Hooray for Democracy

[HOZ]

Reasons sucked, planning sucked...but the results are so far......good!

Then there is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This Charles-Manson-with-a-turban who heads the insurgency in Iraq had a bad hair day on Sunday. I wonder whether anyone told him about the suicide bomber who managed to blow up only himself outside a Baghdad polling station and how Iraqi voters walked around his body, spitting on it as they went by.


It's about time, because whatever you thought about this war, it's not about Mr. Bush any more. It's about the aspirations of the Iraqi majority to build an alternative to Saddamism. By voting the way they did, in the face of real danger, Iraqis have earned the right to ask everyone now to put aside their squabbles and focus on what is no longer just a pipe dream but a real opportunity to implant decent, consensual government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world.

A day to Remember

May have to register to read

[transplant99]

Im glad they turned out in the numbers they did, and i hope it is a sign of better things to come...for all middle east countries.

Its way way to early in the process to be able to celebrate anything yet though.

[Cowperson]

The New York Times, considered a Bush enemy, has been uncommonly upbeat about the outcome of this election.

Early results have Allawi trailing the cleric-backed alliance.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6906895/

However, as per the Times a few days ago, the bargaining between the various parties has only just begun and it may still end up that Allawi stays where he is until the final election in December, basically a front man to take the blame in case things go wrong.

Also, the cleric alliance isn't rock solid either.

But . . . . that's normal politicking

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by HOZ@Feb 3 2005, 04:28 PM
Reasons sucked, planning sucked...but the results are so far......good!

Then there is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This Charles-Manson-with-a-turban who heads the insurgency in Iraq had a bad hair day on Sunday. I wonder whether anyone told him about the suicide bomber who managed to blow up only himself outside a Baghdad polling station and how Iraqi voters walked around his body, spitting on it as they went by.


It's about time, because whatever you thought about this war, it's not about Mr. Bush any more. It's about the aspirations of the Iraqi majority to build an alternative to Saddamism. By voting the way they did, in the face of real danger, Iraqis have earned the right to ask everyone now to put aside their squabbles and focus on what is no longer just a pipe dream but a real opportunity to implant decent, consensual government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world.

A day to Remember

May have to register to read

He's surely right in that _if_ the Iraqi people in the majority want a Western-style democratic government... that's a good thing from our perspective. However, if the insurgency continues, then I don't see how the majority wanting peace will make much of a difference. As long as its basically impossible for me to open my Starbucks in Falluja (cause I assume I'd be literal toast w/in a month) then victory is still a looong way away, and by _no_ means certain.

Of course, South Vietnam was a democracy as well, no? With people voting and embracing democracy? That didn't turn out too well...

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.


Sounds like we've heard this kind of talk before. Should be an interesting story.

[transplant99]

I assume that you are comparing the insurgents in Iraq to the N Vietmanese?

I suppose the situation has similarities in that there is an opposition to a democratic government being installed.

However, the pure #s of opposition are night and day. The viet cong had 500,000 soldiers IIRC, while its estimated the insurgents number somewhere around 15,000.

Two completely different scenarios as far as being able to retian control of their country. Also, being they voted the way they have, I think the entire world has a duty to support them in trying to get that government up and running. The UN should be all over that one...but they wont.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by transplant99@Feb 3 2005, 05:34 PM

I suppose the situation has similarities in that there is an opposition to a democratic government being installed.

Probably moreso the Vietcong, but the N Vietnamese were obviously in the mix.

However, the pure #s of opposition are night and day. The viet cong had 500,000 soldiers IIRC, while its estimated the insurgents number somewhere around 15,000.

Right, but I could look around for 'estimations' of Vietcong/N. Vietnam strength in the 1960's and find similarly low-balled figures. Its not exactly in the US army interest to upgrade the #'s of insurgents as the war goes on, that implies that a portion of it is being lost, I'd infer.

Two completely different scenarios as far as being able to retian control of their country. Also, being they voted the way they have, I think the entire world has a duty to support them in trying to get that government up and running. The UN should be all over that one...but they wont.

Sure, just like the International community should have supported the South Vietnam democratically elected government... right?

Well, I suppose the point I'm arguing is that they are not 'completely different scenarios', thats why I drew the comparisons. I see very similar aspects in the US ability to 'retain control of their country' with local Iraqis, just like it went down in Nam.

Obviously the world should 'support' the Iraqi people... but many may argue that current US occupation isn't _exactly_ the kind of support they need. A little tweaking could turn an occupation into an international economic stability force.

Though, I doubt that will happen. The international community hasn't seemed very eager to throw their lot into the rebuilding effort. The US hasn't exactly been reaching out to the UN, so I don't know why the UN would all of a sudden decide to enter this dangerous area after pulling out due to a crippling suicide attack.

[FlamesAddiction]

Democracy will only be success when they can do it without babysitters. As long as there is an occupation, elections will be influenced. It's too strong of a force not to.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Feb 3 2005, 06:38 PM
Democracy will only be success when they can do it without babysitters. As long as there is an occupation, elections will be influenced. It's too strong of a force not to.

What is the other group that tried to influence this election in a far more direct manner than you could ever accuse the Americans of?

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Feb 3 2005, 08:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Feb 3 2005, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Feb 3 2005, 06:38 PM
Democracy will only be success when they can do it without babysitters. As long as there is an occupation, elections will be influenced. It's too strong of a force not to.

What is the other group that tried to influence this election in a far more direct manner than you could ever accuse the Americans of?

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Haliburton?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Feb 3 2005, 08:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Feb 3 2005, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Feb 3 2005, 06:38 PM
Democracy will only be success when they can do it without babysitters. As long as there is an occupation, elections will be influenced. It's too strong of a force not to.

What is the other group that tried to influence this election in a far more direct manner than you could ever accuse the Americans of?

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Well, I'd suggest the American's by far have the most 'influence' in the country comprehensively, including elections. If we buy exactly what the US regime sells, then obviously the US is only there to conduct the election, and not interfere. Of course, if a (very) religious fundamentalist party were to win, do you think the US would assist in ushering them into power? I doubt it. I'd call that _some_ influence.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Feb 3 2005, 09:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Feb 3 2005, 09:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What is the other group that tried to influence this election in a far more direct manner than you could ever accuse the Americans of?

Cowperson

Well, I'd suggest the American's by far have the most 'influence' in the country comprehensively, including elections. If we buy exactly what the US regime sells, then obviously the US is only there to conduct the election, and not interfere. Of course, if a (very) religious fundamentalist party were to win, do you think the US would assist in ushering them into power? I doubt it. I'd call that _some_ influence. [/b][/quote]
Your taking a long leap here, if a religeous govenment forms in Iraq, the American's will probably ask for or demand some concessions as far as thier treatment of people, and thier behavior in the region, but I doubt that the American's are going to abrogate the election results, or push the rightfully elected government out of power.

The American's have built some bridges with some of thier not so positive allies here, and I doubt that they are going to screw with a democratic process under what is intense international scrutiny

[Agamemnon]

Your taking a long leap here, if a religeous govenment forms in Iraq, the American's will probably ask for or demand some concessions as far as thier treatment of people, and thier behavior in the region, but I doubt that the American's are going to abrogate the election results, or push the rightfully elected government out of power.

Right. So the American's have enough influence to 'demand some concessions', that speaks volumes to me of their effect on decision making in the Iraqi government. If they're able to make these 'demands' on the regime, thats a lot more than the insurgents have been able to do.

The American's have built some bridges with some of thier not so positive allies here, and I doubt that they are going to screw with a democratic process under what is intense international scrutiny

I don't see that they have to. It seems their man Allawi will probably still be around for a while. I guess we differ in opinion as to how much US influence exists in the country. I'd suggest the US military is by far the single greatest power and influence broker in the country... bar none.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Feb 3 2005, 09:55 PM

Right. So the American's have enough influence to 'demand some concessions', that speaks volumes to me of their effect on decision making in the Iraqi government. If they're able to make these 'demands' on the regime, thats a lot more than the insurgents have been able to do.

I don't see that they have to. It seems their man Allawi will probably still be around for a while. I guess we differ in opinion as to how much US influence exists in the country. I'd suggest the US military is by far the single greatest power and influence broker in the country... bar none.

Demanding concessions is part of international relations between governments. The French do it, the Russians certainly do it as do the Canadians and American's I don't see where the problem is for the American's to make certain demands on a religeous government in Iraq. Its part of normalizing relations.


And yes the American's are an immense powerbroker in that region at the moment, but my guy feeling is we're going to see a very quick shift from a military to a economic stance as the American's are looking to shrink thier military commitment as the new Iraqi military comes on line there.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Feb 3 2005, 09:19 PM
[Well, I'd suggest the American's by far have the most 'influence' in the country comprehensively, including elections. If we buy exactly what the US regime sells, then obviously the US is only there to conduct the election, and not interfere. Of course, if a (very) religious fundamentalist party were to win, do you think the US would assist in ushering them into power? I doubt it. I'd call that _some_ influence.

By interfering, I presume you are implying the USA attempted to influence the outcome to generate a preferential result.

Is that what you are saying?

It seems to me the guys indiscriminately shooting their own citizens and issuing death threats did more to mobilize the vote than the Americans did, a big middle finger salute to these alleged "freedom" fighters courtesy of the overwhelming majority.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Feb 3 2005, 10:11 PM
By interfering, I presume you are implying the USA attempted to influence the outcome to generate a preferential result.

Is that what you are saying?

It seems to me the guys indiscriminately shooting their own citizens and issuing death threats did more to mobilize the vote than the Americans did, a big middle finger salute to these alleged "freedom" fighters courtesy of the overwhelming majority.

Cowperson

Well, I guess that we each believe what we want to believe in this case. I think believing that the insurgents assisted in increasing voter turnout is wishful thinking, but obviously we differ there. I'd point again to my above quote from the Times concerning the 'successful' vote in South Vietnam. 83% voted, despite threats of violence from the Vietcong. I'm hearing the same rhetoric, but with the benefit of hindsight, and I don't like what I hear.

By interfering, I presume you are implying the USA attempted to influence the outcome to generate a preferential result.

I presume by this statement, that you believe that the United States has _zero_ effect on voting habits of Iraqis? I'm not sure how you can divorce an occupying army of 150,000 that literally controls the entire country from any sort of influence on the populace, especially considering the rhetoric the US spews about the insurgency.

I haven't suggested in this thread that the US is guilty of _any_ vote tampering. That's not 'influence', that's 'cheating'. I consider those to be different.

[Agamemnon]

Demanding concessions is part of international relations between governments.# The French do it, the Russians certainly do it as do the Canadians and American's I don't see where the problem is for the American's to make certain demands on a religeous government in Iraq.# Its part of normalizing relations.

Oh. I was under the impression that a democracy was being constructed in Iraq. I suppose every nation can 'demand concessions' from another, but thats a world apart from that country basically not having a choice but to succumb. If the US told us 'elect a conservative government or we'll sanction you', would that fly? No. Democracies don't have the right to 'demand' political 'concessions' from other democracies, especially one as vulnerable and dependent as Iraq.

If Canada 'demanded concessions' from Iraq, would anything happen? No.

And yes the American's are an immense powerbroker in that region at the moment, but my guy feeling is we're going to see a very quick shift from a military to a economic stance as the American's are looking to shrink thier military commitment as the new Iraqi military comes on line there.

Thats definitely one way things could go. Though like I said above (I believe) until I can open a Starbucks in downtown Fallujah, this country is a looonng way from 'stability'. I can't see that Starbucks opening anytime soon.

It definitely depends on the new Iraqi police and military. The US has been semi-successful in training South and Latin American militaries, and has decent public-suppression skills to pass on. Whether they work or not has yet to be seen.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Feb 3 2005, 10:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Feb 3 2005, 10:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Feb 3 2005, 10:11 PM
By interfering, I presume you are implying the USA attempted to influence the outcome to generate a preferential result.

Is that what you are saying?

It seems to me the guys indiscriminately shooting their own citizens and issuing death threats did more to mobilize the vote than the Americans did, a big middle finger salute to these alleged "freedom" fighters courtesy of the overwhelming majority.

Cowperson

Well, I guess that we each believe what we want to believe in this case. I think believing that the insurgents assisted in increasing voter turnout is wishful thinking, but obviously we differ there. I'd point again to my above quote from the Times concerning the 'successful' vote in South Vietnam. 83% voted, despite threats of violence from the Vietcong. I'm hearing the same rhetoric, but with the benefit of hindsight, and I don't like what I hear.

By interfering, I presume you are implying the USA attempted to influence the outcome to generate a preferential result.

I presume by this statement, that you believe that the United States has _zero_ effect on voting habits of Iraqis? I'm not sure how you can divorce an occupying army of 150,000 that literally controls the entire country from any sort of influence on the populace, especially considering the rhetoric the US spews about the insurgency.

I haven't suggested in this thread that the US is guilty of _any_ vote tampering. That's not 'influence', that's 'cheating'. I consider those to be different. [/b][/quote]
I presume by this statement, that you believe that the United States has _zero_ effect on voting habits of Iraqis?

Their "puppet" Allawi is trailing 3-1 in the polls right now so it would appear that is indeed the case.

Then again, Canadians like to elect Prime Ministers who aren't too cozy with/or outright snub America.

Is that the same influence you're talking about?

Now . . . . I guess I'm being a smartass but you would have to admit its blindingly funny, a perfect Catch-22, that critics of the weekend events would haul out something from South Vietnam of all places, land of the military coup, from a point in time when the USA was openly arranging governments in foreign lands, to somehow substantiate a point about Iraq in 2005, this after my open challenge of last month to name an election the USA has "arranged" since the fall of communism.

If you were to pick one of the two situations and time periods, South Vietnam is the obvious place where you would express distrust of any announced electoral numbers and of the person finally winning office, in his case with only 38% of the final vote.

After flailing us for the last couple of years in every Afghan and Iraq debate with evidence of the USA's corrupting global hegemony in the 1960's, I finally give in. You're damned right!!! The USA propped up every government in South Vietnam!!

As an aside, here is a Newsweek analysis of the Vietnam article you posted. Don't say I never helped you out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6902667/site/newsweek/

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Feb 4 2005, 01:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Feb 4 2005, 01:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Well, I guess that we each believe what we want to believe in this case. I think believing that the insurgents assisted in increasing voter turnout is wishful thinking, but obviously we differ there. I'd point again to my above quote from the Times concerning the 'successful' vote in South Vietnam. 83% voted, despite threats of violence from the Vietcong. I'm hearing the same rhetoric, but with the benefit of hindsight, and I don't like what I hear.

I presume by this statement, that you believe that the United States has _zero_ effect on voting habits of Iraqis? I'm not sure how you can divorce an occupying army of 150,000 that literally controls the entire country from any sort of influence on the populace, especially considering the rhetoric the US spews about the insurgency.

I haven't suggested in this thread that the US is guilty of _any_ vote tampering. That's not 'influence', that's 'cheating'. I consider those to be different.

I presume by this statement, that you believe that the United States has _zero_ effect on voting habits of Iraqis?

Their "puppet" Allawi is trailing 3-1 in the polls right now so it would appear that is indeed the case.

Then again, Canadians like to elect Prime Ministers who aren't too cozy with/or outright snub America.

Is that the same influence you're talking about?

Now . . . . I guess I'm being a smartass but you would have to admit its blindingly funny, a perfect Catch-22, that critics of the weekend events would haul out something from South Vietnam of all places, land of the military coup, from a point in time when the USA was openly arranging governments in foreign lands, to somehow substantiate a point about Iraq in 2005, this after my open challenge of last month to name an election the USA has "arranged" since the fall of communism.

If you were to pick one of the two situations and time periods, South Vietnam is the obvious place where you would express distrust of any announced electoral numbers and of the person finally winning office, in his case with only 38% of the final vote.

After flailing us for the last couple of years in every Afghan and Iraq debate with evidence of the USA's corrupting global hegemony in the 1960's, I finally give in. You're damned right!!! The USA propped up every government in South Vietnam!!

As an aside, here is a Newsweek analysis of the Vietnam article you posted. Don't say I never helped you out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6902667/site/newsweek/

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
The reason I drew the comparison between S. Vietnam and Iraq wasn't to point out administration corruption or vote tampering, it was to point out how 'positive' indicators when it comes to democratic elections in occupied countries are often optimistic or overstated, and don't necessarily indicate improvement or progress. It makes sense for this to be pumped as huge positive news, regardless of the reality of the situation on the ground, because progress has to be made.

If it works out, fantastic, if it doesn't, I'm sure neither of us will be surprised.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Feb 3 2005, 09:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Feb 3 2005, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What is the other group that tried to influence this election in a far more direct manner than you could ever accuse the Americans of?

Cowperson

Haliburton? [/b][/quote]
I was beginning to weaken, but thanks for setting me back on the right track by reminding me why I stopped reading threads on these subjects a couple of months ago. That didn't take long!

[CaramonLS]

Oh yes Dis because the good and pure company named Haliburton was a line we shouldn't have crossed.

God shame us all who think Haliburton got the contracts for rebuilding Iraq because of the Vice President's connection to the company. Not to mention the Millions they gouged the American military on fuel, failed to complete some contracts causes the US government to reassign it divide it up and give it to other countries.