contact group" -- the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia -- which really controls our involvement in Kosovo, has the muscle to declare a settlement framework for settlement and an independence timetable. The contact group said last September that, "Kosovo would not return to the situation prevailing there before March 1999." The Crisis Group report suggests the United Nations should appoint a special envoy to consult all interested parties on the form of a settlement and the process for putting it into effect. Not a bad idea. Then, the usual stuff: a constitution, a rule of law, providing among other things protection of minority rights and enforced by constitutional tribunals headed by international judges and meeting international standards, and an international monitoring commission to observe and report if new Kosovo back downs on its internationally crafted obligations. All it requires is international political will. But nothing seems to be happening. Even if progress were made, the lurking question is whether any settlement dictated by the international community would work on the ground. The scholar Niall Ferguson has shrewdly observed there are historically "seven characteristic phases of American engagement: impressive initial military success; a flawed assessment of indigenous sentiment (as in the vice president's admitted miscalculation in Iraq, "We will be embraced as liberators"); a strategy of limited war and gradual escalation of forces; domestic disillusionment in a protracted and nasty conflict; premature democratization; ascendancy of domestic economic considerations; and ultimate withdrawal." In other words, we seem to engage, get bogged down, abandon our premises for going in the first place, declare victory and go home. This may ultimately prove to be the case in Kosovo. It has been nearly six years and the latest news out of Kosovo is that the United Nations is dithering over where to find 3,000 corpses missing since the initial conflict. If we can't move toward resolving the small problems of the world, what hope do we have for solving the big ones? James D. Zirin is a lawyer in New York and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations." This situation is sitting squarely on Europe's shoulders. How hopeful is that? |
