Originally Posted By Beaumandy Even if you changed the electoral college system the democrats would claim they were cheated like they always do when they get their a$$ kicked on election day.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<The electoral votes would be split. This would better allow for a more viable third party electorial in the US.>> <a href="http://www.la.utexas.edu/~ppaolino/files/perot98.htm" target="_blank">http://www.la.utexas.edu/~ppao lino/files/perot98.htm</a> "We find that there has been little erosion of support for the major political parties between 1968 and 1992. Americans with low levels of support for the major political parties were more likely to support Wallace in 1968 and Perot in 1992 and 1996. But to a large extent, support for Wallace, Anderson, and Perot resulted from dissatisfaction with the major-party candidates. We conclude that support for the major parties themselves has not eroded enough to provide a systemic opportunity for either an independent candidate or for a new political party to end the Republican and Democratic duopoly." And there currently isn't anyone heading over to the Independant Party to run against Dems or Republis. Slightly possible for Powell, but highly unlikely. It's so much better to be a "Swing Voter" nowdays, since they get all of the final election night news coverage.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It IS interesting, if you read some of the founders' words prior to 1789... they really didn't envision the two-party system as we have it now, and in fact there are even comments on how multi-party would be better. And yet, almost immediately, two-major-party is what we fell into. The Federalists and the Whigs are long gone, and issues like free silver that once seemed so important no longer define them, but we've basically always been a two-party country. I'm not saying that's good, just maybe that that's our fate. I don't know.
Originally Posted By ElKay crapshoot: "But are network reporters giving the public an inordinately gloomy portrait of the situation, as some critics charge?" The site he linked was clearly biased just as much or surely more than the media outlets that are being criticized. It's pretty presumptious to argue bias when those media outlets actually have reporters overthere in Iraq. There's been numerious of articles and newsreports that have the reporter commenting on how difficult it is to report on ANY story in Iraq and especially Baghdad because of the violence and the real danger that exists there. Are they lazy moaners that don't want to get out of a comfy hotel room (that sometimes gets bombed)? Nope, they are reporting on the situation that they see for themselves or hear from the military itself. If you just listened to the Admin. things are just going just fine and dandy, that "progress" is made every day. Sure, the DOD civilian workers survive another day tucked away in the Green Zone, unable or unwilling to go outside to see what's actually going on in the country. On the other hand, maybe the precieved overly pessimistic reports are just balance for the wildely pessimistic reports issued about the imminent threat of a mushroom cloud over Detroit from one of Saddam's nukes given to al Qaeda. Maybe it all balances out in the end?
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Are they lazy moaners that don't want to get out of a comfy hotel room (that sometimes gets bombed)? Nope, they are reporting on the situation that they see for themselves or hear from the military itself.>> The point is that alot of positive steps are happening around the country. But to get anyone to report on those steps is near to impossible. And plenty of areas in the country are relatively safe as the citizens actually have normalized lives and are rebuilding. Once again, it is still the Sunni Triangle where the majority of violence occurs.
Originally Posted By crapshoot "It seems very much the picture of tranquility, this public park in the city of Erbil in predominantly Kurdish northern Iraq. But the setting becomes even more remarkable with the revelation of its history. The grounds on which these people now enjoy a leisurely afternoon was once the headquarters of the Iraqi Army's 5th Legion, The Kurds not only have survived as a people but also protected their culture, despite Saddam's reign of oppression against the population. During a 1988 campaign known as Anfal, Saddam issued a systematic series of attacks on Kurdish villages in the north, leading to the disappearance and presumed death of 182,000 people. In the single worst attack, at least 5,000 people were killed in a chemical weapons attack on the town of Halabja. Today northern cities like Erbil and Sulaymaniyah are Iraq through the looking glass: relatively peaceful, secure and in the full throes of an economic boom. They are the polar opposite of much of the rest of the country." <a href="http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs1650" target="_blank">http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hot zone/blogs1650</a> What I would consider a fairly balanced report from which I draw my own conclusions as to the future challenges coming to Northern Iraq. But definetly, positive developments are currently happening there.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<If you just listened to the Admin. things are just going just fine and dandy, that "progress" is made every day>> Is Joe Lieberman part of the administration? He was just in Iraq and totally debunks what you say Elkay. Here some more numbers from the " disaster " as Elkay calls it from Iraq. • U.S. forces have turned over control of about 29 military bases to the Iraqis. • Baghdad's once-violent Haifa Street is now more peaceful and under the control of an Iraqi army battalion. • The Iraqi army has seven division and 31 brigade headquarters in operation, compared with none in July 2004. • The number of Iraq army battalions "in the fight" has grown to 95, compared to five in August 2004. On Monday, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said the number was 100, plus 30 battalions of Iraqi Special Police. Pentagon spokesman Maj. Todd Vician said the 100 total includes five Iraqi special forces battalions.
Originally Posted By ElKay Crapshoot, look at the "kicker"--subheadline to your link: >>Compared with the rest of Iraq, the north seems like a dream. But that dream has its price<< This assumes the reader already knows about the chaotic situation in other parts of Iraq. Sure, Iraqi Kurdistan is relatively peaceful, most people who take the time to read about the situation know about that. That all well and good. However, almost all of the rest of the country is a terrible mess falling under the control of either Sunni or Shia militias. It's seems like if you were a reporter covering a chlorine gas leak near a city, you'd say the rest of the state has perfectly fine weather and people are enjoying their lives in a normal fashion. It's the violence that gets cover be it in South Cental LA or Baghdad. Ignoring the violence and covering West LA or Beverly Hills exclusively ignores a real problem within a city. The fact of the violence is REAL, it's also an indication there's a problem that's NOT getting solved in the past 3 years and no real indication of it getting better sooner than later. You can't expect reporters who live right next to the violence to ignore the present danger of getting to the scene of a grand opening of a new school to ignore the real fact. Look over the weekend two US Congressmen were moderately injured in a road accident on their way back to the airport, because of the wreckless security measures the Army uses inorder to force civilian Iraqi drivers away from their VIP convoys. That's indicitive of the present danger, but it didn't get huge play in the media. So that's a counterpoint to your complaint. Big Whoop.
Originally Posted By ElKay "• U.S. forces have turned over control of about 29 military bases to the Iraqis. • Baghdad's once-violent Haifa Street is now more peaceful and under the control of an Iraqi army battalion. • The Iraqi army has seven division and 31 brigade headquarters in operation, compared with none in July 2004. • The number of Iraq army battalions "in the fight" has grown to 95, compared to five in August 2004. On Monday, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said the number was 100, plus 30 battalions of Iraqi Special Police. Pentagon spokesman Maj. Todd Vician said the 100 total includes five Iraqi special forces battalions." These press releases are really generalized points without much detail. Over the summer, Gen. Casey said the number of autonomous Iraqi battalions went from 3 at the beginning of the year down to ONE by the summer! No matter how the Pentagon spins that info, it's NOT good. The Pentagon is notorious for fudging on the true meaning of what they say. Saying X number of Iraqi forces are in the fray is poetic, but not really descriptive as to the effectivness or the level of fighting they are participating in. The fluff is just about as realiable as the scary stories that brought into Iraq or the business inside Abu Graib. Had that one honest soldier not slipped that CD-ROM on to the bunk of that JAG officer, we would never have heard of the abuses at that prison from the Pentagon briefing. They're too busy tell the media of all of the parades of flowers and candy showering our troops.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <However, almost all of the rest of the country is a terrible mess falling under the control of either Sunni or Shia militias.> No, it's not.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Read a joke the other day, that's supposedly going around our military. A Marine in Iraq goes out one night and buys a pizza for $7.99. The next day, the AP story appears in US newspapers, "Marine out 8 bucks".
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<However, almost all of the rest of the country is a terrible mess falling under the control of either Sunni or Shia militias.>> Once again, the worst area is the Sunni Triangle, we know it. The southern Iraq has problems, but is hugely on its way to normalizing its society. Yes, the article properly shows the problems that could arise in the future. But the Iraq Constitution has actually been written to mitigate many of those issues. Remeber, Oil is to the North and South and in Central Iraq are marketable minerals and water. Each region basicly has equal mineral resources at this time. Money and wealth will more than likely begin to pull the country together more than religious factions will be pulling it apart. Only time will tell. But it is nice to have the fullest story possible for the rest of us to make informed decisions with.
Originally Posted By ElKay >>Once again, the worst area is the Sunni Triangle, we know it.<< So we should just not report the fact that American soliders and marines are getting killed and horribly wounded, just because we know it? Also, that area of Iraq is one of the most built up and economically important to a new Iraqi government, so it's an important area. Other areas of Iraq that are "pacified" are only so because it's nearly unpopulated. Shouldn't then the media be accurate and report that the unpopulated areas are peaceful? T>>he southern Iraq has problems, but is hugely on its way to normalizing its society.<< See again, if you don't care to know, then things are just peachy. The reason why the south is relatively calm is because it's nearly 100% Shia, no Sunni would dare to live in that area. Over the summer there was a mini-uprising against the Brits who patrol that area when members of a Shia militia detained a few British soldiers (Royal Marines?) and the Brits decided to storm the jail to free their men, but there was a tense situation where the region could have roiled with fighting against the Brits for that action. It's in the Shia best interest not to openly confront the Coalition, since they know that they will eventually dominate the new Iraqi Parliment and by keeping a low profile, while they consolidate their power over the Interior Ministry and the control of the Iraqi National Police forces. Recall the incident of the torture chamber found in an Interior Ministry basement. The minister is a Shia beholden to the Shia militias. There was another incident where an important Sunni sheik and his two sons were killed by men in Iraqi police uniforms last week. Reports say that there are death squads controlled by the Shia militias that are going out and killing hundreds of Sunnis and they fish their bodies out of the Tigris river. Add the Sunni insergents blowing up Shia leaders then you have the makings of a proper civil war, right under the noses of the US forces. IF a civil war breaks out that is one of the contingencies whereby we pull out our troops immediately. >>Yes, the article properly shows the problems that could arise in the future. But the Iraq Constitution has actually been written to mitigate many of those issues.<< Go and ask a Sunni leader in Iraq about that. The only thing that the Shia groups agreed to do is to CONSIDER changes to the Constitution in about five years, IF there are unforseen problems. It doesn't order a rewrite, just consideration. The Shia are spoiling for revenge for the decades that Saddam and the Sunni oppressed the majority Shia population. It's conceiveable that once the US troops leave the Constitution would be torn up and the Shia dominated parliment would give a Shia PM the authority to rule by decree. There's also the concern that in a few years the Shia clerics would press the Shia Parliment to create an Islamic Republic along the lines of their brothers in Iran. What's the Mid East going to look like IF Iraq and Iran join forces in their jihad against their Sunni oppressors in the Guld Emirates and Saudi Arabia? Just focusing on the "happy stories" of "diplomats in dungrees" --from the movie "Full Metal Jacket" and trying to playdown the serious ramifications just because it doesn't serve GOP political sensibilities. >>Remeber, Oil is to the North and South and in Central Iraq are marketable minerals and water. Each region basicly has equal mineral resources at this time.<< What the? Don't you read more than FoxNews? Sure the national government is suppose to share the existing oil wealth. However, any NEW oil productions is reserved to whoever controls the oil fields. That's the crux of the beef by the Sunni leaders. They are afraid that they will be both cheated out of their fairshare of the national oil revenues and aced out of any new weath, making their region a poor backwater as they did to the Shia and Kurds. The Sunni are in fact contesting the control of the Northern oil fields against the Kurds. There's speculation that both the Shia and the Kurds will eventually demand a three-way split of the current Iraq's territories, leaving the Sunni with ziltch. >>Money and wealth will more than likely begin to pull the country together more than religious factions will be pulling it apart.<< And you base that on what? The Shia hate the Sunni. Iran has long wanted to unify all of the Shia from Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq into their own Shia Islamic State. The Kurds dream of unifying their brothers in Turkey, old Soviet Islamic provinces, and even parts of northern Iran. Once the Kurds get their hands on the Iraqi oil, they'll have the wealth to fund their own wars of liberation for their wider Kurdistan. The Sunni are miffed at the fall of Saddam and their most favored status in the old Iraq. They've got funds stashed away, more than enough arms and highly trained military leaders, spoiling for a war of reunification. >>Only time will tell. But it is nice to have the fullest story possible for the rest of us to make informed decisions with.<< Better you go out and buy Pollyanna on DVD.
