When you think of the vast percentage of Americans who can’t be bothered to come out and vote…and that musicians develop an overwrought campaign called “Vote Or Die,” which really doesn’t mean much of anything, as opposed to the “Vote And Die” message being spread by Iraqi terrorists…
It’s just pretty dámņëd impressive, the Iraqis turning out to vote in their first election. Make no mistake, it’s still a horror show, we still shouldn’t be over there, Bush lied to America, and Bush’s List continues to grow. But at least Iraqis are braving all manner of risk to vote, as opposed to many Americans who are so cavalier about a right they never earned or had to fight for.
PAD
• 
Powell Pugh wrote:
“If you want to shift the stated reasons for the invasion and subsequent war (calling it, as Ann Coulter did, “at worst a humanitarian effort”) then you’re gonna have to explain why we don’t do something about the political unrest currently going on in Mexico. That has a lot more bearing on the US than some goat farmers in the Middle East.“
The best explanation is that this is just another theater in a larger war, one that’s arguably been going on since Jimmy Carter’s term in office. Despite our best efforts to ignore this war by covering our ears and closing our eyes, our enemies kept pushing it, and it came time to do something. Mexico isn’t part of this war (except for the fact that the border with Mexico is a bit entirely too porous).
So, that’s why Mexico won’t work, but why Iraq?
Steven den Beste wrote a top level briefing a while back that covers most of the reasons for the war at large, and Iraq in particular for this stage of the war.
That’s not an extremely detailed look (though most of the points he makes are supported by long essays elsewhere in his archives), but it’s a good start. It also explains why some “goat farmers” are important to us. (Note that the expansion of democracy fits into both VI.A.5 and VI.A.6)
There’s also an old column by Orson Scott Card here that asks if we invaded the wrong country. I suspect that Card will be dismissed out of hand, but I think the column makes his case well.
We have (and had) a solid pragmatic reason to get Saddam out of power and promote democracy in Iraq. The humanitarian effort is a noble one, but it’s not feasible for us to end every tragedy of this type in the world (at least not by force).
Craig Reis wrote:
“I’m curious to know how it goes when they could have voted purely along religious lines, how they are going to form a constitution when entire parts of the population won’t be or don’t want to be represented, religious aspects, rights for women, etc.”
Isn’t that kind of what we have in America? Aren’t there entire sections of the population that aren’t represented? And don’t a large number of voters vote based on religion more than anything else?
To those who seek to contrast the Colonial Revolutionaries with the Iraqi insurgents by noting the lack of beheadings, etc., I would like to point out that many Tories who failed to leave their homes often found themselves attacked by their independence-minded neighbors, even to the point of being tarred and feathered, especially if the Tories were in positions of leadership (mayors, governors).
Very few Americans who supported the Crown were able to remain in the newly-independent United States during and after the Revolution without fearing for their safety.
Then, again, it should be remembered that the rebels were all very well aware that they faced the likelihood of execution for treason should the Revolution fail, so they weren’t all that sympathetic to the Loyalists among them.
“I would *love* to know where the better voter turnout was, our last election or the Iraqi election?”
God bless Google. Around 60% of the American people voted in the November election. Estimates in Iraq are around 72%.
In numbers, 122 million Americans voted while 78 million did not, versus (approximately) 9,335,078 voters and 3,630308 non-voters in Iraq.
Proportionally, two-and-a-half Iraqis voted for every Iraqi that didn’t; that ratio is 1.5:1 for the US.
Why yes, I do have nothing to do.
Because for a representatvie democracy to truly work, you need representatives that come from every province, such as the colonies/states providing representatives to the congress that drafted the US Constitution. Without that, you can’t have anything close to equal or fair representation of the various parties and interests in the country. And without that, you will never have a government viewed as legitimate by all, and instead of creating a stable government, Iraq will just be a perpetual area of instability and insurgency.
However, when one large minority bloc is sitting out just to avoid giving legitimacy to the majority, and to get a bargaining chip for themselves, then I have little sympathy for them.
>God bless Google. Around 60% of the American people voted in the November election.
I believe that was actually 60% of U.S. eligible and registered voters.
Fred
Oh, and because they told me in school to show my work, my numbers came from here:
Iraq: http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?iraq_elect_focus.html
USA: http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-01-16-voa5.cfm
Why is it that everyone is so jazzed up over the election just for being an election? No one knows who the hëll was on the ballots including the people who did the voting and the situation in Iraq is just as big a mess today as it was on Saturday.
I commend the Iraqi people for bravely going out to make a statement by voting but what exactly did they vote for? I’d have been a lot more pleased if the election had been held off for a year or so while we actually made Iraq a safe and livable country that didn’t need ridiculous amounts of armed guards and precautions in place. As it stands we all just watched a bit of theater that may have warmed the cockles of our hearts as “freedom lovin’ americans”. What exactly was accomplished?
And a bit of info for those who may not know…Iraqi’s aren’t unfamiliar with the practice of voting. Sure when Saddam was in power he was the only guy on the ballot but before that Iraq was perfectly capable of having democratic elections. Well at least until the US backed, CIA coup that overthrew Iraq’s democratically elected leader in 1953.
Isn’t that kind of what we have in America? Aren’t there entire sections of the population that aren’t represented? And don’t a large number of voters vote based on religion more than anything else?
Yes, and I never said I was happy with it.
I hate the two-party system, and the fact that the “best” candidates we’ve come up with, regardess of religious, education, background, etc, in the past two elections was Gore, Kerry, and the bumbling idiot Bush.
Robin S. “Mexico isn’t part of this war”
I’m not talking about “this war.” I’m talking about the need for humanitarian, military intervention in an essentially lawless nation that we happen to share a rather large border with.
Derek!: “what exactly did [the Iraqi people] vote for?”
For us to get the hëll out of there.
>
Which is why, in his Inauguration speech, Bush let the world know that we are no longer in the cold war frame of mind, i.e., he may be an SOB but he’s our SOB. Basically, Dubya threw out a policy that has been in place since the 50s. Now, before the ritalin-deprived start going on about Saudi Arabia and China, bear in mind that it’s best to take care of what you can when you can and then move on to the next problem. Writers can’t write 5 books all at the same time, can they?
“I believe that was actually 60% of U.S. eligible and registered voters.”
Well, yes, of course. Little point in including toddlers in the statistics. Total US population in November was around 294 million. The current Iraqi population is kind of hard to gauge, since the Pentagon doesn’t see the need to track the number who have died since the war began (estimates of those killed as a direct result range from ten to thirty thousand), but the population stood at 24 million in July 2002.
“No one knows who the hëll was on the ballots including the people who did the voting”
One would assume they at least read them.
One would assume they at least read them.
But no one campaigned and the names were kept under wraps until you got to the voting places. They had no clue as to what any of the people they voted for were about politically.
I get putting a good face on this considering that good news isn’t all that common coming out of Iraq but this “election” is dodgy and can’t be taken seriously.
Bob Jones:
Writers can’t write 5 books all at the same time, can they?
How many titles is PAD working on at the moment? Seems to me that last month he had at least 4 (Ninja turtles is still going, right?), and that’s without counting his What if? contribution.
Seriously, though, “take care of what you can when you can and then move on”- wasn’t that the mentality behind Vietnam? Seems to me like we’re more in the Cold War frame of mind (perpetual war for perpetual peace, to quote Vidal), than we have been for a few decades. Say what you will about the various conflicts that Reagan, Bush (sr), and Clinton got us into, they seemed to be in-and-out conflicts, by and large, even the original Gulf War.
btw, Craig, I think we’re pretty much in agreement.
Bob Jones:
>Which is why, in his Inauguration speech, Bush let the world know that we are no longer in the cold war frame of mind, i.e., he may be an SOB but he’s our SOB.
Don’t go blaming me for that one. I refuse to take any credit for it. Far from denial about him being the president of this country, but I’m not going to embrace him or the policies that I disagree with as mine.
>Basically, Dubya threw out a policy that has been in place since the 50s.
Seemingly without much forethought.
>Now, before the ritalin-deprived start going on about Saudi Arabia and China, bear in mind that it’s best to take care of what you can when you can and then move on to the next problem. Writers can’t write 5 books all at the same time, can they?
No they can’t, but it makes more sense to me for a writer to begin in a place where his readers can follow what is going on. Also, while many writers have subtext and even deeper, secretive messages/intent behind their writing, most attempt to be honest with their audience about their story. Bush comes across as fiction everytime that he speaks. The latest example? Social Security in immediate need of revamping and allowing people to take allocations away from it make sense to anyone who has been following it?
Basically, Dubya threw out a policy that has been in place since the 50s.
That policy would be to prevent the dominos from falling. Instead, he wants to do it from the Communist side: force the dominos to fall in favor of democracy.
Yet, his current policy isn’t any better: get attacked by Al Qaeda, go after Iraq and ignore bin Laden, and wonder why the problem continues when you’ve cut the limb not from Al Qaeda, but from another body altogether.
Powell Pugh:
I’m not talking about “this war.” I’m talking about the need for humanitarian, military intervention in an essentially lawless nation that we happen to share a rather large border with.
No, you didn’t mention this war — you wondered why we could justify going to help out “goat farmers in Iraq” when we ignored Mexico. If the humanitarian effort in Iraq was the entire justification, you might have a case (though, it’s arguable that the situation in Iraq with Saddam was our responsibility anyway since we didn’t just oust him in ’91).
I brought up the war (which, despite what some people here seem to think, we didn’t start — it was happening despite our reliance on the snooze bar of ignorance and the pillow of apathy) because it provides some additional justification for the invasion of Iraq.
While the humanitarian effort in Iraq is important, it’s not the only justification for the war. Going into Mexico wouldn’t have ANY other justification, as far as I can tell. The situations simply aren’t the same.
“But no one campaigned and the names were kept under wraps until you got to the voting places. They had no clue as to what any of the people they voted for were about politically.”
That doesn’t jibe with several reports I heard on NPR and assorted other sources. Can you verify this?
Has anyone read Mike Golds’ “On Deja Vu”? Scroll down PAD’s main page and click on it. Instead of Communism, Iraq will be Islamic in a little while. Who says history doesn’t repeat itself. Especially, as in this administrations case, when you don’t bother to read the lessons.
1That doesn’t jibe with several reports I heard on NPR and assorted other sources. Can you verify this?
I read an ABC or MSNBC online report a few days before the election about candidate names being kept secret. I’ll see if I can find it.
(though, it’s arguable that the situation in Iraq with Saddam was our responsibility anyway since we didn’t just oust him in ’91).
Yeah, Bush would love to think that. The thing is is that Bush Sr followed UN mandates back in ’91 that said that we couldn’t invade Iraq itself.
So, our “responsibility” would be that we supported Saddam and Iraq against Iran.
If you DID chalk this one up to Jr making up for the woes of Sr, well, revenge is such a wonderfully motivating factor, isn’t it?
“the snooze bar of ignorance and the pillow of apathy”
Umm… what?
Similes and metaphors used in the discussion of social, political and legal issues are almost always applied very badly, serving little purpose other than creating schisms. People who use them, more often than not, are just fearmongers who’d rather lean on pre-packaged non-solutions, rather than address the actual issues.
Regime change was not our objective in ’91. BushSr. was at least intelligent enough to realize that.
I never post msgs here, but with all the crap that has been posted in the comments section lately i just have to.
Listen to yourselves, threatening a man and his financial livelyhood simply because he dares to have different views from the thousands of american zombies who listen to Bush’s blatant L I E S.
Where is bin Laden? Where are the WPDs? The latter doesnt exist, what does exist is oil.
As an outsider it makes me sick to see the attitude the US has towards other counties who dont support their policies. People say the french are arrogant, but to me, americans are the most arrogant race in the world.
Do you know why? becuase in their schools they are brought up to BELIEVE they are the greatest nation in the world. So heaven forbid another country not playing along with them and having their own ideas. I mean look at bush’s comment when he first went into afghanistan “your either with us, or against us”. I mean COME ON, doesnt that seem wrong to anyone?! It isnt any wonder why half the world hates or sees the US in a bad light. Dont get me wrong, alot of great things come from the US, but a BIG dose of humility would go a long way to making this world truely a better place.
there, my first post. I’ll take this chance to say to PAD, i love your work, i truely hope an x-factor book is in the works, with alot more guido! Hopefully you can steal polaris/havok/quicksilver back too 🙂
regards
outsider
Craig wrote: “Yeah, Bush would love to think that. The thing is is that Bush Sr followed UN mandates back in ’91 that said that we couldn’t invade Iraq itself.”
Bush Junior had different UN resolutions in his pocket than his father, and those resolutions — which I suggest everyone read — clearly allowed the U.S. to use force if it believed its interests were threatened.
The UN allows such use of force, which is why the French recently bombed the hëll out of the Ivory Coast military, reducing the IC’s modest air force to rubble.
But, as I said in an earlier post, there was not international outcry against France. However, if the U.S. had done the exact same thing as France did, for the exact same reason, “the world” (or parts of it anyway) would have been up in arms against the U.S.
Russ:
>>Craig wrote: “Yeah, Bush would love to think that. The thing is is that Bush Sr followed UN mandates back in ’91 that said that we couldn’t invade Iraq itself.”
>Bush Junior had different UN resolutions in his pocket than his father, and those resolutions — which I suggest everyone read — clearly allowed the U.S. to use force if it believed its interests were threatened.
Here again is where this discussion repeatedly gets bogged down in the political shellgame that this administration has continually used. The threatened interests position was pushed as the initial rationale for war with Iraq and there were holes being punched in it even before the declaration was formally made (A recording of bin Laden condemning Iraq as being just as much an enemy of the true Muslim cause was played on NPR a good week or so beforehand.). The administration threw out so many half-assed reasons to go in and jumped from one to another when questioned that there is no possible way to reason with their defense style as they have refused from Day 1 to give pause to consider that just maybe they were wrong.
Fred
Don’t we bomb the hëll out of things all the time with little or no outcry?(at least as reported by american media). Didn’t the world applaud when we bombed the hëll from Serbia’s air force? Didn’t we bomb the hëll out of Afghanistan three years ago? Didn’t we bomb the hëll out of Iraq for over ten years?
Outsider says:
“People say the french are arrogant, but to me, americans are the most arrogant race in the world.”
You are obviously confused. American is not a race. Americans are made up of a great number of different races.
As for arrogance, don’t make the mistake of assuming that just because people tend to be dismissive of someone who throws out terms like “the thousands of american zombies who listen to Bush’s blatant L I E S.”, that automatically makes them arrogant.
This administration has made obvious that they do not care what anyone thinks. They didn’t even bother to listen to their own military commanders on the proper way to wage the war and win the peace. They didn’t let the UN inspectors complete their work because then they would have had no reason compelling enough to win a portion of the American public over to the notion that we HAD to go to war. They created an environment where torture was an acceptable response. We are not the worst nation in the world, but we sure aren’t anywhere near the best anymore. Aren’t some of you as ashamed as I am that we invaded a country that was not able to fight back, much less launch an attack at us? Aren’t you ashamed that we condone torture? Aren’t you ashamed that diplomacy is now “You stand with us or you’re against us”? If we disagree with this administration we are called unpatriotic. If another country disagrees they are shunned. We should not have gone into Iraq and the biggest favor we could do for them now is to get out so the terrorists have to find new targets.
Before some of you start reading into my last sentence, I do not meant for the terrorists to come here. (Although with all the holes these people have left in our security, it probably wouldn’t be that difficult.) I simply meant they wouldn’t have anything left to fight against in Iraq.
clearly allowed the U.S. to use force if it believed its interests were threatened.
Fred summed it up pretty well.
All I want to add is that Iraq was no threat to us whatsoever.
If you believe Iraq was, well, you better find some WMD to back that up.
Aren’t some of you as ashamed as I am
Yep. I’m sure millions of other Americans are as well, and rightly so.
“Before some of you start reading into my last sentence, I do not meant for the terrorists to come here. (Although with all the holes these people have left in our security, it probably wouldn’t be that difficult.) I simply meant they wouldn’t have anything left to fight against in Iraq.”
Zarquawi (sp?) has made it clear that he will fight against any attempt at democracy in Iraq. It would be very naive to believe that the terrorists will just fold up their tents and leave once the Americans are gone. Most of the targets these days are Iraqis and will continue to be so.
It’s a little disappointing that the original point has been lost. PAD is one of the relatively few liberal/left bloggers I visit who actually gave the Iraqi people the praise they richly deserve. Most seem afraid that any such sentiments will somehow cost them their membership in the He-Man Bush Haters Club. Everyone should be happy for them. They showed the world true bravery and dealt the terrorists a greater blow than all but the most effective military campaign could.
Yeah, Bush will win some points from all this. That doesn’t mean anyone should try to denigrate it (some of the idiots at Democraticunderground.com have GOT to be Karl Rove plants! NOBODY could be that stupid, right? Right?). Kerry showed the worst timing since Al Gore endorsed Dean when he showed up on the talk shows and showed all the enthusiasm of a Baptist at a freakdance. Jesus! Those of us who value the idea of the two party system are going to have to start hoping for the resurrection of the Whig Party at the rate the Democrats are embracing suicidal negativism as a strategy.
Fred wrote: “Here again is where this discussion repeatedly gets bogged down in the political shellgame that this administration has continually used. The threatened interests position was pushed as the initial rationale for war with Iraq and there were holes being punched in it even before the declaration was formally made (A recording of bin Laden condemning Iraq as being just as much an enemy of the true Muslim cause was played on NPR a good week or so beforehand.).”
I’m not justifying the administration’s whys or rationales, because I wasn’t privvy to their intel, and frankly, I wasn’t in their shoes.
What I can do, however is read the U.N. resolutions myself and see if, in fact it authorizes the U.S. to use force if it feels its interests are threatened (i.e., see if the action against Iraq was legal). Craig said Bush Senior used discretion with the U.N. resolutions while Bush Junior did not. And others here have said Bush’s action in Iraq was illegal.
What I’m saying is that, according to U.N. resolutions more recent than those used to justify Desert Storm, the U.S. was allowed to use force against Iraq if it felt its interests were threatened. Thus, when the U.S, took decided to take action, it did so legally.
Now, if you want to argue whether it was a good decision, or whether the action met your moral standards, then fine. Go for it. But don’t be so blind in your dislike for the administration that you no longer check your facts and try to speak the truth. If you distort your viewpoint to try and make it even stronger, you actually end up undermining your argument, no matter how righteous you believe your viewpoint to be.
PAD,
I could come up with a complicated response or go into the peripheral isues are, but let me just say two words: thank you. Thank you for pointing out what I have been feeling all weekend, awe and wonder that so many risked so much for a right that so many of us and others throughout the world take for granted. Thank you for acknowledging that this historic moment, regardless of what you think of Bush, the war, etc. – which many Iraqs might never thought they’d see – is indeed a good thing.
Thank you.
Russ:
>>Fred wrote: “Here again is where this discussion repeatedly gets bogged down in the political shellgame that this administration has continually used. The threatened interests position was pushed as the initial rationale for war with Iraq and there were holes being punched in it even before the declaration was formally made (A recording of bin Laden condemning Iraq as being just as much an enemy of the true Muslim cause was played on NPR a good week or so beforehand.).”
>*snip* Craig said Bush Senior used discretion with the U.N. resolutions while Bush Junior did not. And others here have said Bush’s action in Iraq was illegal.
>What I’m saying is that, according to U.N. resolutions more recent than those used to justify Desert Storm, the U.S. was allowed to use force against Iraq if it felt its interests were threatened. Thus, when the U.S, took decided to take action, it did so legally.
>Now, if you want to argue whether it was a good decision, or whether the action met your moral standards, then fine. Go for it. But don’t be so blind in your dislike for the administration that you no longer check your facts and try to speak the truth. If you distort your viewpoint to try and make it even stronger, you actually end up undermining your argument, no matter how righteous you believe your viewpoint to be.
My dislike of the administration has nothing to do with my vision. I wear corrective lenses and attempt to educate myself so that I can see a fairly balanced scene as well. Your contention was that the resolution supported Bush’s actions. There has clearly been no proof that there was a threat to our nation’s “interests”. Bush has had many opportunities to present such evidence and has instead repeated the same ole song over and over again. One could pose that he is innocent until proven guilty, since we weren’t privy to their intel, but to say with any certainty that his actions were legal is just as preposterous as stating with certainty that they weren’t. My point was that he has given us absolutely no evidence to indicate that when he “felt that U.S. interests were threatened” it was anymore than a reaction gas after a bad dinner served up by the White House staff. The facts reported to the public both within the U.S. and in the newspapers around the world supported that he take a step back and get advisement. He never slowed down.
If I misinterpreted your point, I apologize. Honestly, my impression of the president before this whole fiasco began to go down was one of ambivalence at getting through 1 term with the guy. I didn’t think he was a very bright guy, but we’ve had them in office before. My feelings towards him went south when he began reacting the way that he did after 911 and made the world a much more dangerous and black-and-white place to live.
Fred
To R. Maheras: Which specific UN resolution are you referring to which allowed force? UN Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force solely for threats against US interests (and that was the last adopted resolution relevant to the discussion of war). There was a draft resolution advocating the use of force proposed by the US, UK and Spain, but that was all it was–a draft resolution. Resolution 1441 was the keypoint of the draft resolution, that if Iraq failed to follow through on 1441’s requirements, then force should be used. 1441 dealt with Iraqi compliance regarding its weapons programs and allowing UN inspectors to have complete access to all sites, but at no time was force mentioned in 1441. The problem with the draft resolution, though, was its presupposition that Iraq had not followed through with its obligations, yet weapons inspectors were in Iraq, doing their jobs until a few days before the US launched its attack (the US even recommended the inspectors leave before the deadline proposed in the draft resolution). The draft resolution also presupposed that Iraq had lied in its declarations (one supposes this presupposition was based on the same faulty, or non-, intelligence that Colin Powell used in his presentation). While the draft resolution did acknowledge Resolution 678 (authorizing use of force against Iraq relating to the invasion of Kuwait), 678 had no true bearing on the current situation.
Zarquawi (sp?) has made it clear that he will fight against any attempt at democracy in Iraq. It would be very naive to believe that the terrorists will just fold up their tents and leave once the Americans are gone. Most of the targets these days are Iraqis and will continue to be so.
No, I don’t think they will actually all take the first bus out when we leave. However, they are there because we are there. With us gone, they have much less reason to be there. Democracy is the excuse, but hatred of us and our ways is the reason they went into Iraq. AFTER we got rid of Saddam. Another reason we were told we must go to war.
It’s a little disappointing that the original point has been lost. PAD is one of the relatively few liberal/left bloggers I visit who actually gave the Iraqi people the praise they richly deserve. Most seem afraid that any such sentiments will somehow cost them their membership in the He-Man Bush Haters Club.
I’m not sure where you get your info. All of the liberal blogs I visit are thrilled there wasn’t more violence and applaud the courage of the Iraqi people. We don’t think this administration should take credit for Iraqi courage, though. This was a win for the Iraqis, NOT the Bushies.
I get PAD’s “other side of freedom of speech” argument. Saying “He has the right to do with his money as he wishes; and he has the freedom to tell your publisher why he’s not spending his money on you” is NOT upholding the ideals of freedom of speech. At its heart, the concept of freedom of speech is that ideas can be expressed without fear of repurcussions.
Without political repercussions, certainly. I’m not sure the same argument holds for economic repercussions, however. Put yourself in Joe Quesada’s position. You’re in charge of Marvel Comics, and your job is to sell comics and make money for your corporation. If customers are so turned off by one of your writers that they have stopped buying one of your flagship publications, isn’t that information that you would want to know?
If you want to make the arguments that boycotts are inherently lame, I would tend to agree with you. They’re logical and sometimes work, but I just don’t like them for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they seem petulant somehow, as if they’re really saying “You’re not doing things the way I want, so I’m taking my marbles and going home.” For instance, I know some Methodist churches recently boycotted a certain well-known fast food chain over reputed exploitation of migrant farm workers. In each case, the boycott is designed to use economic pressure to impose the boycotter’s will on another person. You may find one actor’s urge to be closer to your own ideology, but I don’t feel that boycott is any more or less moral than the Gehrie position. Seriously, which ability do you want to screw with, PAD’s ability to make a living by selling stories, or some poor slob of a franchisee’s ability to make a living by selling food? Freedom of speech is an important right, but it’s not the only right. I choose not to engage in either behavior, but I don’t think Gehrie is as unAmerican as Kingbob implies.
There’s a fine line between obnoxious boycotting and rational spending; there’s no need to give aid and comfort to the enemy. I didn’t stop reading USA Today because they hired Michael Moore to cover the Republican convention, although I’ve been privately boycotting Michael Moore since 1993. My first reaction on seeing “Roger and Me” was to think, “What a jáçkášš.” Who wants to financially support a jáçkášš? It might encourage him to be a jáçkášš again in the future. On the one hand, I refused to see “Fahrenheit 9/11” because I figured he’d use my admission money for some odious political purpose, but on the other hand I didn’t write Harvey and Bob Weinstein a letter whining about their support of the jáçkášš.
I did quit reading USA Today when they jacked the cover price 50%, but that’s another story.
“No one knows who the hëll was on the ballots including the people who did the voting and the situation in Iraq is just as big a mess today as it was on Saturday.”
Whoever was on the ballot, I’ll bet they got screwed by Nader.
PAD
That statement in no way denigrates the Colonial fighters. It’s just meant to bring caution to those that would decry any act of terrorism.
Then it’s a tremendous non sequitur. If you want to make the argument that, to the British, George Washington was a traitor, you’re right. But why in the would would you want to exercise caution in decrying an ACT of terrorism?
originally posted by Michael Pullmann: Around 60% of the American people voted in the November election. Estimates in Iraq are around 72%.
While 72% was the number being tossed around during the voting as an estimate of how many might be turning out, it was admitted at the time this was just a guess. Following the voting, the figure I have seen is 57%. I have not yet seen how this was calculated, however.
originally posted by Bob Jones “A mass grave being excavated in a north Iraqi village has yielded evidence that Iraqi forces executed women and children under Saddam Hussein.
US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.
The question being discussed was whether the Iraqis are better off following the US invasion. You cite a massacre from the 1980s as evidence they are.
So, yes — they are better off in that regard than the were in the 1980s. The question, however, is whether they are better off than they were in 2001 when we invaded.
Do you know of any similar massacres that occurred in the years 2001, 2000, 1999, or 1998? If not, then what you have shown is that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam under UN sanctions and UN inspections — the situation prior to the US invasion — than they were a decade previously. In other words, you are presenting evidence that the UN sanctions were working.
What you have not shown, although it is the point you appear to want to make, is that the Iraqis are better off after the US invasion than they were in the years immediately before the invasion. Perhaps the reason you are having difficulty showing evidence to support this view is that it’s not true?
PS: I havent had a chance to post here in quite a while. It’s nice to see that some things — such as the lack of a working preview function — haven’t changed.
I believe that the turnout in Iraq is a good thing and the very fact that the election came off at all is certainly a step in the right direction.
However, I would like to temper this optimism with the observation that in late 1967 the South Vietnamese went to the polls with a slightly higher turnout (over 80% if memory serves), again with the aim of democracy taking hold. Unfortunately, we all know what happened after that, and the ensuing conflicts that lasted another 7 or 8 years.
I’m not saying this will be the case, but it is possible.
Only time will tell.
I was just about to mention the Vietnamese parallel Joe. You’re right of course.
It seems once more that those who do not learn the lessons of history…
The vietnam/iraq comparisons are overdone. As Christopher Hitchens points out, it is generally aknowledged that Ho Chi Minh would have won had their been an actual vote of all the peole of Vietnam (I’m pretty sure he was not on the ballot). Sunday’s election should satisfy all but the most stubborn that the Iraqi people do not support the forces behind the terrorists. Big Difference.
Me: It’s a little disappointing that the original point has been lost. PAD is one of the relatively few liberal/left bloggers I visit who actually gave the Iraqi people the praise they richly deserve. Most seem afraid that any such sentiments will somehow cost them their membership in the He-Man Bush Haters Club.
Keren: I’m not sure where you get your info. All of the liberal blogs I visit are thrilled there wasn’t more violence and applaud the courage of the Iraqi people.
Well, as I said, I was talking about the ones I go to. Your results may vary. Admittedly, if one hangs out at democraticunderground.com one does tend to see the more Moonbatty elements of the left. Some claimed that Karl Rove (aka The Boogeyman) had deleiberately made them think that the election would be ruined by violence, thereby making them (the left) look stupid when their predictions of same did not occur. (Mr. Rove was unavailable for comment, being busy drinking the blood of elderly residents of a nursing home).
Karen says: Democracy is the excuse, but hatred of us and our ways is the reason they went into Iraq.
So you believe that most of the terrorists are foreign fighters? I’m not sure, though I’d prefer that to be true. I’d suspect the vast majority are displaced bathist party members wishing for a return to the good old days when a man could rape and mutilate the same people who are now jumping around with purple stained fingers.
Then it’s a tremendous non sequitur. If you want to make the argument that, to the British, George Washington was a traitor, you’re right. But why in the would would you want to exercise caution in decrying an ACT of terrorism?
Simply because one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
I’m sure some of those “terrorists” in Iraq are fighting simply because they see us as just another conquerer, not a liberator.
But it is convenient for this administration to call anybody who doesn’t fall in line in Iraq a terrorist.
Well, Craig, you do have to admit, it is a bit more specific than “evil”.
“It is also clear that historically, such freedom never comes to those who are not willing to fight, and possibly risk it all, for such a privilege.”
Not necessarily. Both the overthrow of the British colonials in India and the end of Apartheid in South Africa were remarkably bloodless affairs. Just the people deciding “we ain’t going along any more” and walking away as a unit to the point where the rulers had no choice but to either go along, or kill/emprison everybody, or watch the country simply do a crash-and-burn. True, that won’t necessarily work with all dictator types, but it does show that, depending on the circumstances, freedom can be won by the simple expedient of showing a united front and saying “no more”. And being able to wait until the desired results are attained.
David, I wasn’t implying that boycotts and calls for them were unAmerican. If anything, history has proven that Americans hold to their ability to boycott tightly, and concept like freedom of speech and free enterprise protect the boycott. What I meant was simply the idea of a boycott clashes with the basic concept of free speech. The only consitutional protections we have are from government restrictions of free speech.
But to say that one supports and believes in free speech, and then turn around and try to exert economic pressure on someone who holds beleifs you disagree with, is the very heart of hypocrisy. I’m not talking about the individual who decides not to be a customer of those he disagrees with, but rather the person that actively seeks to get somone fired, or prevent someone from working because of their ideals or political leanings. It’s an attempt to coerce someone away from a line of thought through economic pressure, essentially trying to eliminate that idea by preventing those with that idea from earning a living. If enough engage in that activity, the “offending” person must literally starve, conform, or suffer in silence. It destroys the foundation of the concept of free speech.