Who's running Iraq?

[Cowperson]

The Washington Post, a government controlled mouthpiece of the Bushcamp///Liberal Media monopoly member working for John Kerry and also owned by a large corporation (sic) . . . . casts a jaundiced eye on the transition from the Americans to Iraqi control.

Is it happening or is it a puppet regime?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep21.html

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Who cares? Doesn't affect us. We still have football games to watch and exceptionally entertaining reality shows on TV. Nothing could be finer. Oh, and we have gas to fill up our monster sized SUV's and that's all that matters. They want to continue screwing with us, nukem! Make the place a parking lot.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 22 2004, 06:26 PM
Who cares? Doesn't affect us. We still have football games to watch and exceptionally entertaining reality shows on TV. Nothing could be finer. Oh, and we have gas to fill up our monster sized SUV's and that's all that matters. They want to continue screwing with us, nukem! Make the place a parking lot.

Atta boy!!!

On another front: "War Cripples Country's Re-birth" - The observations of one person at a government controlled mouthpiece of the Bushcamp///Liberal Media monopoly member working for John Kerry and also owned by a large corporation (sic).

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09...riel/index.html

EDIT: A rather wonderful and detailed synopsis in the Washington Post of how commentators and world leaders reacted to the Bush speech yesterday at the UN, mostly critical and dismissive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/polit...ion/whbriefing/

Cowperson

[troutman]

Who's running the US?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by troutman@Sep 22 2004, 07:22 PM
Who's running the US?

A neo-con conspiracy.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by troutman@Sep 22 2004, 07:22 PM
Who's running the US?

These morally righteous individuals.

[calculoso]

If I ask someone for coaching and suggestions, then follow them, who's running my life? Me or my coach?

[FlamesAllTheWay]

The insurgents and terrorists are the one's that are really running Iraq at this point. They have the power to stop the elections, slow the economy down, etc...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by calculoso@Sep 22 2004, 08:51 PM
If I ask someone for coaching and suggestions, then follow them, who's running my life? Me or my coach?

I dunno. Ask Marc Savard.

Oh, and when does a "coach" invade your house and appoint you a new father?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 22 2004, 08:56 PM
The insurgents and terrorists are the one's that are really running Iraq at this point. They have the power to stop the elections, slow the economy down, etc...

I'll wager a lot of money that they don't have the power to stop the elections.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 22 2004, 06:05 PM
The Washington Post, a government controlled mouthpiece of the Bushcamp///Liberal Media monopoly member working for John Kerry and also owned by a large corporation (sic) . . . .

These Lefty-neo-con-world domination conspiracies really have me worried!

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 23 2004, 04:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 23 2004, 04:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 22 2004, 08:56 PM
The insurgents and terrorists are the one's that are really running Iraq at this point. They have the power to stop the elections, slow the economy down, etc...

I'll wager a lot of money that they don't have the power to stop the elections. [/b][/quote]
In the New York Times, there is a story indicating the Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, the elderly big cheese who wants elections ASAP, has asked the UN adviser to the election process to attend him as he thinks the #####es may be underrepresented in getting only 55% of seats.

He thinks the issue should be resolved or he may withhold his endorsement of the election. If he did that, it would effectively be a boycott but, again, he is a big fan of having an election.

The endorsement of this single individual is probably critical to having the elections.

Otherwise, the elections will probably happen as advertised in January. Many critics thought the transfer to an interim government wouldn't happen either but it did.

Pushing this along, no matter how haphazardly, is fairly critical.

Cowperson

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 22 2004, 10:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 22 2004, 10:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 22 2004, 08:56 PM
The insurgents and terrorists are the one's that are really running Iraq at this point. They have the power to stop the elections, slow the economy down, etc...

I'll wager a lot of money that they don't have the power to stop the elections. [/b][/quote]
Sure they do. I've seen a few articles and stories about how the elections might have to be postponed until more stability is brought to the region. It's hard to set up voting stations (which will have a big, red bullseye on them) and lure people out their homes to vote with bombs going off and fighting going on...

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay+Sep 23 2004, 10:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAllTheWay @ Sep 23 2004, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I'll wager a lot of money that they don't have the power to stop the elections.

Sure they do. I've seen a few articles and stories about how the elections might have to be postponed until more stability is brought to the region. It's hard to set up voting stations (which will have a big, red bullseye on them) and lure people out their homes to vote with bombs going off and fighting going on... [/b][/quote]
We'll have an early preview of all of this in Afghanistan. I think those elections are imminent.

About 90% of Afghani's have registered (some multiple times!!) and there seems to be keen interest in the process.

The depressing thing about Iraq - and you see this over and over - is they'll announce they're hiring new policemen on a certain day/time/place and then never bother to put up roadblocks or much security of any kind, allowing a car bomber to drive right into the middle of them and blow them to smithereens.

If they don't have any more brains than that then you really do have to wonder if elections are possible.

However, as I noted above, no one thought the transition of power would occur either and that happened ahead of schedule.

Most likely elections will occur if you ask me, even if the conditions are severely trying.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Afghanistan first.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I really don't know what people are expecting with these elections? Do people seriously think that any candidate other than the one the Americans have selected stands a hope of winning? My lord, people are naive if they think this is going to be a practice in democracy. Just because you vote on something does not make it democratic.

People should understand the differences between liberial democracy (like we have in the G8 countries) and illiberal democracies like those that flourish in other parts of the world (Russia, Mexico, Yugoslavia, Brazil, etc.). Democracy takes time to develop and in many countries the idea either takes time to incubate and develop, usually generations, or fails to take hold and reverts back to the old way of governing (totalitarianism, Communism, etc.). Key factors into developing democracy is sufficient GDP per capita (financial resources to promote a free market), a free media capable of openly questioning the existing government or other parties, and a liberal belief structure where diferent ideas can be openly shared and accepted. Another key factor for a successful run at democracy is education. People have to be able to read and write to vote, so without that base democracy never stands a chance. Without these bases democracy will never stand a chance. Its a nice show, but really, what chance does it have?

Frankly the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq will be nothing more than a big show for the Bush admin. The cheering will be loud, but will the result be anything more than a puppet government "friendly" to the United States?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 23 2004, 11:21 PM
I really don't know what people are expecting with these elections? Do people seriously think that any candidate other than the one the Americans have selected stands a hope of winning? My lord, people are naive if they think this is going to be a practice in democracy. Just because you vote on something does not make it democratic.

People should understand the differences between liberial democracy (like we have in the G8 countries) and illiberal democracies like those that flourish in other parts of the world (Russia, Mexico, Yugoslavia, Brazil, etc.). Democracy takes time to develop and in many countries the idea either takes time to incubate and develop, usually generations, or fails to take hold and reverts back to the old way of governing (totalitarianism, Communism, etc.). Key factors into developing democracy is sufficient GDP per capita (financial resources to promote a free market), a free media capable of openly questioning the existing government or other parties, and a liberal belief structure where diferent ideas can be openly shared and accepted. Another key factor for a successful run at democracy is education. People have to be able to read and write to vote, so without that base democracy never stands a chance. Without these bases democracy will never stand a chance. Its a nice show, but really, what chance does it have?

Frankly the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq will be nothing more than a big show for the Bush admin. The cheering will be loud, but will the result be anything more than a puppet government "friendly" to the United States?

Are you saying the results are going to be rigged?

It looks like even Mucky al-Sadr, if he lives that long, will be a candidate in Iraq. If that guy can be on the stump with his message then anything is up for grabs. I mentioned before a Gallup poll found a slim majority of Iraqi's actually admired al-Sadr but only five per cent would vote for him.

Believe it or not, Karzai actually DOES appear to have widespread popularity in Afghanistan.

The entire world will be watching these two elections with a keen eye. Its unlikely there would be any widespread, systemic fraud to empower a desired result. Chaotic fraud is another thing. Or voters scared away that there isn't enough to give it legitimacy.

You're the guy saying we should admire Muslim culture. I've asked you before why I would offer that respect . . . . but I added that the average Iraqi probably has the same concerns of family, home, security as the average voter in Des Moines.

In fact, if you applied some logical thought to it, nothing would be better for the USA than a more radical government emerging that asks them to leave.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 23 2004, 11:52 PM
Are you saying the results are going to be rigged?

It looks like even Mucky al-Sadr, if he lives that long, will be a candidate in Iraq. If that guy can be on the stump with his message then anything is up for grabs. I mentioned before a Gallup poll found a slim majority of Iraqi's actually admired al-Sadr but only five per cent would vote for him.

Believe it or not, Karzai actually DOES appear to have widespread popularity in Afghanistan.

The entire world will be watching these two elections with a keen eye. Its unlikely there would be any widespread, systemic fraud to empower a desired result. Chaotic fraud is another thing. Or voters scared away that there isn't enough to give it legitimacy.

You're the guy saying we should admire Muslim culture. I've asked you before why I would offer that respect . . . . but I added that the average Iraqi probably has the same concerns of family, home, security as the average voter in Des Moines.

In fact, if you applied some logical thought to it, nothing would be better for the USA than a more radical government emerging that asks them to leave.

Cowperson

How about pre-determined? You honestly think that a country that has made an illegal military invasion into another is going to run a straight up "democratic" election in that country? Give me a break. Now you're just trying to stir the pot. Bush is running his guy around Washington right now trying to drum up election support on what a great job he is doing in Iraq. You think for a minute that America is going to continue to support Bush and his BS Iraq campaign without a guarantee? Please, the President of Iraq is on display in Washington, no matter what the election has to say. These elections are not about "establishing" democracy. They are about putting a puppet government in place that will allow the Americans to build the systems that will "hopefully" lead to their form of democracy down the road. This "election" does not establish democracy. Once America vacates the country and a self directed election can take place, only then will democracy be established. Until then, its a puppet government no different that Noriega's was in Panama.

And don't talk to me about respecting Muslims and how this election has anything to do with that when America is occupying their country. Good lord, Muslims are getting no respect anywhere in the west. Ask Cat Stevens.

You know, you can argue that America would look good if a more radical government were elected, but I think they would look stupid. This is why you won't see anything in this election happen that you don't already see right now. The present guy will be President and the "house of representatives" will be elected. The cabinet will be appointed by Bush and Co. and the US agenda will move forward. Anything less than that will make America look stupid, weak and vulnerable from a leadership perspective. Bush will not allow that to happen. His administration lied to get into Iraq, so why no fudge an election? Fits their MO. Look for it to happen.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Sep 24 2004, 03:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Sep 24 2004, 03:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 23 2004, 11:52 PM
Are you saying the results are going to be rigged?

It looks like even Mucky al-Sadr, if he lives that long, will be a candidate in Iraq. If that guy can be on the stump with his message then anything is up for grabs. I mentioned before a Gallup poll found a slim majority of Iraqi's actually admired al-Sadr but only five per cent would vote for him.

Believe it or not, Karzai actually DOES appear to have widespread popularity in Afghanistan.

The entire world will be watching these two elections with a keen eye. Its unlikely there would be any widespread, systemic fraud to empower a desired result. Chaotic fraud is another thing. Or voters scared away that there isn't enough to give it legitimacy.

You're the guy saying we should admire Muslim culture. I've asked you before why I would offer that respect . . . . but I added that the average Iraqi probably has the same concerns of family, home, security as the average voter in Des Moines.

In fact, if you applied some logical thought to it, nothing would be better for the USA than a more radical government emerging that asks them to leave.

Cowperson

How about pre-determined? You honestly think that a country that has made an illegal military invasion into another is going to run a straight up "democratic" election in that country? Give me a break. Now you're just trying to stir the pot. Bush is running his guy around Washington right now trying to drum up election support on what a great job he is doing in Iraq. You think for a minute that America is going to continue to support Bush and his BS Iraq campaign without a guarantee? Please, the President of Iraq is on display in Washington, no matter what the election has to say. These elections are not about "establishing" democracy. They are about putting a puppet government in place that will allow the Americans to build the systems that will "hopefully" lead to their form of democracy down the road. This "election" does not establish democracy. Once America vacates the country and a self directed election can take place, only then will democracy be established. Until then, its a puppet government no different that Noriega's was in Panama.

And don't talk to me about respecting Muslims and how this election has anything to do with that when America is occupying their country. Good lord, Muslims are getting no respect anywhere in the west. Ask Cat Stevens.

You know, you can argue that America would look good if a more radical government were elected, but I think they would look stupid. This is why you won't see anything in this election happen that you don't already see right now. The present guy will be President and the "house of representatives" will be elected. The cabinet will be appointed by Bush and Co. and the US agenda will move forward. Anything less than that will make America look stupid, weak and vulnerable from a leadership perspective. Bush will not allow that to happen. His administration lied to get into Iraq, so why no fudge an election? Fits their MO. Look for it to happen. [/b][/quote]
You honestly think that a country that has made an illegal military invasion into another is going to run a straight up "democratic" election in that country?

Yep.

They would look a lot stupider if they didn't and that's a fact Jack.

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.

I would think that's obvious.

You know, you can argue that America would look good if a more radical government were elected, but I think they would look stupid.

Hold your breath because its a possibility.

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.

But that's the risk you take.

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.

The present guy will be President and the "house of representatives" will be elected. The cabinet will be appointed by Bush and Co. and the US agenda will move forward. Anything less than that will make America look stupid, weak and vulnerable from a leadership perspective. Bush will not allow that to happen. His administration lied to get into Iraq, so why no fudge an election? Fits their MO. Look for it to happen.

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.

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

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 24 2004, 04:39 AM
You honestly think that a country that has made an illegal military invasion into another is going to run a straight up "democratic" election in that country?

Yep.

They would look a lot stupider if they didn't and that's a fact Jack.

I really don't think Bush cares how the U.S. looks to other countries. Nothing he does would indicate that, and given the fact that a siginificant number of Americans believe from their president and media that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, and/or siginificant quantities of WMD have been found; I don't think it will be too difficult to convince them that Iraqis are in charge of any democratic process. The U.S. could appoint an inanimate carbon rod as leader in Iraq and spin it as a democratic movement, and people would believe it.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

If the Iraqis could elect who they want, Iraq would more than likely drift towards states like Iran at this stage. People can only begin to discuss freedom and other concepts of that nature if their basic needs are fulfilled.

Those needs are not being met. The first mullah on the block who can teach people how to spell his name would likely be elected in. That kind of a situation would be unacceptable for the US. It would be akin to Osama Bin running and winning, after the Americans spent so much money in there building a business parter.

The current administration will win this one, but the masses who "voted" for them will remain unhappy.