Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Sep 24 2004, 02:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Sep 24 2004, 02:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 24 2004, 04:39 AM
Good lord, Muslims are getting no respect anywhere in the west. Ask Cat Stevens.
What would Yusif Islam, his real name, have to do with an election in Iraq? Another conspiracy?
Isn't Farley Mowat banned from the USA as well? Is he a Muslim? Are they banning guys who used to shoot gophers? Or was it because he said he used to shoot at US Air Force jets?
Cowperson
|
"The key to internationalizing this conflict and getting the USA off the hot seat is a legitimately elected government. Fudging the results deliberately would be a little moronic since it would only sewer them further."
Like the US gives a steaming coil what anyone else thinks? They UNILATERALLY invaded a country innocent of all charges against them that the US presented to the UN. Now before we have Tranny jump in her with his lacy panties in a huge knot screaming about all the resolutions that were past against Iraq between 1980 and 2000, this is irrelevant. I don't give a damn how many resolutions were past against them previously, the Iraqis were being tried on the information presented to general assemby (against protocol and viewed as grand standing and hoping to sway a general vote). The jury went against the US' wishes and they still formed a lynch mob and extracted some good ol' frontier justice.
You think the US really gives a damn about what anyone thinks any more? Actions prove they don't. Believe what you want, but I don't know many Americans that really care what the rest of the world thinks. They are "the last superpower" and they can do what they want. The UN is ineffective and they don't have to answer to that or any other body. Frankly, the Bush administration only has one group to answer to, and that's the American voters. Another six weeks, and he won't even have to worry about that. After he gets re-elected he can steam roll anyone he pleases.
"Hold your breath because its a possibility."
Sure, and intelligent life is going to be discovered on another planet next week. Anything is a possibility, but in reality its unlikely. The Bushies like having puppets they can control.
"Unlike your Muslim culture loving self, however, I wouldn't bet the farm it would happen. I trust the common man in Iraq as a pragmatic person a lot more than yourself, which seems a little odd given your declared big heart and me being a culturally unrefined sourpuss and all that."
Mulsim culture loving self? Pretty weak Cow. Grasping at straws? There is a substantial difference between "loving" a culture and "respecting" a culture. I don't love much about the Muslim culture, but I respect it enough to allow the people to do things the way they wish, especially in their own country. I would do the same with the Chinese, the Swedes, the Russias or anyone else. What right do I have to tell anyone how backward their culture is when ours is morally corrupt in many regards? None. I should try and focus on my backyard before worrying about someone else's. I would expect you to do the same.
You also might want to explain what being pragmatic has to do with anything in this subject. We are talking about Iraq and democracy. Being pragmatic has zero to do with the democratic act. To be pragmatic in a democratic sense you require education and information on the issues. Neither of which is available to the general population. Pragmatism in this situation is focused just strictly on where their shelter is coming from and where they can get their next meal. To win this election, all someone has to do is open up a voting station and offer a free meal for casting your vote. Oh, and who has the ability to set up a voting station? Only the US controlled government. Pragmatism as an argument at this time is extremely weak as people are in survival mode. This leads to rash decisions and does not allow the practice of liberal democracy.
I would like to know WHY you feel that this election can possibly be run on the up and up. Given the environment it is impossible to practice democracy anymore than the way democracy has been practice in the likes of Chile, Peru, Nicaragua, Panama, Uganda, Egypt, Yugoslavia, etc. Demorcary does not take place at the end of a gun. Nor does it take place with an empty stomach. Democracy takes place only when you have the security and freedom to openly discuss the issues, challenge the officials in power, and have oversight. None of these basic needs are being met. This is not democracy in action. The Iraqi people have not nominated anyone for the job. This is nothing more than a military coup like that which Parkistan went through to achieve "democracy".
"In fact, if you'd actually thought about it before you started typing, you would have realized this has ALWAYS been the risk from even before the invasion.
There was ALWAYS an election looming as an aftermath of this conflict. What's the surprise?
So here we are. Put it out there for a vote and see what happens.
Whatsa matta? You afraid? It either works or it doesn't. "
I'm very pro democracy. But the country has to be ready to embrace democracy themselves. This is where you show you know nothing of the Muslim cultutre nor the history of the country itself. It also shows you don't know much about democracy and how democracy develops. You can't jump from a theocratic/totalitarian state to a democratoc one over night. None of the needs for democracy to survive have been met. Un biased education has to be provided. Sterotypes must be washed away. Tolerance must be attained bewteen the factions within the country. Until this happens you stand zero chance of democracy taking hold. It has to be embraced by the culture before it can work and the Muslim culture/faith was not designed to allow for democracy. It has always been under a totalitarian rule in some shape or form. It will take generations of educated people before they are ready to embrace democracy.
"Actually, the only thing certain is that if Allawi IS actually elected President . . . . you're going to call it a conspiracy whether its deserved or not."
Yup, grasping at straws again. Anything I say is a conspiracy. I said there were no WMDs and that it was all a smoke screen, and I was labelled a conspiracy theorist. I said Halliburton was profiteering and leveraging the relationship with Cheney, and I was labelled a consporacy theorist. So by me saying that an election is fixed, and that the US will put in place who they wish, I am a conspiracy theorist. Okay, I'm a conspiracy theorist. But I'm a conspiracy theorist who is right. Mark my words, Allawi will be Predisent and a very pro-American government will be formed and the US will continue to have a major military presence in the area (largest military base in the region of any nation, which will include landing strips capable of handling B52's and ports capable of handling aircraft carriers) and continue to profiteer from the "rebuilding" of Iraq.
"What would Yusif Islam (Cat Stevens), his real name, have to do with an election in Iraq? Another conspiracy?"
Almost as much as the pragmatism of the average Iraqi. Not a damn thing. But it should be noted that the Americans are so ready to respect the Muslim culture and embrace it with the democratic rights that all Americans have that they will bar from their country and view him a threat, just because of the religion he practices. Yusif Islam is a massive security threat? What the hell was he going to do, write a song about peace that would bring down the government? Yup, the United States is the first and last bastillon on democracy and freedom. As long as you do things their way and are acceptable to their "cultural" standards. [/b][/quote]
Amusing rant as always.
As I said above, provided the elections proceed, and I think they will, we will find out who is right or who is wrong in only a few months. No suspense or lingering debate points.
Then we'll see if either of us has valid points.
I'll simply repeat my argument in abbreviated form:
The quickest way to guarantee civil war in Iraq is to falsely and openly generate a tilted election result. Apparently that obvious point continues to be lost on you.
Drilling that point home further, as I noted in an earlier post above, the chief poobah cleric in Iraq, al-Sistani of the #####es, is insistent on elections taking place ASAP. He's ticked they haven't happened already. Apparently also a point lost on yourself. If he feels there's illegitimacy in the process, the roof will cave in. Also obvious and also apparently lost on your self-described genius.
To repeat. Elections MUST be held or the chief cleric gets ticked. He'll also get ticked if they're rigged. Well. . . . rigged so they give the #####es less than 55% of the seats!!
I don't worry about a radical element being voted in. For one thing, many of that group have said they won't participate. Their choice. It will be interesting to see if they stick to that. Secondly, they might not be as popular as they think they are as per the poll results I mentioned earlier. Or maybe they know that already. That particular opinion requires no knowledge of Muslim culture by either of us since its strictly numbers and simply underlines my argument - and apparently yours - that the average voter probably has the same concerns as the average voter in Des Moines, family, home and security.
It'll be chaotic. It'll be nothing like your momma's elections in North America. There will be attempted fraud. There will be intimidation at the ballot box. There will be death and tragedy leading into it and on the particular day.
But there will be an election and it likely will provide a quasi-satisfactory result to move things along for awhile. It's obviously contrary to the interests of the USA to jig the election for the reasons cited above.
I agree with you about a puppet government in the following sense: If the country, after an election, deteriorates into massive civil war, then re-installing a favourable and despicable dictatorship isn't necessarily out of the question, something I said in this forum about six months ago.
On the issue of whether or not there is even a forum to campaign, there are about 200 newspapers in Iraq right now. The only rule the USA appears to offer them is not incite violence versus the coalition. In the last year and a half, I think there have only been one or two that have actually been closed, including Mucky al-Sadr's which started his rioting about a year ago. Otherwise death, destruction, mayhem and opinion are the staple on their pages. Just like North America.
One of the more unusual freedoms being taken advantage of in Iraq right now is a proliferation of talk radio call-in shows which are wildly popular, basically Jim Rutherford of QR77 on speed.
The banning of al-Jazeera seems at odds with the trend above. Then again, it is suspicious they seem to have cameras on the spot whenever something was blown up.
By the way, are you conceding the election to Bush? I had earlier but I think Kerry's new found machismo may be making some headway.
They UNILATERALLY invaded a country innocent of all charges against them that the US presented to the UN.
How would you know? They never co-operated fully with UN weapons inspectors. To the bitter end, as one example, Iraqi scientists were never allowed to be interviewed outside Iraq with their families removed from the country.
I'll ask the obvious question: "If Saddam had nothing to hide, why not co-operate with inspectors and demonstrate that instead of playing chicken with the most paranoid nation on earth?"
You think the US really gives a damn about what anyone thinks any more?
A year and a half ago they didn't. I would say that's changed a bit as per tons of comments from even key Republicans. To deny that is to deny the obvious.
To be pragmatic in a democratic sense you require education and information on the issues. Neither of which is available to the general population.
Are you saying the stupidest Hottentot in the world doesn't think of family, home and security as his priorities?
It has to be embraced by the culture before it can work and the Muslim culture/faith was not designed to allow for democracy.
Then why is the chief cleric in Iraq insisting on elections?
Good grief, there were even quasi-successful elections in Iran of all places until clerics there got alarmed by a trend towards more freedoms from the electorate.
No one would say this is easy. In fact it might fail as you describe. Let's find out. There's more to lose in not trying if you ask me. If they fail, there won't be a lot of sympathy for what happens next, least of all from me.
Again, its odd I have a lot more faith in the average Iraqi than you do.
I said there were no WMDs and that it was all a smoke screen, and I was labelled a conspiracy theorist. I said Halliburton was profiteering and leveraging the relationship with Cheney, and I was labelled a consporacy theorist.
You've yet to demonstrate the WMD argument was a smokescreen. To me they look surprised nothing turned up. That makes them collossal idiots, something I freely admit. I also have faith that clever, lying liars would at least have known in advance they would be exposed and would have prepared a credible defence ahead of time, even counterfeit evidence. Instead we get zero. Except for gaping, astonished pie-holes and "Sorry, our bad."
As to Halliburton, you might be interested to know Halliburton is so embarrassed by the conduct of its chief contactor in Iraq, Kellogg/Root, that they might announce today they will sell it to get away from it. Having said that, I've already agreed the Cheney/Halliburton question is a legitimate debate.
Cowperson
