Quote:
Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 8 2004, 06:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 8 2004, 06:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Dec 8 2004, 08:09 AM
I don't see the point in fixing it, hence the prediction that America will not rig it, regardless of outcome.
|
You don't see the point in fixing it? I do. It's so Iraq isn't taken over by a fundamentalist government that is more dangerous than the one they went to get rid of in the first place.
Rumsfeld was over there practically in tears today, getting heckled by American soldiers. 1300 soldiers are dead, 15000 wounded. 100 thousand Iraqis are dead. American "prestige" has taken a direct hit. America the country is divided by this, they've spent 200 billion dollars and truth be told, they are just getting started.
After all this they are not in a million years going to let an anti-American Islamist government take over. They've even said it. [/b][/quote]
Actually, that's not what "they're" saying lately.
On Oct. 19, 2004, about seven weeks ago, this comment came from GW Bush:
US President George W Bush has said he would accept an Islamic government in Iraq as the result of free elections.
Mr Bush told the Associated Press in an interview that he would accept such a result if elections were open and fair.
"I will be disappointed. But democracy is democracy," he said during an interview given on Air Force One.
"If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose," he said. Free elections are expected in the country next January.
Speaking as he travelled between campaign stops, Mr Bush said the US would leave Iraq "once we've helped them to get on the path of stability and democracy".
He added: "It's very difficult for me to predict what forces will exist although I will tell you that Iraq's leadership has made it quite clear that they can manage their own affairs at the appropriate time."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3755850.stm
Colin Powell on Oct. 21, 2004,
"I don't think the Iraqi people would go from one form of a totalitarian state to another form of totalitarian state," he said. "I think they want democracy. I think they want women to participate fully in the life of a future Iraq, and I hope the election will produce that result."
#####es are the majority population, but the rights of Kurds, Sunnis and all other segments of Iraq's society must be protected, he said.
"If the election is free, fair and open, we will accept the results," Powell said.
Further comment:
"We want the United Nations to be in Iraq to help with the election and to help with other things," Boucher said. "We have consistently encouraged the United Nations to continue to expand its presence a play a vital role there." - Richard Boucher, State Department spokesman. Kind of odd he would be rigging an election while encouraging a wild card like the UN to show up. Or getting the Canadians to run things.
So, let's be clear about what "they" are saying. You can believe the above comments are sincere or not at your whim, but they are not saying what you said they were. Not in the here and now.
As to your emotional post. . . . . wanna bet?
I'll take ya on!!!
For the rationale of my position, see above. Too lazy to lay it out again. Bottom line - pointless to fix this election. It would just turn that 1200 American dead into 56,000 like Vietnam.
Fixing elections is passe. Unless you're Russia. Its still a guaranteed loss even if you fix it so you win. It just breeds an inevitable defeat.
Cowperson