Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <I am delighted the Iraqi people get to live in freedom and not under the boot of Saddam. It's why I have supported the president and the troops every step of the way.> So, you, Beaumandy -- you feel this way. You, Beaumandy, are delighted that the Iraqi people get to live in freedom. What's in it for you? Sorry to be so skeptical, but I just don't 'see it' in you. Based on your posts, of course, as I don't really know you. I'm just debating here...
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<I am delighted the Iraqi people get to live in freedom and not under the boot of Saddam. It's why I have supported the president and the troops every step of the way. The big bonus is that America and the world is much safer with Iraq now being a friend and a democracy.>> That sounds like pretty liberal stance Beau. Stick with the “national security first†mantra and leave the bleeding-heart liberal stuff to…liberals. ;-)
Originally Posted By tiggertoo And congratulations to the Iraqi people. Hopefully, they can soon completely take the reigns of their own nation, both politically and militarily, as they so deserve.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Looks like the majority party in the new Iraqi government has a timetable for US withdrawal at the top of their agenda. That should go over well.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy If the people in Iraq say they are ready to take care of themselves thats one thing. When liberal losers like Murtha, Dean and Pelosi say we can't win and that we need to surrender and leave now.. that's something else.. wouldn't you agree Tom?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/prin t/0</a>,3858,5358965-103681,00.html Jonathan Steele in Baghdad Monday December 19, 2005 Guardian Suspected polling violations on voting day last week far exceeded the number in Iraq's first election in January, local and international monitors said yesterday. On the deadline for filing complaints, the number of alleged violations which could swing results in the 275-seat parliament was "well into double figures", an accredited international election observer, who wished to remain anonymous, said. In January there were only five of these "red" complaints, the observer added. Red complaints are alleged breaches serious enough to potentially hand a seat to a party or election bloc unfairly. The election commission has declined to say how many such complaints it has received, but several parties handed in dossiers listing breaches allegedly seen by their monitors. Secular Arab parties have accused the Shia religious bloc, which dominates the current government, of intimidating voters in Baghdad and many southern cities. The Iraqi National List, headed by the former prime minister Ayad Allawi, filed more than 60 complaints yesterday. They alleged that at several polling stations policemen, national guard troops, or men from the major crimes unit were chanting for the Shia religious list, known as 555. At the Sharqia high school in central Baghdad, which was used as a polling station, a senior election official was said to have asked voters if they were going to vote for 555. Unless they said yes, they were not given ballot papers. A source close to Mr Allawi's campaign said that in one Baghdad polling station "around 600 men, some with walkie-talkies and purple ink on their fingers showing they had already voted, forced their way in. When the manager tried to stop them asking for ballot papers, they threatened to put him in a car boot and drive him away ... He let them in." He declined to be identified, citing the fact that an Allawi candidate and five campaign workers were murdered before the poll. All complaints have to be signed by a witness, which created risks, he said. Complaints from the cities of Dohuk and Kirkuk against the two large Kurdish parties are also said to be numerous. Hamid Mousa, the Iraq Communist party's general secretary, which is allied with Mr Allawi, said: "The election commission is weak. Some members are unwilling to issue judgments against major parties. Others are biased in favour of a particular party. The violations on Thursday were much bigger than in January. Government forces, like the police and army, didn't interfere so openly then." The need to resolve complaints is the main reason why it will take two weeks to announce the results, officials say.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Oh man, voting problems in the third timeout free election. Your right Tom (insert cmpaley’s derogatory name for Iraqi’s here) they must be too stupid for democracy, those clowns will never get it. Time to follow Dean’s plan and re-deploy. Think how nostalgic it’ll be, just like when the dope smokers said pull out of Vietnam we left hundreds of thousands to die at the hands of the communists.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer A darker cloud? It's hard, bright light is what it is. It's what is going on.
Originally Posted By patrickegan More then 600 ballots were found floating in San Francisco Bay. Maybe when the troops re-deploy Barbara Boxer will have them monitor the 2006 Bay area polls.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"I do find it amusing when people who didn't care a fig for what was happening to Iraqis under Saddam in the 80's (or were rationalizing it away when he seemed temporarily expedient to have as a "lesser evil" than Iran) suddenly cry these crocodile tears about him now.">> <That would be the Democrats who didn't support the Gulf War in the 90s and didn't support the Iraq War in 2003-5.> I was referring, of course, to the conservatives who were quick to rationalize Saddam's atrocities when he seemed a convenient ally. Rumsfeld actually congratulated him for putting down the rebellion that he is now being tried for. <Do they cry for the Iraqis? No. They show a lot of concern especially since they can't wait to get Saddam out of jail.> What a ridiculous statement. Who here has said they want Saddam out of jail? You just forfeitted all credibility. <As for the 1980s and 90s, a bad policy of not ousting Saddam is no excuse for doing nothing right now. How does continuing the policy of containment make life better for the Iraqis?> It doesn't. But if this devolves into civil war, it makes things even worse for them. <There are no tears for Iraqis from the Democrats. That much is clear.> Remember Yugoslavia? Or god forbid, Rwanda? Where will your tears be if that happens in Iraq? Probably the same place they were in the 80's when Saddam was a convenient "friend."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Rumsfeld actually congratulated him for putting down the rebellion that he is now being tried for.> I'd like to see a credible source for this allegation. <Who here has said they want Saddam out of jail?> Right. Dabob believes he should never have gone to jail.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 We should never have invaded, and as I've said, leaving Saddam in power was something no one relished. But IMO, it would have been better for our own interests long term (we wouldn't have had to take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have created the new magnet for terrorists in Iraq, we wouldn't have created "a thousand bin Ladens" in Mubarek's words, we wouldn't have lost 2100+ lives and billions of dollars), and even for the average Iraqi, who have lost 10's of thousands already and certainly if this devolves into a civil war there will be no comparison. Certain people disingenously twist that into "I love Saddam."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh We haven't taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and we haven't created "a thousand bin Ladens". If we hadn't had created a new magnet for terrorists in Iraq, they would have been plotting elsewhere. And we wouldn't have given 25 million people a chance at freedom and prosperity.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <We haven't taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan< I (and many people) think we have. <and we haven't created "a thousand bin Ladens".> We can't know that yet. It took bin Laden 10 years from the time we ticked him off to pull of 9/11. There's no telling what wealthy Saudi or Egyptian we've never heard of yet who could become the next household name under the most horrific circumstances. Certainly we know that Arab opinion in general was greatly inflamed by our invasion and occupation. It has cooled somewhat, but fanatics don't tend to cool, and all you need is a relatively small cabal of fanatics to do a great deal of damage, and they tend to think long term. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we've created that. <If we hadn't had created a new magnet for terrorists in Iraq, they would have been plotting elsewhere.> But now they're not only plotting, they're receiving the kind of real-world actual war training that Afghanistan once provided for anti-Soviet jihadists who later turned against us. The survivors will be stronger and smarter than ever. That wouldn't have existed without our invasion. <And we wouldn't have given 25 million people a chance at freedom and prosperity.> Or brutal sectarian violence. We'll have to see how that one plays out.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<We should never have invaded, and as I've said, leaving Saddam in power was something no one relished>> Dabob, in other woreds, if you had your way Saddam would be in power now, possibly with WMD's once the sanctions were dropped, no elections, no democracy, mass graves, murder, rape, torture, his two thug sons in power, and on and on. I give you the democrats and thier " plan " to fight the war on terror.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 If I'd had my way, we'd have isolated Saddam in the 80's instead of playing footsie with him, and made him a complete pariah even in the Arab world. This was doable, but we didn't do it. I was telling everyone I knew about who and what Saddam was back when Rumsfeld was shaking his hand, and doing my part to get Iraqi political prisoners released, etc. Bet you never did. There was a fear, of course, if we had weakened Saddam "too much," that Iran would have won the Iran-Iraq war. They would certainly have deposed Saddam and installed someone friendly to them. He'd have been gone long ago, but then we'd have had the problem of a stronger Iran possibly controlling - indirectly or maybe even directly - a large part of Iraq. Of course, we may STILL end up with that. Geopolitics is not as simple or as black-and-white as you like to make it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Or brutal sectarian violence. We'll have to see how that one plays out.> Well, there's no guarantee the sun will come up tomorrow. I guess some of us are optimists.
