USA plans for troop reductions in Afghanistan

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Dec 6 2004, 06:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Dec 6 2004, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Dec 6 2004, 05:34 PM
You are really desperate.

And I've got better things to do (seriously, I'm busy today, so I'm not going to go round and round the merry go round for no purpose).

See you later when the Iraq election happens. It won't be a slam dunk like this one was. That'll give us something interesting to talk about. Even I might be surprised if the USA favoured candidate forms a government.

Mean while the whole Ukraine situation has been exacerbated by none other than the United States, meddling in the affairs of yet another country, even though Russia has requested they keep their nose out of the situation.

So you'd rather see no questioning of an election in Ukraine where the results were clearly fraudulent, as determined by not only the USA but also Europe and the UN, agreeing together for once, yet you're alleging vote fixing in Afghanistan where the most popular candidate, heaven forbid, actually won by the same margin independent opinion polls prior to the ballot said he would.

Nice contradiction.

Meanwhile, you're saying Afghani's aren't culturally capable of handling the concept of democracy when they were clearly clamouring to get to the ballot box, literally risking life and limb to do so.

Are Ukranians also too culturally inept to handle the concept of a fair election?

Ah, fuggedaboudit. I'll be back tonight.

Cowperson

Desperate to do what? Point out the strange goings on over there? You don't see the parallels between what has happened in the past when America stuck their noses into Latin America and the Far East? To point out how strange it is to see a polar switch in politics in a country with a deep seeded cultural hatred of the United States? No desperation there at all. Just pointing out the obvious. You know, like a pro-American candidate winning an election in a landslide during American occupation of the country. I mean, how desperate can a guy get to make such an outlandish comment?



Do I think the Ukraine is right or wrong? Wrong naturally. But I also do notice the active participation the United States is taking in this situation. If you're looking for someone leading the hord with pitch fork and torch firmly in hand, look at the United States in this regard. Or did you miss how p*ssed Putin was in regards to the American's actions. It seems that as long as democracy goes the way the United States wants it to, its all god and fair. As soon as something goes the otherway, well its recount time. And I'm not sure how that is a contradiction, but hey, you're going to say I'm wrong no matter what I say, so who gives a damn.

The Ukraine and Afghanistan are apples and oranges. In regards to democracy, yes, the Afghanis were not prepared to have an election. That is not democracy in action. For democracy to work you need to have an educated population. They need to not only be able to read but also to freely exchange ideas. There has to be understanding of the issues, an understanding of the platforms, a way for the candidates to openly debate, and a way to freely vote. Unfortunately for that to take place you need a literate population, something that is sorely lacking in Afghanistan. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is 31.5%, meaning 68.5% can't read or write. How can you honestly say that democracy can take place when you can't read a ballot? Conversely the Ukraine has a very high literacy rate (98%, which is better than Canada) and has had some time to develop the bodies of democratic government. The Ukraine is more than ready to deal with democracy as they have the education, the technical infrastructure and the ability to stage open debate for the masses. The differences are night and day. I'm surprised a semi-intelligent fellow like yourself would not recognize the differences and comprehend the challenges that implementing democracy is like. Or maybe you were just jerking my chain and trying to get a reaction? No, that would be giving you way too much credit. Obviously the actions of a desperate man.

[/b][/quote]
Well, its not my problem if you think foreigners are too illiterate and stupid to vote. Oddly, that's also your reasoning for Americans electing GW Bush a second time.

Among the guests at Karzai's swearing in today in Kabul were Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and Pakistan’s Interior Minister, Aftab Khan Sherpao, representing the countries directly neighbouring Afghanistan. Obviously accepting the result as legitimate. Or are you going to tell us the USA is leading Iran around by the nose?

There was also this comment from Human Rights Watch, tacitly acknowledging the legitimacy of the election, with these comments:

"We're basically asking President Karzai to do what the Afghan people want him to do, which is to limit the power of the warlords and attempt to implement the rule of law in Afghanistan," says John Sifton, Human Rights Watch's Afghanistan researcher.

Are you saying the USA government is leading Human Rights Watch around by the nose?

A further BBC commentary on Karzai's mandate from the election:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3979801.stm

By the way, since the fall of communism, where both sides used proxies heavily in their global fight, where has America been rigging votes lately? Just curious. Seriously. Where? Venezuela? Maybe, but the incumbent they wanted out actually retained power. Anything else?

In all honesty, wouldn't it be fair to say an institution like the IMF might have more influence on elections via policy than the USA government? And since the USA government is widely loathed, wouldn't it be fair to say any attempt to influence a result might well tip things the opposite way?

An interesting look at international influences on democratic choices in Latin America - this is from an author at the London School of Economics so I assume we can consider him neutral:

http://www.psa.ac.uk/cps/1999/philip.pdf

Also amusing that you would claim America is now leading Europe and the UN around by the nose on the Ukraine. Very funny considering the falling out between those sides on other issues and the obvious fact America can't bludgeon or threaten the Europeans into helping in Iraq.

And where are the voices of opposition in Europe to the Afghan results? Answer: they don't exist. Nothing to grab onto.

You have no friends in this argument. You've lost. We're off to Round Two in Iraq.

So CP it sounds to me like you think the majority of Afgahnistan being run by warlords is a slam dunk. Is this the plan the US had from the start? To have elections that reflect one area where there is some control and the rest run by warlords (by the way what about warlords makes you think it's a good thing and thus a success) doesn't seem to me to be a slam dunk. To me either they planned for warlords to rule the place on the whole, which is rediculous, or they didn't plan for it and it's turning out that way and just happens that they may run it less badly than the previous group, the Taliban did. Which shows a lack of planning. Wrong and wrong IMO.

If you remember, about 9,000 UN forces invaded with the aid of a group of warlords from the northern part of the country. Afghans did a lot of the fighting under the cover of USA air power.

In contrast, in Iraq, they required about 170,000 combined soldiers and had no local help.

A marked difference in strategy in the two conflicts.

Since the end of the Afghan conflict, every time one Afghan warlord gets out of line, American bombers appear in the sky over his town and start blowing up his tanks and other heavy weaponry . . . . and suddenly things get quiet again. Good thinking, because other warlords would exploit any weakness.

Its a balance of power and Karzai has included most warlords, to varying degrees of influence, in his coalition for governing.

You can see the design is for the central government to gradually grow stronger through time. Certainly warlords are filling the power vacuum in the outlying regions. Do they have a choice? Not as individuals. And peace is profitable if a blind eye is turned to the poppy trade for awhile.

I don't believe America has had more than 20,000 soldiers in Afghanistan at any one time and most are located at two or three isolated bases, well away from the population. Special forces in small groups roam the countryside.

In short, yeah, that was obviously the plan and certainly a marked contrast to the plan in Iraq which required almost 200,000 troops and where 150,000 soldiers are having a tough time keeping a lid on things.

The post-war planning in Iraq has obviously gone seriously awry but that doesn't appear to be the case at all in Afghanistan.

The Soviets lost in Afghanistan because they actually tried to conquer the country.

The Americans are likely to win because they're leaving the bulk of the heavy lifting to the Afghans themselves, simply pointing them in a democratic direction.

Back (much) later in the afternoon or evening or the next day to address any response.

Cowperson

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Dec 7 2004, 12:28 PM
There was also this comment from Human Rights Watch, tacitly acknowledging the legitimacy of the election, with these comments:

"We're basically asking President Karzai to do what the Afghan people want him to do, which is to limit the power of the warlords and attempt to implement the rule of law in Afghanistan," says John Sifton, Human Rights Watch's Afghanistan researcher.

Are you saying the USA government is leading Human Rights Watch around by the nose?#

You might not want to pick Human Rights Watch to support your argument

They're not your friend

"Without question, this was a wonderful day for Afghans and Afghanistan. But for the international community, this has to be viewed as a major flop"

"The problem with the ink, which grabbed most of the headlines, obscured the real shortcomings of the international effort. The confusion and cries of fraud could have been avoided if there had been enough independent international monitors to observe the elections. Such monitors are absolutely essential to establishing legitimacy in any post-conflict voting situation, but there were only 250 or so internationals monitoring Afghanistan."

"The European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation for Europe, both of which have large teams of experienced election monitors, chose to send only skeletal crews. In part, this was because both groups knew beforehand that the elections would fall short of international standards"

And so on....

That being said, there really would be no surprise if Karzai did win legitimately given that, as the article points out, he's incorporated warlords and human rights abusers into his gov't, and they can really turn out the vote.

They might have been the inspiration for P Diddy's "Vote or Die" campaign

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Mike F+Dec 7 2004, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Dec 7 2004, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Dec 7 2004, 12:28 PM
There was also this comment from Human Rights Watch, tacitly acknowledging the legitimacy of the election, with these comments:

"We're basically asking President Karzai to do what the Afghan people want him to do, which is to limit the power of the warlords and attempt to implement the rule of law in Afghanistan," says John Sifton, Human Rights Watch's Afghanistan researcher.

Are you saying the USA government is leading Human Rights Watch around by the nose?#

You might not want to pick Human Rights Watch to support your argument

They're not your friend

"Without question, this was a wonderful day for Afghans and Afghanistan. But for the international community, this has to be viewed as a major flop"

"The problem with the ink, which grabbed most of the headlines, obscured the real shortcomings of the international effort. The confusion and cries of fraud could have been avoided if there had been enough independent international monitors to observe the elections. Such monitors are absolutely essential to establishing legitimacy in any post-conflict voting situation, but there were only 250 or so internationals monitoring Afghanistan."

"The European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation for Europe, both of which have large teams of experienced election monitors, chose to send only skeletal crews. In part, this was because both groups knew beforehand that the elections would fall short of international standards"

And so on....

That being said, there really would be no surprise if Karzai did win legitimately given that, as the article points out, he's incorporated warlords and human rights abusers into his gov't, and they can really turn out the vote.

They might have been the inspiration for P Diddy's "Vote or Die" campaign [/b][/quote]
hahaha . . . . good one.

Maybe they should contact their Afghan representative and indicate their thoughts to him as obviously he has an entirely different opinion as expressed earlier today and quoted in my post.

Cowperson

[Cowperson]

Actually, a Human Rights Watch opinion piece that starts this way isn't exactly a condemnation . . . considering the source that is:

Watching the presidential elections here last Saturday was an exciting, exhilarating and frustrating assignment. Exciting and exhilarating because on election day, Afghan men and women turned out by the millions to vote, while Afghan election officials in 25,000 polling stations showed themselves capable of conducting a peaceful, nationwide, universal suffrage election -- something unprecedented in this country.

But it was also frustrating because, while the Afghan people did everything right, the international community again failed to keep up its side of the bargain. Failure to provide adequate security before the elections, and poor preparation for the elections themselves, managed to mar the otherwise flawless performance of the Afghan people.

Cowperson

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Dec 7 2004, 01:15 PM
Actually, a Human Rights Watch opinion piece that starts this way isn't exactly a condemnation . . . considering the source that is:

It's not a condemnation, more of a celebration of a valiant failure -- like a proud parent watching their baby stumble forward two steps for the first time before falling on it's face because it wasn't caught. :P

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Mike F+Dec 7 2004, 09:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Dec 7 2004, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Dec 7 2004, 01:15 PM
Actually, a Human Rights Watch opinion piece that starts this way isn't exactly a condemnation . . . considering the source that is:

It's not a condemnation, more of a celebration of a valiant failure -- like a proud parent watching their baby stumble forward two steps for the first time before falling on it's face because it wasn't caught. :P [/b][/quote]
You know, I'm liking your article more and more, especially the conclusion:

The success of the elections should motivate the international community, led by the United States, to redouble efforts in Afghanistan. As a new government takes shape, and as the country begins preparing for parliamentary elections that were delayed until next year, the world should reward the Afghan people with more international monitors, more peacekeepers, and vats and vats of indelible ink.

Actually, the commentary in the article and the full comments by the Human Rights representative in my link are pretty much sympatico.

A Karzai result expressed the will of the Afghan people reasonably fairly, in spite of the obstacles.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Well, its not my problem if you think foreigners are too illiterate and stupid to vote. Oddly, that's also your reasoning for Americans electing GW Bush a second time.

Sadly you are proving that you are likely incapable of voting as well. You really are just pulling my chain, right? You seriously cannot be near as ######ed as you are playing by ignoring the connection between literacy and democracy. What's really fun Cow, is that someone we supposedly both have read (I now know you have not) and respect, Fareed Zakaria, preaches long and loud in The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad that this is a massive challenge in spreading democracy to the rest of the world. Seems that he also believes that if you are in capable of reading the ballot you are incapable of filling one out and asking the questions that need to be answered in a true democracy. Maybe you can contact him and let him know that his theories are all wrong.

Among the guests at Karzai's swearing in today in Kabul were Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and Pakistan’s Interior Minister, Aftab Khan Sherpao, representing the countries directly neighbouring Afghanistan. Obviously accepting the result as legitimate. Or are you going to tell us the USA is leading Iran around by the nose?

Thank you for putting words in my mouth and insulting my intelligence. I'm not saying that at all. It appears that YOU are saying that. But what would the two nations do if they did disagree with the result? Pakistan is going to stand up to the States and get cut off from the money pouring into their country in American foreign aid? Iran is ging to call it a farce and be moved to the top of the American hit list? Sometimes you just refuse to acknowledge the most obvious things.

I think that the neighboring nations were there for obvious reasons. Politics. They could have a big say into what happens in Afghanistan should the American committment there disappear and the warlords have their way in the wilds of Afghanistan. Unless America is willing to make a further committment of support it is likely Afghanistan could be headed for some very dark days.

BTW... if America is making such a commitment to democracy in Afghanista, and are doing the similar things in Iraq that they did in Afghanistan, care to explain why zero military bases were built in Afghanistan, yet fourteen have been constructed in Iraq? Obviously has something to do with Afghanistan's ability to defend itself and having the support stuctures in place for such matters. Iraq, on the other hand, saw the 5th largest military in the world dismantled and obviously didn't have the infrastructure to defend itself and needed it built up. Right Cow? Explain that one away.

There was also this comment from Human Rights Watch, tacitly acknowledging the legitimacy of the election, with these comments:

"We're basically asking President Karzai to do what the Afghan people want him to do, which is to limit the power of the warlords and attempt to implement the rule of law in Afghanistan," says John Sifton, Human Rights Watch's Afghanistan researcher.

Are you saying the USA government is leading Human Rights Watch around by the nose?

Again, thank you for putting words in my mouth. Your house guests must be very well fed (up) by team they leave your barn after an evening of stimulating conversation. What I see is on the contracy to the way you see it my bovine friend. I see the HRW asking the new government to be fair, doing not what they expect after the election victory. Seems to me there is a fair bit of skeptism on their part and they are airing that concern up front and in front of the world.

By the way, since the fall of communism, where both sides used proxies heavily in their global fight, where has America been rigging votes lately? Just curious. Seriously. Where? Venezuela? Maybe, but the incumbent they wanted out actually retained power. Anything else?

Since the fall of communism? Good lord, since the fall of communism we've had only three presidents, two of them too busy with Iraq to worry about anywhere else and one who took a very stand-offish and peaceful approach to foreign matters. What the hell were you expecting?

In all honesty, wouldn't it be fair to say an institution like the IMF might have more influence on elections via policy than the USA government? And since the USA government is widely loathed, wouldn't it be fair to say any attempt to influence a result might well tip things the opposite way?

No, not at all. You need a lesson in the way the average American and the way the government thinks. The IMF has no pull in this country. The UN has no pull in this country. America does not respect nor recognize these bodies unless they are working in their favor. Considering that America is still the predominant economy on this planet, and they have the army to kick any one country's butt at the drop of a hat, what America says holds much more weight than the UN or the IMF. Its funny, but when the IMF starts handing out foreign aid they might see a change in that.

Also amusing that you would claim America is now leading Europe and the UN around by the nose on the Ukraine. Very funny considering the falling out between those sides on other issues and the obvious fact America can't bludgeon or threaten the Europeans into helping in Iraq.

Who said they are leading Europe around by the nose? Holy smokes you like to exagerate! What I said is that the America is making a lot of noise and is leading the way with torches and pitch forks raised. The American noise machine, and their holier than thou antics, are stirring up a hornets nest, much to the dispeasure of those neighboring Ukraine. Other countries are watching the election in the Ukraine but I don't see quite the level of outrage from other nations as is prevelant in the American media.

And where are the voices of opposition in Europe to the Afghan results? Answer: they don't exist. Nothing to grab onto.

You have no friends in this argument. You've lost. We're off to Round Two in Iraq.

Lost what? I said that America's candidate would win in a landslide. What, do you lose when you are right now? How can anyone complain when the reult is exactly as expected and works for them. Europe isn't going to say jack in defense of this. A west friendly President works for them too and keeps the terrorists looking for a new home from which to plan their attacks (you are aware that Europe gets hit more often than America?). It works in the long run for them to have this election "win" as well.

As I said, you can't prove the election was not fixed and I cannot prove it was. As I have said repeatedly, and you've ignored or been too much of a coward to address, I find it extremely strange to see a 180 turn around on the political road map in a region where there has been a long generational deep seeded hatred for all things America and then have them elect a pro-America candidate in a landslide. To you this is an every day occurance, but to me this just stinks to high heaven. Again, explain that one away.

So yes, in Cow's world the elction was on the up and up. Nothing to worry about even though people registered three and four time each. Nothing to worry about when almost 70% of the country could not read the ballot or write their name down for auditing purposes, that washable ink they used was good enough for Uncle Sam. Nothing to worry about when 90% of the country knew nothing of platform (and if you say they did, please tell me how this is possible when the majority of the country was impossible to travel and the communications systems were not in place to facilitate debate). Nothing to worry about when there is one candidate on the ballot with any sort of hope at all, and that;s the one chosen by America. That's democracy in action. Forget the people nominating their own leaders and developing a parlimentary system on their own. What America wants and tells them is good is in deed good enough for those that count, America.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Dec 7 2004, 09:47 PM
Well, its not my problem if you think foreigners are too illiterate and stupid to vote. Oddly, that's also your reasoning for Americans electing GW Bush a second time.

Sadly you are proving that you are likely incapable of voting as well. You really are just pulling my chain, right? You seriously cannot be near as ######ed as you are playing by ignoring the connection between literacy and democracy. What's really fun Cow, is that someone we supposedly both have read (I now know you have not) and respect, Fareed Zakaria, preaches long and loud in The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad that this is a massive challenge in spreading democracy to the rest of the world. Seems that he also believes that if you are in capable of reading the ballot you are incapable of filling one out and asking the questions that need to be answered in a true democracy. Maybe you can contact him and let him know that his theories are all wrong.

Among the guests at Karzai's swearing in today in Kabul were Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and Pakistan’s Interior Minister, Aftab Khan Sherpao, representing the countries directly neighbouring Afghanistan. Obviously accepting the result as legitimate. Or are you going to tell us the USA is leading Iran around by the nose?

Thank you for putting words in my mouth and insulting my intelligence. I'm not saying that at all. It appears that YOU are saying that. But what would the two nations do if they did disagree with the result? Pakistan is going to stand up to the States and get cut off from the money pouring into their country in American foreign aid? Iran is ging to call it a farce and be moved to the top of the American hit list? Sometimes you just refuse to acknowledge the most obvious things.

I think that the neighboring nations were there for obvious reasons. Politics. They could have a big say into what happens in Afghanistan should the American committment there disappear and the warlords have their way in the wilds of Afghanistan. Unless America is willing to make a further committment of support it is likely Afghanistan could be headed for some very dark days.

BTW... if America is making such a commitment to democracy in Afghanista, and are doing the similar things in Iraq that they did in Afghanistan, care to explain why zero military bases were built in Afghanistan, yet fourteen have been constructed in Iraq? Obviously has something to do with Afghanistan's ability to defend itself and having the support stuctures in place for such matters. Iraq, on the other hand, saw the 5th largest military in the world dismantled and obviously didn't have the infrastructure to defend itself and needed it built up. Right Cow? Explain that one away.

There was also this comment from Human Rights Watch, tacitly acknowledging the legitimacy of the election, with these comments:

"We're basically asking President Karzai to do what the Afghan people want him to do, which is to limit the power of the warlords and attempt to implement the rule of law in Afghanistan," says John Sifton, Human Rights Watch's Afghanistan researcher.

Are you saying the USA government is leading Human Rights Watch around by the nose?

Again, thank you for putting words in my mouth. Your house guests must be very well fed (up) by team they leave your barn after an evening of stimulating conversation. What I see is on the contracy to the way you see it my bovine friend. I see the HRW asking the new government to be fair, doing not what they expect after the election victory. Seems to me there is a fair bit of skeptism on their part and they are airing that concern up front and in front of the world.

By the way, since the fall of communism, where both sides used proxies heavily in their global fight, where has America been rigging votes lately? Just curious. Seriously. Where? Venezuela? Maybe, but the incumbent they wanted out actually retained power. Anything else?

Since the fall of communism? Good lord, since the fall of communism we've had only three presidents, two of them too busy with Iraq to worry about anywhere else and one who took a very stand-offish and peaceful approach to foreign matters. What the hell were you expecting?

In all honesty, wouldn't it be fair to say an institution like the IMF might have more influence on elections via policy than the USA government? And since the USA government is widely loathed, wouldn't it be fair to say any attempt to influence a result might well tip things the opposite way?

No, not at all. You need a lesson in the way the average American and the way the government thinks. The IMF has no pull in this country. The UN has no pull in this country. America does not respect nor recognize these bodies unless they are working in their favor. Considering that America is still the predominant economy on this planet, and they have the army to kick any one country's butt at the drop of a hat, what America says holds much more weight than the UN or the IMF. Its funny, but when the IMF starts handing out foreign aid they might see a change in that.

Also amusing that you would claim America is now leading Europe and the UN around by the nose on the Ukraine. Very funny considering the falling out between those sides on other issues and the obvious fact America can't bludgeon or threaten the Europeans into helping in Iraq.

Who said they are leading Europe around by the nose? Holy smokes you like to exagerate! What I said is that the America is making a lot of noise and is leading the way with torches and pitch forks raised. The American noise machine, and their holier than thou antics, are stirring up a hornets nest, much to the dispeasure of those neighboring Ukraine. Other countries are watching the election in the Ukraine but I don't see quite the level of outrage from other nations as is prevelant in the American media.

And where are the voices of opposition in Europe to the Afghan results? Answer: they don't exist. Nothing to grab onto.

You have no friends in this argument. You've lost. We're off to Round Two in Iraq.

Lost what? I said that America's candidate would win in a landslide. What, do you lose when you are right now? How can anyone complain when the reult is exactly as expected and works for them. Europe isn't going to say jack in defense of this. A west friendly President works for them too and keeps the terrorists looking for a new home from which to plan their attacks (you are aware that Europe gets hit more often than America?). It works in the long run for them to have this election "win" as well.

As I said, you can't prove the election was not fixed and I cannot prove it was. As I have said repeatedly, and you've ignored or been too much of a coward to address, I find it extremely strange to see a 180 turn around on the political road map in a region where there has been a long generational deep seeded hatred for all things America and then have them elect a pro-America candidate in a landslide. To you this is an every day occurance, but to me this just stinks to high heaven. Again, explain that one away.

So yes, in Cow's world the elction was on the up and up. Nothing to worry about even though people registered three and four time each. Nothing to worry about when almost 70% of the country could not read the ballot or write their name down for auditing purposes, that washable ink they used was good enough for Uncle Sam. Nothing to worry about when 90% of the country knew nothing of platform (and if you say they did, please tell me how this is possible when the majority of the country was impossible to travel and the communications systems were not in place to facilitate debate). Nothing to worry about when there is one candidate on the ballot with any sort of hope at all, and that;s the one chosen by America. That's democracy in action. Forget the people nominating their own leaders and developing a parlimentary system on their own. What America wants and tells them is good is in deed good enough for those that count, America.

So, in summary, about four months ago you bet me America would RIG the Afghan election to generate a desired result. In there with both feet, fixing the thing. The Ugly American.

In turn, I said it would be conducted openly and fairly, or what passed for openly and fairly in that part of the world (my exact words at the time).

That was our intellectual bet, with nothing but "I told you so" as the prize.

In independent polls prior to the election, Karzai was determined likely to generate more than 60% of the vote. In fairness, I told you that but you made the bet anyway. I said "why fix it when their guy is going to win?" You dismissed that and said they'd fix it anyway. Lets face it, you didn't start this bet on a strong base of common sense.

He eventually polled less than that but won the popular edge.

The Iranians, a country most likely to try to stir things up, accepted the results without comment. Their foreign minister was on hand for the inauguration today and congratulated the winner. The goofy, irrelevant, scandal plagued UN accepts it. Even Human Rights Watch calls it an "inspiring success" with qualifications aimed at America for not interfering more than it did with insufficient troops on the ground!!! (an odd complaint considering Iraq).

You haven't got a single credible independent observor claiming America RIGGED this election to generate a desired result. Fixed it. Arranged the result.

Zero. Nobody. Not one. You needed that to win this bet. You ain't got it. You lose.

The UN and government after government, whether friendly or hostile, is establishing relations with this government, recognizing its legitimacy. Meanwhile, the opposite occurred in Ukraine. You have no explanation for the contradiction, except some rather lame attempt to say Afghans are stupid therefore we'll let that one slip while Ukranians are smart so we'll jump on it. What in hell is up with that?

Meanwhile you dance and you dodge with barely readible essay's quoting irrelevancies of ancient history while all the while welching on our bet. WELCHING on a clear loss.

Mind if I call you Dan Rather? Do we need to do this for 12 days in spite of the obvious facts?

Welcher. Sore loser.

Pay up!!

Since the fall of communism? Good lord, since the fall of communism we've had only three presidents, two of them too busy with Iraq to worry about anywhere else and one who took a very stand-offish and peaceful approach to foreign matters. What the hell were you expecting?

So, in other words, I'm right and you're wrong yet again. I'm having a good day today!!.

In a post-communist, post proxy world now more than a decade long, you are now admitting that America's record is NOT one of vote rigging as you had claimed several times in this thread.

You dismiss that by saying: "Goodness, we're out conquering the world!! Busy, busy, busy!!! Who has time to fix elections!!???"

Oh wait, you said earlier they fixed the Afghan election. But wait part deux, you then said that's not what you're saying but, alas, if you're saying that then YOU LOST THE BET!!

Your intellect is truly dizzying (Princess Bride reference).

On to Iraq where you might actually have a chance to even the score.

I think I'll drive home now. I don't know if I'll turn on my computer tonight.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Welcher. Sore loser.

Pay up!!

As you wish (Princess Bride reference)!

Hey, if its going to make you feel better, okay, you were right. The American candidate won the election, just like we both said he would. You were 100 percent right that he would win. Major kudos for going out on that limb and making that call. I'm not sure who else said it, but damn if you both weren't on the ball in calling that.



I'm still waiting for you to explain the 180 in political ideology of the average Afghanistanian. Imagine every Republican in America voting for the Democrats overnight. Unlikely? Maybe if the candidates that were able to run were John Kerry vs Michael Moore vs Charles Manson vs Fidel Castro? Would that have an effect on democracy and be considered election fixing? No, probably not. That would be a fair and honest election.



Since the fall of communism? Good lord, since the fall of communism we've had only three presidents, two of them too busy with Iraq to worry about anywhere else and one who took a very stand-offish and peaceful approach to foreign matters. What the hell were you expecting?

So, in other words, I'm right and you're wrong yet again. I'm having a good day today!!.

In a post-communist, post proxy world now more than a decade long, you are now admitting that America's record is NOT one of vote rigging as you had claimed several times in this thread.

I guess you didn't count the fixing of the 2000 US Election nor the 2004 Afghanistan election?

I guess you never considered that with two Iraq wars that the Americans effectively were electing the government running the country. Also you're forgetting the invasion of Panama and removal of Noreiga, the invasions of Greneda and Haiti. You also seem to lend a blind eye to what has been considered election tampering in Venezuela to defeat anti-Bush critic Hugo Chavez. There has been plenty of work by the Americans that has affected the political climate and seen governments friendly to their goals and cooperative to their whims. But of course to someone who keeps their head buried in the sands of American propaganda you would consider this as being... Inconceivable! (Princess Bride reference)

Too bad, all of these events had ramifications to the politics of the nations in question, even if those of us in Canada were not aware of the changes that took place.

Your intellect is truly dizzying (Princess Bride reference).

And yours is just dizzy. The line is, "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." (the correct Princess Bride reference)

Have a good evening Cow. Tomorrow is another day.

[Cowperson]

We didn't bet on who would win. Lets be clear on that Mr. Welcher.

That's a nice, flatuelence-laden try at a dodge but the winner in Afghanistan is actually irrelevent, hence my fair warning to you at the time of our bet.

You flat out stated America would rig the Afghan election, a dramatic over-statement typical of all of your arguments on any topic on this board.

We bet on whether or not the processes would be arranged to generate a desireable result. I said, quite sensibly, "Why bother?" and stated it would be conducted openly and fairly since there seemed little reason to upset the apple cart.

In one of your first posts in this thread, you flat out state the obvious, that you "can't prove that it was" rigged in Afghanistan.

Well Cow, you cannot prove the election was not fixed, just like I can't prove that it was. - Lanny McDonald

With that, you lose. Pay up!!!

By the way, attempting to get me to "prove the election was not fixed" is a childish dodge in the absence of any credible argument from yourself to address the real question of our wager.

Prove an election was NOT fixed? Very funny.

I'm still waiting for you to explain the 180 in political ideology of the average Afghanistanian. Imagine every Republican in America voting for the Democrats overnight.

Where do you get an idea there was a change in political ideology? Do you have something to base that on? Answer - no. Once again, a vast overstatement that leaves you exposed as usual.

The underlying story of philosophy and issues, the tone of the electorate, is in this comprehensive pre-election poll below, the Readers Digest version of which is at this link.

http://www.asiafoundation.org/Locations/af...tan_survey.html

The more detailed version:

http://www.asiafoundation.org/pdf/afghan_voter-ed04.pdf

In the actual election day polling, Karzai was supported by his ethnic group, the Pashtuns, to the tune of about 86%. Pashtuns made up 52% of those voting so he was over the top almost on that segment alone. Why bother fixing it?

About 40% of Tajiks voted Karzai, the latter a bit of a surprise as only 34% voted for Qanuni, their ethnic candidate.

Karzai received only 16% of the Uzbek vote with warlord Dostrum getting 59% of that group.

About 21% of Hazaris voted Karzai, 62% voted Mohaqiq, Karzai's principle rival.

Its not particularly complicated nor conspiratorial. Nor does it mathematically look like a fix. Nor is it out of line with pre-election expectations. It looks exactly like what it was. Simple and straight forward.

I guess you never considered that with two Iraq wars that the Americans effectively were electing the government running the country. Also you're forgetting the invasion of Panama and removal of Noreiga, the invasions of Greneda and Haiti. You also seem to lend a blind eye to what has been considered election tampering in Venezuela to defeat anti-Bush critic Hugo Chavez. There has been plenty of work by the Americans that has affected the political climate and seen governments friendly to their goals and cooperative to their whims. But of course to someone who keeps their head buried in the sands of American propaganda you would consider this as being... Inconceivable! (Princess Bride reference)

I mentioned Venezuela in an earlier post to give you a break. I beat you to it. Potentially there is something there but nebulous and if they were rigging a vote, they certainly did a poor job of it since the guy they wanted out actually won. "They" clearly didn't want the guy to win but how far did they go to prevent it? Well, they didn't shoot him or rig the ballot boxes. They didn't poison him which appears to be something Russia may have attempted in Ukraine.

If we apply your definition of vote rigging from Afghanistan to Venezuela, then there wasn't any vote rigging since the wrong guy won. Catch 22. Hoisted by your own petard again.

The rest of your assertion is, naturally, garbage.

Invading isn't vote fixing since there isn't an election occurring at the time to talk about. Two different topics.

Lets look at your own examples so we might beat you over the head with them.

If anything, the people being invaded should be ticked off and what you don't hear about Grenada, Panama, or Haiti is that the majority of people are 1) ticked off or 2) sorry there was an invasion or even 3) that the USA forced a long-term, non-elected government on them. Prove otherwise if you dare.

Lastly, a little history lesson for you - Grenada and Panama both occurred before the collapse of communism and the use of proxy states, the qualifier I attached to my earlier comment. Why you would include those two in this argument is beyond bizarre.

Regarding Haiti, the timeline as described at BBC.com, which we can consider neutral on the topic:

1991 - Aristide ousted in a coup led by Brigadier-General Raoul Cedras, triggering sanctions by the US and the Organisation of American States.

1993 - UN imposes sanctions after the Haitian military regime rejected an accord facilitating Aristide's return.

1994 - Haitian military regime relinquishes power in the face of an imminent US invasion; US forces land in Haiti peacefully to oversee a transition to civilian government; Aristide returns.

1995 - UN peacekeepers begin to replace US troops; Aristide supporters win parliamentary elections; Rene Preval elected in December to replace Aristide as president.

1996 - Preval sworn in as president.

Where did they interfere in the democratic process? They overturned a coup and restored a democratically elected leader to his post, slimy as he was!!

Well Mr. Dan Rather?

So we move on to Iraq where you actually have a chance in the next phase of our wager, unlike the sap bet you took for the Afghan chapter and are now welching on.

Will the USA rig the balloting? Fix the result? Will Human Rights Watch, which claimed the Americans had too few troops in Afghanistan now complain the USA has too many in Iraq?

So many questions.

President Allawi is 45% in the polls, less than a majority. There are 200 political parties. Ayatollah al-Sistani of the #####es is insisting the elections happen on time. Lots of complications. Not straight forward. By the way, how would you fix something like that? The majority of Iraqi's appear to dislike Americans in their country - how is an occupation, an invasion if you will, going to help their candidate in the polls? Looks like Canada is going to play a lead role in overseeing the process.

We sit back and wait with interest.

Cowperson

[Flame On]

Geeze you two! :P

[badnarik]

I'm not sure what poll Allawi is leading in, but unless I'm mistaken, which is possible, the Iraqi election in January is only to elect a 275 member National Assembly, which will then elect a 3 person Presidential Council (the President and 2 deputies), which then in turn must unanimously choose the Prime Minister.

The objective of the National Assembly is to act as a legislative branch and to draft the new Constitution by next October. All of this will hopefully lead to the new constitutionally-based permanent government to be elected in December 2005.

Here's a link: http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html

The election stuff is mostly towards the middle and bottom.

I would bet that it all happens and that it won't be fixed. Not that there won't be problems, but I try to remain optimistic.

[Flame On]

Not that there won't be problems That's to put it mildly. Fixing seems to have gotten lots of press here recently, but the value and success of the two governments and stability is the bigger question. I for one don't believe; as CP seems to, that Warlords are a good foundation to move forward on. In Iraq, will it be religious factions/zealots substituted? We'll wait and see.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by badnarik@Dec 8 2004, 06:42 AM
I'm not sure what poll Allawi is leading in, but unless I'm mistaken, which is possible, the Iraqi election in January is only to elect a 275 member National Assembly, which will then elect a 3 person Presidential Council (the President and 2 deputies), which then in turn must unanimously choose the Prime Minister.

The objective of the National Assembly is to act as a legislative branch and to draft the new Constitution by next October. All of this will hopefully lead to the new constitutionally-based permanent government to be elected in December 2005.

Here's a link: http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html

The election stuff is mostly towards the middle and bottom.

I would bet that it all happens and that it won't be fixed. Not that there won't be problems, but I try to remain optimistic.

All true. And unlikely to be rigged. This will be the first round of balloting in Iraq. The broader election is in December 2005. There are 200 political parties on the ballot in Iraq. Allawi's party has 45% in opinion polls.

The lesson of Vietnam and Latin America in the Cold War period is that propping up illegitimate governments lack the moral authority of the underlying populace and that only leads to bitter defeat after much cost.

If I thought fixing an election would be the way to go, I'd jump in with both feet. That's how shallow I am. However, its very passe stuff, virtually a guaranteed defeat, as Russia appears to be seeing in Ukraine.

I don't see the point in fixing it, hence the prediction that America will not rig it, regardless of outcome.

I for one don't believe; as CP seems to, that Warlords are a good foundation to move forward on.

They're not a great foundation. I agree. However, for the moment, that's the lot in life of that country, a Made In Afghanistan compromise that may generates a quasi-peace and creates a calmer climate than the alternative so things may move progressively forward. Its a start from zero, the stone age. In 20 years, if its the same, then obviously it can be considered a failure. And its also interesting that in the independent opinion poll on issues taken prior to the election, that removing warlords appeared to be a very popular item for a common Afghani. The central government has the moral authority to go down that path. Afghanistan is a generational project. There won't be quick fixes. Only a direction to follow.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

We didn't bet on who would win. Lets be clear on that Mr. Welcher.

Okay, if me saying that the American candidate would win by a landslide because the election was fixed, and the candidate winning by a landslide in the face of historical and cultural bias against anything American is not enough for you then fine, I guess you were right. I just want you to chew on this for a while though.

Its just very odd that a country that has a predisposition toward distrust to outright hatred of America would so easily and over-whelmingly vote for a hand picked, pro America, Pashtun exile. Now, the Pashtuns are the same tribe that is helping bin Laden and have been strongly pro-Taliban, in case you forgot. You'll excuse the cynicism if I look at the whole thing with more than a jaded gaze. This is like seeing a Flames fan become an Oiler fan overnight. It doesn't happen, even if Jarome Iginla is traded to Edmonton. You don't put aside years and years of hostility, resentment and hatred toward a group overnight. So to have a result in which this happens the only thing that I can say is BS and believe the election was fixed.

(BTW... the Asia Foundation? What's next, supporting opinion from the Heritage Foundation?)

And you don't think for a minute that when the Americans hand pick their candidate they are sure to find one that is going to play for the masses? Are you saying that candidate selection is not the most important step in fixing an election? Jesus, you can't be that stupid to think otherwise. How else do you think these things take place? If the Americans were to invade Canada and put a puppet into office where do you think they would select their puppet from? The Maritimes? The Northwest Territories? Or Ontario, where people would vote for one of their own? As soon as they got that predisposition out of the way they can focus on the character assassination of the other candidates, buying votes (buying warlord support) and voter fraud (multiple registrations and multiple votes cast), all of which reportedly happened during this election. You may not see this as fixing an election, but I see this as a manipulation that affects the democratic process and is not representative of the people, meeting the primary goal of the occupying power.

Iraq is shaping up differently. Because of the ethnic differences in the country, and the way the percentages work, its been difficult to find a candidate that will insure victory. So what's the next logical step if you don't have a candidate that will garner that vote that you need? Oh, you introduce another candidate. Or in Iraq's case, 200 candidates. The vote will be so fractured that it will be useless. Again, you'll say that this is democracy in action, but I will say this is an abuse of democracy and is really illiberal democracy in action.

You do not go into a country that has never practiced democracy and hold votes for national office in such short order. It takes time for the support structure of democracy to be developed and for representatives to be elected regionally. I'd rather see the right steps taken to insure that fair representation is created and then a proper election held. Unless this is done correctly what is the difference between having a dictator in place? We all know how Western Canadians feel about the representation they get, so should we not guard against this for other nations who are just developing their systems?

You are right on one thing. Iraq is looking to be very interesting. I hope for the Iraqi's sake that the international community takes control of the election and makes sure it is fair and above board. That is unlikely to happen so I think there will always be skepticism involved. An occupying force can never provide the freedom required for democracy to work.

Back at you Cow. :smooch:

[Cowperson]

The polling done for the Asia Foundation was conducted by a USA firm which counted Bill Clinton among its clients. I could have used the International Republicans and their polling but, you know, that would have looked bad.

Imagine - putting in place someone who might be popular with the masses. Those clever bas**rds!! The crime!!! Fixing the deal with a popular candidate whom the majority of the underlying unwashed electorate respects and trusts. Good lord, what will these savage Americans do next. Horrors!! Have they no humanity!!!

Lastly, my arch enemy, Human Rights Watch, appears to disagree with you as to whether or not savages in Afghanistan are sophisticated enough to conduct a vote. You gotta start somewhere.

I'm done for today.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by 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.

[Cowperson]

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

[RougeUnderoos]

I didn't think it was an emotional post. Actually my heart really isn't in this one because you and I have had exactly the same discussion before and we didn't resolve it then. I'm not much of a gambler either.

I know Rumsfeld has said "that's not going to happen" when asked if a bunch of loons were allowed to take over if they were voted in. I see that as a "we run this show" instead of a "the Iraqi people won't do that" thing but I suppose it's open to interpretation.

It's a moot point anyway. I think the moderates will win legitimately so it doesn't matter. I still think, though, that if it looked like it was going to go the other way (or if it did go the other way) they'd be rigging that election faster than I can say something clever like "weapons of mass election".

In other words, I think they would, you think they wouldn't, neither of us think they'll have to.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Dec 8 2004, 10:21 PM
I didn't think it was an emotional post.# Actually my heart really isn't in this one because you and I have had exactly the same discussion before and we didn't resolve it then.# I'm not much of a gambler either.

I know Rumsfeld has said "that's not going to happen" when asked if a bunch of loons were allowed to take over if they were voted in.# I see that as a "we run this show" instead of a "the Iraqi people won't do that" thing but I suppose it's open to interpretation.

It's a moot point anyway.# I think the moderates will win legitimately so it doesn't matter.# I still think, though, that if it looked like it was going to go the other way (or if it did go the other way) they'd be rigging that election faster than I can say something clever like "weapons of mass election".

In other words, I think they would, you think they wouldn't, neither of us think they'll have to.

Your heart is in it - that's what I meant by emotional. You care.

Its more of an intellectual exercise for me. That makes you the better man.

Rumsfeld made those comments a while ago which is why I updated you with the lastest position. Again, you can debate the sincerity or not.

EDIT: Adding this article where King Abdullah of Jordan fears elections will create a government which leans towards Iran.

Oddly, he seems to imply the election will be fairly conducted. He's just worried about the result.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6679939/

SECOND EDIT - New York Times with a great update indicating all #####e parties are coming together in an uneasy alliance.

Also, an indication of vote rigging - tons of Iranians crossing the border to register to vote to fix the result. Not what some here had expected. Others discount the theory and say there are deep resentment against the Iranian Shia.

And this simple explanation of what happens next:

In the election, voters will select a single slate of candidates as their choice for the 275-member National Assembly, which will then choose a prime minister from within its ranks and ultimately write a new constitution. Each slate will be accorded a number of seats in the assembly roughly proportional to the number of votes it receives. With its strong backing from Ayatollah Sistani, the United Iraqi Alliance could win enough seats to dominate the assembly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/08/internat...html?oref=login

Cowperson