January 29th, 2005, 06:26 PM
Sunday's elections in Iraq have become the litmus test of President Bush's foreign policy. If they come off with minimal violence and if a respectable number of Sunnis participate, even staunch Bush critics will have to hold their fire. You can almost hear some naysayers hoping for the worst, if only to prove themselves right.
Even though I didn't favor the invasion, I can't help but hope for
the best on Sunday.
I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.
January 29th, 2005, 06:44 PM
Hopes: I hope everything goes smoothly, no attacks perferably, and a new leader is elected. We (the US and it's allies) start to pull troops out the day after the election. Everything is peachy and slowly Iraq becomes more civilized and starts to grow to a European equivalent nation.
Reality: Multiple attacks, mainly focused on the election centers. A possible write in campaign puts Saddam back in power. Assuming Saddam isn't a write in winner, the person elected takes office whenever and is assassinated within a week. His replacement goes down the same way except it takes two weeks. Iraq becomes a worse shamble than now and we (US and it's allies) are forced to stay there and clean up one of the biggest ****ing messes of a war ever started.
January 29th, 2005, 08:05 PM
No matter what happens, I cant help thinking, what lies between Iraq and Afganistan. For some reason it reminds me of a game I used to play called Risk: http://boardgamecentral.com/games/risk.html
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can assume it will be pretty bad. - Dave Barry
January 29th, 2005, 09:17 PM
I have to agree...it doesn't look promising...you've got three main players ( Kurds, Shities, and Sunnis' ) who won't take nicely to anyone elected who doesn't belong to their sect...they hate each other almost as much as they hate the U.S.
The only way an election would work with these religious sects is to get them to accept the concept of "religious freedom" first...until then...they'll just abuse the power to promote their own ideology...and eventually rule with the perverbial " iron fist ".
Democracy only works in Countries with a population that is ( primarily ) fanatically loyal only to making money and making more money...with the occasional reference to a religion in a very apathetic way.
Ahhh...duh...I wanna thank god fer makin' me catch this here pigskin...yep...I go to church every Mond...I mean Sunday...right after the bar closes...errr...I mean right after breakfast...yep !
You won't see millions of people rushing to the river Ganges ( or Mississippi ) here in pursuit of religious purification. We need to teach them religious apathy.
January 30th, 2005, 01:27 AM
[edited from the Daily Express. UK. Friday 28th January 2005 - author - Frederick Forsyth - Page 13]
I've been searching for the E-page of this column, couldn't find it, so I'll type out an abridged version here :
According to my contact, there are 18 provinces in Iraq, and only three consumed by terrorism.
The violent insurrection is not so much about anti-American / British feelings, as about who controls Iraq in the future.
It always used to be the Sunnis because Saddam was a Sunni muslim, but the majority are the hitherto-downtrodden Shia, who make up 60% of the population.
Needless to say, one-man-one-vote, means the end for Sunni control.
Destroying Iraqi democracy, NOT destroying the occupiers, is the real goal.
Of the 40%, half are Kurds from the north and very few of them hate the West.
But in among the Sunni are the estimated 40,000 foreign fanatics, headed by the Jordanian Zarqawi.
Even if the figure of 200,000 insurgents, including 40,000 foreign terrorists, is true.
Among 20 MILLION Iraqi's that is just 1%.
NO Democratic country could allow a rebellion by 1% to dictate its future destiny.
Despite the suicide bombs in cars, usually aimed at Iraqi's, not our troops, new Iraqi soldiers and police continue to enlist, and election officials continue to scatter the polling booths.
Premier Iyad Allawi reckons to get a voter turnout of more than 50%.
[In the UK Scottish referendum got 60%, Welsh one got 50% and the General Election of 2001 just 59%, and no one was shooting at us]
If the turnout is credible, and the count is honest, the new government will have a peoples mandate to declare democratic law in 15 provinces, and martial law in the warlike 3,
then teach Al Quaeda who is REALLY in charge of the new Iraq.
No one is taking big bets just yet, but Allawi is a tough cookie and might just pull it off.
If Al Quaeda could be defeated by fellow Arabs, it would change the political landscape east of the Syrian coast.
55 - I'm fiftyfeckinfive and STILL no wiser,
Beware of Geeks bearing GIF's
come and waste the day :P at The Taz Zone
January 31st, 2005, 03:32 AM
I will admit to being a naysayer....not that it comes as much of a surprise to any of you. However, I watched the news today with much happiness. However much I was/am against the war, it doesn't mean I want the troops that have died there to have died for nothing. With a positive step towards self-government, we are one step closer to bringing troops home who I don't think should have ever left. And those who have lost loved ones can at least look at the elections and say they died for a cause. Still, cold comfort at best.
You can almost hear some naysayers hoping for the worst, if only to prove themselves right.
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
January 31st, 2005, 06:24 AM
The problems may have just begun...to the best of my knowledge there are only two Official Democratic Theocracies in the world...Iran and the Vatican...and neither can really be considered democratic nations other than the ability to vote.
The fact is...Theocratic rule and democracy don't go well together....and never will. The only way this election will have even the remotest possibility of any success will be if the person elected is a moderate and will not be influenced by his clerics. Even then it has only a slim chance of success in the long run...because there are no safe-guards to prevent a theocratic militant gaining power in another election.
True democratic rule cannot exist in a country bred on theocratic rule...our democracies survive only due to our societies own apathy toward religion...we recognize, in principle, the need for the separation of church and state.
At best it will become a nation like Isreal...semi-democratic with many problems...at worst...it'll turn into another Iran or remain in a state of chaos.
January 31st, 2005, 07:40 AM
says it all... I will never understand this line of thought... why is democracy so evil? Maybe I'm blind to it, but I don't see why people in control of their own destiny is a bad thing. Even if Zarqawi doesn't agree with it, most in Iraq do. If he is "fighting for his own people" why doesn't he accept that the majority want something different than mass-murder and an insane dictator... I don't know, maybe I'm naive.
an all-out war on this evil principle of democracy
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wiseman knows himself to be a fool - Good Ole Bill Shakespeare
January 31st, 2005, 01:08 PM
Religious fanatics, religious zealots, people otherwise obsessed with the concept of god, and tyrants, bullies, and people generally obsessed with their own self-importance, will never accept the concept of democracy because democracy is, in principle, self-rule.
It is a mistake to think that what the majority wants matters...even in a democracy...it is usually and sometimes exclusively the efforts of the minority that change society and accomplish great things ( both good and bad ). It is the minority of leaders and not the majority of followers that get things done and direct the flow of a society. What the majority of people want really doesn't matter unless they have a leader that has the intestinal-fortitude to carry out those wishes.
January 31st, 2005, 01:57 PM
Well Egaladeist I was surprised by your fundamental error of moving out into the open where I can destroy you at my leisure
What!...............eat more sh1t, three trillion flies cannot be wrong?
It is a mistake to think that what the majority wants matters...even in a democracy
Oh yes mate, I will sh1t on you anytime (you did say intestinal?) but isn't "accuracy" more important than "fortitude"
What the majority of people want really doesn't matter unless they have a leader that has the intestinal-fortitude to carry out those wishes.
So I can count on your vote at the next election then?