| Author | Message | ||
     marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1243 Registered: 6-2001 |
Why are so many of you so surprised at this unprecented, historic success in Iraq? We Republicans who voted for George Bush are not surprised. We voted for this President because we knew he was going to do what needed to be done and wouldn't be swayed by the liberal, left, anti-war, fear mongerers whose daily mantra of Wrong War at the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time was clearly WRONG! Iraqi citizens gave their lives today to vote in an election that would bring the beginnings of peace and democratic society to their country. They returned to polls after insurgents blew themselves and other Iraqi citizens to smithereens, undeterred and determined to cast their vote, not only for themselves, but for every innocent Iraqi citizen who died under the horrific Hussein regime. God Bless our military, America, Iraq, the Iraqi people and George W Bush and if that offends you - Tough S-- t! | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 166 Registered: 8-2003 |
I think the Washington Times piece is a fairly balanced view of the pitfalls of nation-building. Two items struck me in particular: All it requires is international political will.If we susbstitute 'American' for 'international' in these phrases, it pretty well sums up the dilemma in Iraq. Do we have the political will? So far we do, based on our ongoing military presence, and I suspect Bush can keep that up for some time. Will our approach work on the ground? I certainly hope so, but it's very early days. I'm not trying to cast negative energy around here. Nor am I looking for an excuse to stick it to Bush, even though I dislike him politically. I want peace and freedom in Iraq as much as anyone. All I'm saying is, Iraq is still a quagmire. Let's don't get too starry-eyed too soon. | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 167 Registered: 8-2003 |
Marie, One's view of whether this is the wrong war in the wrong place depends on whether one believes the war in Iraq is the real war on terror. I don't. After Bush surrounded himself with the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, it was pretty clear he intended to cook up a rationale for invading Iraq. And that was before 9/11. I'm not surprised that Bush invaded Iraq, nor am I surprised that he changed the public justification for the war when it was clear that Saddam had no WMD's. What you see as steadfastness and courage in Bush, I see as him being pigheaded and condescending. It's a classic case of viewing the same set of facts from different eyes. As for the war on terror, I like to ask this little two-part foriegn policy quiz. 1) Where was Osama bin Laded on September 10, 2001?Question 2 is left for the reader, but here's a hint: see question 1. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7411 Registered: 5-2001 |
bottomline brings up a good point. Was the invasion of Iraq because of WMD or a neo-con wet dream? Were the WMD only a mask to get approval for the war? I think that may well be the case, which means Bush and friends lied to Congress and the American people. While yesterday's vote was very encouraging, the war didn't go according to neo-con theroy, with the Iraqis throwing rose petals at the troops. In stead they threw grenades. I hope the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds can put aside their differences and form a stable government, although I am not all that optimistic. The vote yesterday was very much along ethnic/religious lines. If this is the case the Iraqi army and police will continue to disappoint and we will have troops there for at least ten years. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 222 Registered: 2-2003 |
The good news about yesterday's election is that part of the Iraqi population -- the Shias and Kurds -- attempted to express its will through the ballot box. The bad news is that another part of the population -- the Sunnis did not. The good news is that the election was designed and supported by the United Nations (Sbenois's knee-jerk "F" for the UN gets an "F"). The bad news is that there were no international observers which means the counting of the votes will lack credibility. The good news is that perhaps a majority of Iraqis showed that they want to solve their nation's problems peacefully. The bad news is that a large minority of Iraqis remain committed to a military solution (latest news -- US Embassy hit and a British aircraft shot down). The good news is that the election provides the Bush administration with an excellent opportunity to transfer responsibility for Iraq to the United Nations to allow a rapid return of US soldiers and a real transition to Iraqi sovereignty. The bad news is that the Bush administration remains committed to its primary agenda of war and conquest and it remains committed to its real purpose for invading Iraq which is to privatize and capture control of Iraq's oil, which will require long-term military domination of Iraq. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1224-05.htm The good news is that there are growing calls in the Senate (Ted Kennedy) and Congress (Lynn Woolsey) for the return home of US troops from Iraq. And more good news is that South Mountain Peace Action has collected 1,200 signatures on its petition to our senators and congressmen, calling for an international solution in Iraq, led by the United Nations, to allow a rapid return of US soldiers. We will be setting up meetings soon to deliver these petitions and to urge our senators and congressmen to support such an exit strategy, which is further justified by yesterday's election. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13056 Registered: 10-2001  |
The good news is that the Bush administration doesn't want our soldiers to stay there forever. They have every reason to bring the troops home. And they will - when the time is right. The other good news is that they will do this without consulting the folks at SMPA. And yes, the UN gets a big fat F for their YEARS of thumb twiddling on Iraq, for their scandal plagued oil for food program, for their failure to recognize the Holocaust for 60 years and for wasting the time and money of the US taxpayers. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7414 Registered: 5-2001 |
Both the NY Times and the NY Daily News pegged the turnout at around 60%, not the 72% I think most of us picked up from Fox News yesterday. The Times also indicated that in Sammara (a heavily Sunni City of 200,000) only 1400 votes were cast. OK, I am confused. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 376 Registered: 9-2004 |
Bobkat, Your not alone. It will take weeks before we know the facts (or if) on how many came out to vote. The estimates are varied. Mark quotes: I wonder how Bush and cons and Sbenois will feel if the elected Iraqi government kicks us out, or starts moving closer to Iran. I wonder to. Here's a little info on Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, Iraq's leading Shiite cleric. Is Sistani Iraq's Khomeini? The election "Sistani's Triumph," and suggests that the government that comes out of Sunday's poll will be closer to the Iranian model than the American system. As we struggle to transform this conflict from an international military confrontation into a peaceful Iraqi political contest, we need to be as realistic in assessing the political obstacles confronting our efforts to leave Iraq with a benign regime as we are in assessing the military obstacles. "One of those political obstacles is the Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, Iraq's leading Shiite cleric. "Policymakers ought to carefully examine the similarities and differences between Sistani and Ayatollah Khomeini, the late Shiite cleric who sparked the Islamic revolution in Iran. "One difference between Khomeini and Sistani is that Khomeini would actually meet with Westerners, including female Western reporters. Sistani won't even meet with Ambassador Paul Bremer, head of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority. "In April, the New York Times reported: 'Ayatollah Sistani's supporters want Islam to govern such matters as family law, divorce and women's rights.' The Iranian-born Sistani heads the top Shiite religious authority of Iraq, known as the marjaiya. As the supreme ayatollah, Sistani's word is considered law by many of Iraq's Shiite majority _ an estimated 60 percent of about 27 million people. Many Sunni Muslims also consider him a respected scholar who looks out for the interests of all Iraqis. This could be very interesting. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4401 Registered: 10-2001  |
On a day where America led by the Republicans brings a Democratic election to the Middle East, it looks more likely that Howard Dean will become the next chairman of the DNC. Amazing, one party spreads freedom, the other spreads stupidity.  | ||
| ML Supporter Username: Ml1 Post Number: 2226 Registered: 5-2002  |
bobkat, according to CNN:
The confusion is because no one will know the exact turnout for at least a week, and any numbers you hear now are guesses. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 3453 Registered: 9-2001 |
"...It’s far too early to predict how this will play out." Is that really the bottomline? IMHO, Bush has a plan, and like we can see thus far, he planned the work, then worked the plan... I believe Bush will stay the course, and we'll see peace in Iraq in our lifetime. That would never have happened any other way with SH and/or the UN. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 790 Registered: 7-2004 |
Our troops did an amazing job yesterday. I'd really like to believe they are one step closer to coming home. Here's a question: if spreading democracy and defeating tyrrany in Iraq was the goal from the start, why did Bush and Co. bend over backwards to "sell the war" as a quest to eliminate WMDs, to curb the immediate Iraqi threat, to play up the link between Saddam and Bin Laden, have Colin Powell go in front of the UN and lie his ••• off, yellowcake, etc., etc.? | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4404 Registered: 10-2001 |
Art, This is a bad day for Liberal Democrats. Success in Iraq is something they don't want to see. So when you say Bush will stay the course, this in and of itself drives them crazy. They would rather see him divert, cut and run and fail instead. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 3454 Registered: 9-2001 |
"And more good news is that South Mountain Peace Action has collected 1,200 signatures on its petition to our senators and congressmen, calling for an international solution in Iraq, led by the United Nations, to allow a rapid return of US soldiers." How can you call this good news? The present goal of the not so United States of America is to bring peace to Iraq and get out ASAP. How can anyone believe "an international solution to Iraq is possible if it is led by the United Nations" and not the United States? America must finish what it started, not the UN... | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 791 Registered: 7-2004 |
"...he planned the work, then worked the plan..."  ajc: but he did "think outside the box," did he "run it up the flagpole to see who'd salute," did he "reinvent the wheel," did he "dot his Is and cross his Ts...?" | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4405 Registered: 10-2001 |
Art, Please ignore the above troll. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 3455 Registered: 9-2001 |
...he did what he did, and the world has learned a lesson it won't soon forget! Plan for peace... Work for peace... Pray for peace... and if all else fails, fight for freedom! | ||
| Hank Zona Citizen Username: Hankzona Post Number: 1963 Registered: 3-2002 |
regardless of who takes credit or assigns more fault in our country because of the elections in Iraq, and regardless of how many Iraqis actually voted, there is something we should be collectively embarrassed of, no matter what your political leanings are. In our country we have no fear of violence when we go to vote, no threat that we will be killed for voting, yet many of us, often a considerable majority of us, still dont vote. Iraqis turned out to vote in whatever percentage it ends up being and for whatever reasons they voted for, despite the very legitimate concern and fear of harm, not just on the election day, but after it as well. That to me is what is most impressive about yesterday. Think about that next time you blow off going to vote. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 793 Registered: 7-2004 |
Bob Herbert: "Despite the pretty words coming out of the Bush administration, the goals of the U.S. and the goals of most ordinary Iraqis are not, by a long stretch, the same. The desire of the U.S., as embodied by the Bush administration, is to exercise as much control as possible over the Middle East and its crucial oil reserves. There is very little concern here about the plight of ordinary Iraqis, which is why the horrendous casualties being suffered by Iraqi civilians, including women and children, get so little attention. What most ordinary Iraqis have been expressing, not surprisingly, is a desire for a reasonably decent quality of life. They are a long way from that." MORE "Iraqis may have voted yesterday. But they live in occupied territory, and the occupiers have other things on their minds than the basic wishes of the Iraqi people. That's not democracy. That's a recipe for more war." | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4406 Registered: 10-2001 |
good point Hank, Think about what happened in the DC area when you had 2 guys in a Buick with a shot gun. People were afraid to get gas, shop for food, go to Home Depot. Bars and restaurants were empty all because of a sniper. In Iraq over 50% of the voters braved car bombs, and suicide bombers and gunmen etc. etc. to cast their ballot. Heroic and something Iraqis should be proud of. We have no choice but to do what we can to give these people the freedom they deserve. Bush has been right about the Iraqi people since day 1. THANK GOD HE WAS RE-ELECTED. |
