NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is dedicated to sharing news reports and stories of the historic Iraqi election.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=2KT1YHZFG1OCSCRBAEKSFFA?type=worldNews&storyID=7475497

"We are very happy for this day. It's like Eid -- a celebration," said Jassim Mohammed Jassim, an election observer from the Islamic Daawa Party.

Wouldn't consider it "most". However it's a good sign that many did come out and vote despite terror threats. Brave people. :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4220551.stm

Iraqi electoral officials estimated that up to eight million Iraqis could have voted - more than 60% of those registered.

Although it's still too early to actually figure out the numbers.

Well, when the people who foisted democracy on them could only manage a leader with 33% of the total populace behind him, the Iraqis aren't doing too bad. :p

Oh, another theocracy in the works. Figures.

Fifty-one percent is still considered "most" as in a majority. The Iraqi figures are estimated to be seventy-two percent. The word "most" certainly applies. Liberty and freedom will prevail.

Would have been even cooler if they knew who they were voting for (votes were for parties, not individuals). Looks like we have a new Ayatollah in our lives now!

Fifty-one percent is still considered "most" as in a majority. The Iraqi figures are estimated to be seventy-two percent. The word "most" certainly applies. Liberty and freedom will prevail.

Um....yeah. Errr...well...

It's not 72%, it's substantially less than that. And that's not a percentage of the population, just registered voters. We are looking at perhaps 8 million votes (maybe less) from a population of 30+ million. About 25% of the population.

Not terrible, but not enough I fear to unify a nation of waring tribes where every family is allocated a machine gun by the US government.

Your enthusiasm is appreciated though, and I hope it goes better than every other insurgency we've been behind in the past 60 years.

Would have been even cooler if they knew who they were voting for (votes were for parties, not individuals). Looks like we have a new Ayatollah in our lives now!

The constitution is yet to be written which is yet another step in this process. I doubt if the Iraqi people who have suffered so much will allow a religious dictator to hijack the process. And even if there is a new Ayatollah if he is freely elected it is the process that is important.

Too bad Sunnis aren't voting in cities like Faullujah.

Would have been even cooler if they knew who they were voting for (votes were for parties, not individuals). Looks like we have a new Ayatollah in our lives now!

If that's what the people want, it's what they want. You can't force people to be free. You also can't install puppet governments when that's specifically what you really shouldn't.

And even if there is a new Ayatollah if he is freely elected it is the process that is important.good thoughts indeed

Would have been even cooler if they knew who they were voting for (votes were for parties, not individuals). Looks like we have a new Ayatollah in our lives now!

Some political systems have voting based on parties, not individuals...if Iraq is a proportional-representation democracy, then this setup makes some sense. Of course, I imagine that each party has a closed list system, where the voters don't select who's on the ballot and in what order, but the electoral process should take this setup one thing at a time.

The constitution is yet to be written which is yet another step in this process. I doubt if the Iraqi people who have suffered so much will allow a religious dictator to hijack the process. And even if there is a new Ayatollah if he is freely elected it is the process that is important.

This was for the assembly to decide on the Constitution of Iraq. I do not think that this will turn to a theocracy. Sistani doesn't want that and his word carries alot of weight in the Shia Community.

Some political systems have voting based on parties, not individuals...if Iraq is a proportional-representation democracy, then this setup makes some sense. Of course, I imagine that each party has a closed list system, where the voters don't select who's on the ballot and in what order, but the electoral process should take this setup one thing at a time.

Yep and 25% of the seats in the parliment are reserved for WOMEN!!!

Yep and 25% of the seats in the parliment are reserved for WOMEN!!!

Hmmm...I wonder if this is the only electoral setup with such a rule.

Hmmm...I wonder if this is the only electoral setup with such a rule.

I think sweden has something similar. I'm not sure!

Have any of you seen some of the videos of Iraqis dancing and celebrating their victory over terrorism? Keep in mind that these people walked through streets lined with signs threatening their lives if they voted and compare this to the number of Americans that didn't vote because it was raining. Think of the people who have died to exercise their right to vote whether they were of a majority party or not, and then consider the Americans who vowed to leave the US because their candidate for a 4 year post as president didn't win. What a sorry abuse of our rights and privileges!!

How can you project the outcome of this election? Do you have some source that I am unable to Google? And, whatever the popular vote is in Iraq, who are you to question their preference?

I saw them Zooke!

On my way to work, I was dancing in celebration of the vote myself :)

Well, when the people who foisted democracy on them could only manage a leader with 33% of the total populace behind him, the Iraqis aren't doing too bad. :p

too true...all too true

Zooke,
I agree with you on this wholeheartdly. I didn't vote for Bush, but to complain about the process and threaten to move to Canada is nuts. Heck I practically live in Canada.

Would have been even cooler if they knew who they were voting for (votes were for parties, not individuals). Looks like we have a new Ayatollah in our lives now!


I disagree. I tend to believe a political party conforms too easilt to try to get support from the other party whereas individuals can actually be considered with the values they hold persoanlly, instead of what the party says.

remember this is only the election for a constitutional convention for iraq, not for government leadership. They will have another election when their constitution is ratified and a new system set up

Only 60% of eligible Americans voted in the last election, so if the Iraqis get anything higher than that I would say that the election was a sucess.

Have any of you seen some of the videos of Iraqis dancing and celebrating their victory over terrorism?Umm...you are aware that, since the invasion, terrorism has only risen, following a steady decline through the nineties? The terrorists aren't going to pack up and go home after the election. If only it were that simple. Things are going to get worse before they get better, and the election doesn't change this.

Also, a minority of Iraqis are registered to vote. Of these, over 25% decided to stay home. It looks pretty grim to me.

Umm...you are aware that, since the invasion, terrorism has only risen, following a steady decline through the nineties? The terrorists aren't going to pack up and go home after the election. If only it were that simple. Things are going to get worse before they get better, and the election doesn't change this.

Also, a minority of Iraqis are registered to vote. Of these, over 25% decided to stay home. It looks pretty grim to me.

Yet one more example of those that are trying to degrade the elections in Iraq!

I hardly thing you can call it "foisting democracy" on a people who don't want it when you have the election turn out that they had. Sounds more like "bringing democracy". Although Bush only had 33% of the populace behind him, the opposition had less that 33%. It is also more than Bush Sr or Clinton had. The problem in the US is getting people to appreciate their freedom enough to study the candidates and then get off the couch and go vote.

I think sweden has something similar. I'm not sure!

No, Sweden doesn't have anything like that. According to the webpage of the Swedish Riksdag (parliament) (http://www.riksdagen.se/english/members/f08_kvin_en.asp):

"Compared with parliaments in other countries, the Riksdag has a high proportion of female members. In fact, with its 45 per cent, the Swedish Parliament has the highest proportion in the world. But the proportion of women in Parliament has only risen markedly in recent years."

" The breakthrough for women in Swedish political life is thus a phenomenon of the past 30 years. The reasons usually given for this include the system of proportional representation and the existence of powerful and assertive women’s organisations, both party-political and independent. Other important factors are considered to be the early development of the welfare state in Sweden and the greater opportunities for women to take paid employment.

A crucially important factor in increasing female representation in politics is that most parties in Sweden have chosen to adopt the objective of more balanced gender representation in elected assemblies."

Thank you for the info Fass!

Umm...you are aware that, since the invasion, terrorism has only risen, following a steady decline through the nineties? The terrorists aren't going to pack up and go home after the election. If only it were that simple. Things are going to get worse before they get better, and the election doesn't change this.

Also, a minority of Iraqis are registered to vote. Of these, over 25% decided to stay home. It looks pretty grim to me.

No one is saying it's all going to be roses from now on. Quite the contrary! This election was the first step on a long road, but at last that step has been taken. It has been grim in Iraq for decades...today was a day of hope and promise.

Yet one more example of those that are trying to degrade the elections in Iraq!Is this sarcasm or stupidity?

Is this sarcasm or stupidity?

Take it either way you want it! Its your choice.

This just in:

Iraqi Inter Min: Wont need Coalition forces in 18 months

I hope he's right!

This was for the assembly to decide on the Constitution of Iraq. I do not think that this will turn to a theocracy. Sistani doesn't want that and his word carries alot of weight in the Shia Community.
What does Sistani want?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094814/

Sistani has proved that he is not interested in an Iranian-style theocracy for Iraq, but his vision for Iraq's future almost certainly includes a heavy dose of Islamic orthodoxy. The division between church and state he espouses seems unlikely; it's hard to imagine Sistani fighting for freedom of speech, gender equality, or a truly secular state.

An Iraqi theocracy?

What does Sistani want?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094814/

Sistani has proved that he is not interested in an Iranian-style theocracy for Iraq, but his vision for Iraq's future almost certainly includes a heavy dose of Islamic orthodoxy. The division between church and state he espouses seems unlikely; it's hard to imagine Sistani fighting for freedom of speech, gender equality, or a truly secular state.

An Iraqi theocracy?

No Iraqi Theocracy. A theocracy won't take hold in Iraq and I want you to look at the quote again. Did they interview Sistani? Have they asked him what they want? No I guess not since you didn't quote Sistani. Would you like to point to a quote by Sistani that says that he wants a heavy dose of Islamic orthodoxy?

No one is saying it's all going to be roses from now on. Quite the contrary! This election was the first step on a long road, but at last that step has been taken. It has been grim in Iraq for decades...today was a day of hope and promise.Then why do you seem to be trying to paint a rosy picture of things? Are you one of Bush's neocon worshippers, or are you sincere? Look, I seriously don't like Bush's cult of personality because such things are a step down the road of tyranny. Don't think that Iraq's elections will suddenly make the world terrorist-free or ever have a major role in doing so. I doubt it'll make a lick of difference, really. It's all well and good that Iraq is (hopefully) getting a legitimate government, but don't try to draw connections that don't exist. It's sounding to me like you're one of those who believe Bush's foolishness about Iraq being connected to the war on terror. It just isn't so.

I'm glad for the Iraqis that they are getting a democracy, though the future for them is still uncertain. However, this doesn't give a free pass to nonsensical claims, and I am still very skeptical of Iraq becoming a picture perfect democracy anytime in the near future. Life just isn't that simple.

I'm glad for the Iraqis that they are getting a democracy, though the future for them is still uncertain. However, this doesn't give a free pass to nonsensical claims, and I am still very skeptical of Iraq becoming a picture perfect democracy anytime in the near future. Life just isn't that simple.

I'm glad that your glad that they are getting a democracy. Your right, it is still uncertain but one thing is certain, they'll have a new constitution. However, what I have a problem with is the comment about a perfect democracy! No one will have a perfect democracy. Even the US doesn't have a perfect democracy.

Then why do you seem to be trying to paint a rosy picture of things? Are you one of Bush's neocon worshippers, or are you sincere? Look, I seriously don't like Bush's cult of personality because such things are a step down the road of tyranny. Don't think that Iraq's elections will suddenly make the world terrorist-free or ever have a major role in doing so. I doubt it'll make a lick of difference, really. It's all well and good that Iraq is (hopefully) getting a legitimate government, but don't try to draw connections that don't exist. It's sounding to me like you're one of those who believe Bush's foolishness about Iraq being connected to the war on terror. It just isn't so.

I'm glad for the Iraqis that they are getting a democracy, though the future for them is still uncertain. However, this doesn't give a free pass to nonsensical claims, and I am still very skeptical of Iraq becoming a picture perfect democracy anytime in the near future. Life just isn't that simple.

You need to take a step back and calm down sir, no one is saying that, we are just rejoiceing(sp?) and are filled with pride that we helped these people and have put them on a better road.

Indeed. The point is to have one in the first place.

Also, whether or not people celebrate these elections or not should really have absolutely nothing to do with whether they like George W or not. They stand alone in that regard.

I'm glad that your glad that they are getting a democracy. Your right, it is still uncertain but one thing is certain, they'll have a new constitution. However, what I have a problem with is the comment about a perfect democracy! No one will have a perfect democracy. Even the US doesn't have a perfect democracy.You ignore my point that the democracy in Iraq could very well turn sour. Iraq was technically a democracy under Saddam. He was "President Saddam," not "King Saddam" or "Emir Saddam." There were elections. However, this didn't stop his government from becoming an iron-fisted dictatorship. Don't count your chickens before they've hatched.

Indeed. The point is to have one in the first place.

Also, whether or not people celebrate these elections or not should really have absolutely nothing to do with whether they like George W or not. They stand alone in that regard.I seriously doubt that politics are not involved here.

You ignore my point that the democracy in Iraq could very well turn sour. Iraq was technically a democracy under Saddam. He was "President Saddam," not "King Saddam" or "Emir Saddam." There were elections. However, this didn't stop his government from becoming an iron-fisted dictatorship. Don't count your chickens before they've hatched.

And yet those elections were forced onto the people to vote for him unless you honestly believed that he truely did get 100% of the vote.

No Iraqi Theocracy. A theocracy won't take hold in Iraq and I want you to look at the quote again. Did they interview Sistani? Have they asked him what they want? No I guess not since you didn't quote Sistani. Would you like to point to a quote by Sistani that says that he wants a heavy dose of Islamic orthodoxy?
No...I will leave it up to you to support your claim that Sistanti doesn't want a theocracy....which prompted my reply in the first place.

I have already produced one news report contrary to your claim, so the ball is in your court.

And yet those elections were forced onto the people to vote for him unless you honestly believed that he truely did get 100% of the vote.

But his point is how do we know that once we leave another dictator won't just step up and become the next Saddam?

And yet those elections were forced onto the people to vote for him unless you honestly believed that he truely did get 100% of the vote.And let's not assume that there will be none of this in the case of Iraq.

I seriously doubt that politics are not involved here.

I doubt it too. I think that people on both sides of this argument are celebrating or criticising these elections because of how they feel about Bush. But they shouldn't be, that's all I'm saying. Bush being an arsehole or a hero has little if any bearing on wether Iraqi democracy will succeed.


These elections aren't going to instantly transform Iraq into a wonderful free society, but I don't recall anyone saying that they would. There is a danger that it will slip back into a dictatorship of some sort, perhaps a theocracy, but that is for the future to determine. What we have had today has been an apparent success, with some qualifications.

Also, the implication that because Sistani is an 'Ayatollah' he will be pushing for something more or less the same as what they have in Iran shows a really superficial understanding of Middle Eastern politics and culture. Of course Sistani will want religion closely involved in politics - if you're going to have democracy in the Middle East then that's something you're going to have to get used to - but that is not the same as saying that he wants to establish a west-hating theocratic oligarchy.

Thats good, even though 44 people died, however there probably will be some arguement over who really won, and not to mention the winner will not have a majority of the vote. might have as little as 10% maybe lower, there are so many parties.

No...I will leave it up to you to support your claim that Sistanti doesn't want a theocracy....which prompted my reply in the first place.

I have already produced one news report contrary to your claim, so the ball is in your court.

NO! You made the quote and I'm calling you on it. Prove that he does want a theocracy. The burden of proof is on you!

Thats good, even though 44 people died, however there probably will be some arguement over who really won, and not to mention the winner will not have a majority of the vote. might have as little as 10% maybe lower, there are so many parties.

Remember that this is for the assembly and not for a full government. This assembly is to come up with a constitution to be voted on in October with full government elections in December.

NO! You made the quote and I'm calling you on it. Prove that he does want a theocracy. The burden of proof is on you!
This is how you debate? You make an unsupported comment, you are challenged on that comment with some proof to back it up and you want further proof while your claim goes unsubstantiated?

You made the initial claim and cannot prove it!! :eek:

This is how you debate? You make an unsupported comment, you are challenged on that comment with some proof to back it up and you want further proof while your claim goes unsubstantiated?

You made the initial claim and cannot prove it!! :eek:

I made an unsupported claim? Now that is bull! You made an unsupported claim that does not quote sistani. Find me a quote that says what you stated he wants. I just called you on something that was false and ask you to provide proof that he wants it.

How is that an unsupported claim?

I made an unsupported claim? Now that is bull! You made an unsupported claim that does not quote sistani. Find me a quote that says what you stated he wants. I just called you on something that was false and ask you to provide proof that he wants it.

How is that an unsupported claim?

You made this claim:


This was for the assembly to decide on the Constitution of Iraq. I do not think that this will turn to a theocracy. Sistani doesn't want that and his word carries alot of weight in the Shia Community.

CanuckHeaven came back with this (http://slate.msn.com/id/2094814/) article, while not a direct quote, is more proof than you've provided.

You made this claim:



CanuckHeaven came back with this (http://slate.msn.com/id/2094814/) article, while not a direct quote, is more proof than you've provided.

There is still nothing there regarding Sistani wanting a theocracy!

I made an unsupported claim? Now that is bull! You made an unsupported claim that does not quote sistani. Find me a quote that says what you stated he wants. I just called you on something that was false and ask you to provide proof that he wants it.

How is that an unsupported claim?
Yes YOU made an unsubstantiated claim:

This was for the assembly to decide on the Constitution of Iraq. I do not think that this will turn to a theocracy. Sistani doesn't want that and his word carries alot of weight in the Shia Community.

Now back up your words or admit that you were mistaken.

Yes YOU made an unsubstantiated claim:

This was for the assembly to decide on the Constitution of Iraq. I do not think that this will turn to a theocracy. Sistani doesn't want that and his word carries alot of weight in the Shia Community.

Now back up your words or admit that you were mistaken.

We're both wrong!

I'm seeing alot of assumptions on both sides of the issue.

Minimum voting age : 18
Median Age of an Iraqi : 19.2
Estimated population of Iraq : 25,374,691
So while a seemingly small amount of the overall population voted, Iraq's bottom-heavy population demographics make that number fairly meaningless. To say that Iraqi elections are a failure because of a small amount of participation from the overall population is false. The majority of Iraqis may very well have not voted, but that dosen't matter. You'd need astronomical participation rates of the adult population to have the majority of all Iraqis vote.
(Source (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html))

We're both wrong!

I'm seeing alot of assumptions on both sides of the issue.
Glad to see that you can admit that you were wrong, but how do you say that I am wrong, when I at least quoted a news article?

Also consider this article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-09-01-oppose_x.htm

U.S. won't get what it wants

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is the single most powerful political leader in Iraq, more powerful than either cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's rebellion or Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's government, and the U.S. needs to work with him.

But the conclusions can't stop there. Some have argued that the U.S. needs to recognize this reality and give Sistani what he wants. What is left unsaid is what that is: a Shiite-dominated theocracy, probably with close ties to Iran. Sistani's support for elections is designed to achieve this. In a straight-up majority election, Shiites will run the country.

This election is good news for the US? On the surface, it appears that it is not?

Minimum voting age : 18
Median Age of an Iraqi : 19.2
Estimated population of Iraq : 25,374,691
So while a seemingly small amount of the overall population voted, Iraq's bottom-heavy population demographics make that number fairly meaningless. To say that Iraqi elections are a failure because of a small amount of participation from the overall population is false. The majority of Iraqis may very well have not voted, but that dosen't matter. You'd need astronomical participation rates of the adult population to have the majority of all Iraqis vote.
(Source (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html))
IF Iraq was so happy to be rid of Saddam and wanting democracy badly, then you think there would have been far more voters registered and an almost 100% turnout?

If anything, this election proves the great divisiveness that still exists in Iraq. The process has been an unqualified failure?

IF Iraq was so happy to be rid of Saddam and wanting democracy badly, then you think there would have been far more voters registered and an almost 100% turnout?

If anything, this election proves the great divisiveness that still exists in Iraq. The process has been an unqualified failure?
No and no. I do not think there would have been far more voters registered and an almost 100% turnout. A does not necessarily lead to B.

Then why do you seem to be trying to paint a rosy picture of things? Are you one of Bush's neocon worshippers, or are you sincere? Look, I seriously don't like Bush's cult of personality because such things are a step down the road of tyranny. Don't think that Iraq's elections will suddenly make the world terrorist-free or ever have a major role in doing so. I doubt it'll make a lick of difference, really. It's all well and good that Iraq is (hopefully) getting a legitimate government, but don't try to draw connections that don't exist. It's sounding to me like you're one of those who believe Bush's foolishness about Iraq being connected to the war on terror. It just isn't so.

I'm glad for the Iraqis that they are getting a democracy, though the future for them is still uncertain. However, this doesn't give a free pass to nonsensical claims, and I am still very skeptical of Iraq becoming a picture perfect democracy anytime in the near future. Life just isn't that simple.

This is an offenseive post. I have pointed out that repeatedly on these boards that the newly elected National Assembly has a monumental job to do in the next 7 months. I've also cautioned that Zarqawi and his group are still out there and that there will be more to take their place as we eliminate them. If that is painting a rosy picture based on an unrealistic view of a "Bush neocon worshipper", then so be it. I did vote for Bush, but I am fully aware of his faults and I speak up about them. No one has claimed that these elections will suddenly make the world terrorist-free, I don't believe any one is that naive, but I do believe they have the potential to play a major role in changing the face of the middle east.

Yes Iraq's future is still uncertain, and I have made no claims otherwise. My point is and has been a celebration of the courage and pride that the Iraqi people demonstrated today in their quest for a government that represents their wishes. These people have shown a committment and level of bravery that I admire so much. THAT is what I am rejoicing over.

Iraq was technically a democracy under Saddam

Earlier today one of the voters held up an old ballot from Saddam's regime next to today's ballot. Saddam's ballot had one candidate, Saddam, and 2 options, "yes" or "no". The ballot was distributed with the "yes" box already checked. This in no way represents a democracy.

No and no. I do not think there would have been far more voters registered and an almost 100% turnout. A does not necessarily lead to B.
What do you know? You are just a "Cabbage Patch Girl"....j/k

Well there doesn't appear to be an unquenchable thirst for democracy in Iraq, given the numbers?

What do you know? You are just a "Cabbage Patch Girl"....j/k

Well there doesn't appear to be an unquenchable thirst for democracy in Iraq, given the numbers?
It seems terrorists have hydrated the throats of Sunnnis quite well.

It seems terrorists have hydrated the throats of Sunnnis quite well.
The very fact that Sunnis stayed away from this election in droves, in itself indicates that there will be massive unrest while the Shiites go about the business of running the NEW government? And the Kurds probably want little to do with either faction?

Oh, another theocracy in the works. Figures.

Actually one of the key desires of most Iraqi citzens has been registered to keep the government secular so that it does not treat Sunnis, Shi'ites or Kurds any differently. One Iraqi government spokesperson said they wanted to keep the turbans out of government.

CH!

Just because you don't agree with the Iraq War, take pride in the fact that democracy occured for the first time.

As for you quoting an Article, I want you to look at the wording of both of them you quoted. Both of them make assumptions of that is what he wants. Not surprising since the USA Today doesn't like Bush and I have no idea what Slate's motives are with the assumptions that they made because that is what they are! Assumptions.

Actually one of the key desires of most Iraqi citzens has been registered to keep the government secular so that it does not treat Sunnis, Shi'ites or Kurds any differently. One Iraqi government spokesperson said they wanted to keep the turbans out of government.

Here here

Heh. Well I went and voted in the elections yesterday in Manchester, using the out-of-country voting scheme. Was very busy! Plenty of Kurds dancing around... was very exciting :D

Ah, it's nice to see a potential good come out of this horrible mess.

The very fact that Sunnis stayed away from this election in droves, in itself indicates that there will be massive unrest while the Shiites go about the business of running the NEW government? And the Kurds probably want little to do with either faction?
Is the period key on your keyboard broken?
I'm not sure what will happen. I'm not a Middle East expert, and don't profess to be one. As it is now, I believe there is some sort of guaranteed power to Sunnis (I think some sort of veto), no matter how little their participation rates.

I made an unsupported claim? Now that is bull! You made an unsupported claim that does not quote sistani. Find me a quote that says what you stated he wants. I just called you on something that was false and ask you to provide proof that he wants it.

How is that an unsupported claim?

How about the fact that Sistani grants interviews to NO-ONE Corneliu. The best you will ever see are the words of those who are in his council or others close to him.

Now how about you find some analysis backing up your assertion that an Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah does not believe in the supremecy of Sharia law? Because that would make him the first....

Indeed. The point is to have one in the first place.

Also, whether or not people celebrate these elections or not should really have absolutely nothing to do with whether they like George W or not. They stand alone in that regard.
You know, the elections are a great thing. They really, really are. The problems I'm expecting is that the administration is going to use this and call it proof that our war in Iraq was justified and a success, probably bringing up an "end justifies the means" idea on the topic. When democrats protest this, saying that this is not necessarily a signifier of success, they will be called immoral (among other adjectives) and their standing brought down by creative lying even more than it already has.

It's sort of like 9/11. It was one of the most tragic and terrible events of all of American history, and Bush extrapolates it's benefits for the administration's conveniences (Iraq did not have WMDs and played no part in 9/11, Bush used this event explicitly in his earlier reasons for war). Whenever I think about it now I'm always brought to think of how Bush used it for his benefits, and that sickens me beyond belief. As such 9/11 no longer represents something that I can really be patriotic about, seeing how this patriotism brought so many problems to the country. And the same goes for Iraq. It's hard for me to believe that the president will just say 'it's just one more step on the long, long road,' as opposed to something along the lines of 'this is a resounding success, and if it worked in Iraq, it's bound to qualify possible efforts in other Middle Eastern countries.'

Politics are so unrighteous :( .

How about the fact that Sistani grants interviews to NO-ONE Corneliu. The best you will ever see are the words of those who are in his council or others close to him.

Now how about you find some analysis backing up your assertion that an Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah does not believe in the supremecy of Sharia law? Because that would make him the first....

Just because he grants interviews to no one makes him out to establishing a Shia Theocracy?

Just because he grants interviews to no one makes him out to establishing a Shia Theocracy?

No. It means you're never going to get a direct quote from him himself.

No. It means you're never going to get a direct quote from him himself.

And thus why I said that both CH and I were wrong!

It's sort of like 9/11. It was one of the most tragic and terrible events of all of American history, and Bush extrapolates it's benefits for the administration's conveniences (Iraq did not have WMDs and played no part in 9/11, Bush used this event explicitly in his earlier reasons for war). Whenever I think about it now I'm always brought to think of how Bush used it for his benefits, and that sickens me beyond belief.

I have heard this assertion made time and time again. And no matter how hard I look I cannot find anywhere that Bush tied the attacks of 9/11 to Iraq. His only analogy was based on Saddam's repeated threats against the US. When we went into Afghanistan Bush warned us that terrorism was not isolated to just that one country, that it was a wide-spread infection that would take a long time and a lot of resolve to defeat. He has named Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Libya as the "axis of evil". They, like Afghanistan and Iraq did, harbor and support terrorists. To quote Bush...
"America is determined to prevent the next wave of terror,"

So, please, help me out won't you? Please provide a link to a speech that Bush has made that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11.

I have heard this assertion made time and time again. And no matter how hard I look I cannot find anywhere that Bush tied the attacks of 9/11 to Iraq. His only analogy was based on Saddam's repeated threats against the US. When we went into Afghanistan Bush warned us that terrorism was not isolated to just that one country, that it was a wide-spread infection that would take a long time and a lot of resolve to defeat. He has named Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Libya as the "axis of evil". They, like Afghanistan and Iraq did, harbor and support terrorists. To quote Bush...

So, please, help me out won't you? Please provide a link to a speech that Bush has made that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11.
It's sort of a given. Whenever he talks about terrorism, or peace in the Middle East, or WMDs in Iraq, he's playing on fear tactics and it's sort of obvious that he is attempting to make those ties. Iraq did not harbor terrorists or WMDs while the Bush administration was in office, and apparently had no intention of doing so in the forseeable future, that has been proven (9/11 commision, remember?) time and time again. You can protect him with literal intrepertations of anything you like, but most people who try to make valid arguments don't try to cover up their points with something so heavily based on opinion. Take religion, I can intrepert Jesus' quotes to mean whatever I want them to, but I do have a good idea of what they were actually intended to mean, so any argument I make saying that "the Bible wants us to all commit suicide" or something of the like would be unfounded, although technically possible. He claimed several times that al-Qaeda had ties with Saddam Hussein, and although he never defined those ties, most people (this including democrats, don't get me wrong), assumed the worst, and I have almost no doubts that these were his intentions, or at the very least, he did nothing to try and suggest that that not be assumed. And I really don't think you have enough credible evidence of that not being true that you can prove me wrong. Besides, what do you think about my earlier statement? Can you honestly tell me that they're not going to exaggerate this at least a little for their benefit?

And either way, do you really think that's not bound to happen with any administration? Like I said, politics are anything but good for people no matter which end of the spectrum they come from.

I have heard this assertion made time and time again. And no matter how hard I look I cannot find anywhere that Bush tied the attacks of 9/11 to Iraq. His only analogy was based on Saddam's repeated threats against the US. When we went into Afghanistan Bush warned us that terrorism was not isolated to just that one country, that it was a wide-spread infection that would take a long time and a lot of resolve to defeat. He has named Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Libya as the "axis of evil". They, like Afghanistan and Iraq did, harbor and support terrorists. To quote Bush...


So, please, help me out won't you? Please provide a link to a speech that Bush has made that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11.


No offense Zooke, but if Bush and his administration never made that connection, then how come at one point nearly 60% of American's believed that this was the case? GW repeatedly mixed the two in speeches to give that impression, repeated insisted that there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda and expressed it ways as if it were an ongoing and close relationship, and finally clearly implied that such a causal link existed when he indicated that he would use the authorization to go to war in Iraq from the Congress.

The letter to the Congress is here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html)


March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH


Ergo, he directly stated that Iraq either planned, authorized, committed, or aided in 9-11 as part of his statment to Congress to use the authorization and send the nation to war.

--edited because a smilie inadvertantly was created by the salutation in the quote

How about the fact that Sistani grants interviews to NO-ONE Corneliu. The best you will ever see are the words of those who are in his council or others close to him.

Now how about you find some analysis backing up your assertion that an Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah does not believe in the supremecy of Sharia law? Because that would make him the first....
Perhaps one could gain much insight and wisdom from the actual Sistani web site (http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/) itself?

Since Sistani will hold great sway, there will be a huge slant to Sharia Law.

BTW, Cornlieu, the link to the above web site was posted on the Slate article that I linked earlier.

Ergo, he directly stated that Iraq either planned, authorized, committed, or aided in 9-11 as part of his statment to Congress to use the authorization and send the nation to war.



Sorry Zep, you and your bald head lose again. Ergo he did not mention Iraq and 9-11. Sure you may thing that's what he was talking about, but try to use that as evidence in a court of law!

And thus why I said that both CH and I were wrong!

No. At this point you are assuming that CH is wrong, when in fact every intelligence report on Sistani that I have ever read, and every statement from his inner circle HAS clearly indicated that he would prefer a state based on Islamic Law - i.e) a theocracy.

Now, if you feel that he is the only Grand Ayatollah I have ever heard of who doesn't want this, I'd really like to see from what source you have derived this nugget of info besides that you don't happen to think this is true based on.... nothing that you have presented.

At least CH has provided some links. You have provided nothing.

Sorry Zep, you and your bald head lose again. Ergo he did not mention Iraq and 9-11. Sure you may thing that's what he was talking about, but try to use that as evidence in a court of law!
2 + 2 = 4?

The request for authorization was for War against Iraq, and included the general accusations regarding terrorism and 9-11. How much more detail would you like?

CH!

Just because you don't agree with the Iraq War, take pride in the fact that democracy occured for the first time.
How can I take pride that forced elections are being held in Iraq at the behest of the US? The US has already established or are planning 14 military bases in Iraq and have hijacked the Iraqi economy thanks to Bremer's Orders. This is NOT democracy in action.

I hardly thing you can call it "foisting democracy" on a people who don't want it when you have the election turn out that they had. Sounds more like "bringing democracy". Although Bush only had 33% of the populace behind him, the opposition had less that 33%. It is also more than Bush Sr or Clinton had. The problem in the US is getting people to appreciate their freedom enough to study the candidates and then get off the couch and go vote.

Really?

Arbitrarily marching in, removing the rulers in question, administering services to get the new rulers in... I'd call it foisting.

And to me, a majority vote means nothing if it doesn't have more than 50% of all people of the age to vote.

If you can't get half the people who could vote to vote, either through apathy, malcontent or misinformation, you aren't doing your job right.

<puts to one side>

I'm glad Iraq has a chance at democracy today. However I've never supported this war, and until we see a secular, stable democracy in a safe country established, I won't call it a success.

Sorry Zep, you and your bald head lose again. Ergo he did not mention Iraq and 9-11. Sure you may thing that's what he was talking about, but try to use that as evidence in a court of law!
Do you mean that as in we could never really impeach him if anyone actually wanted to because he's covered his tracks to well, or as in your intrepertation of what he says is more correct in some way? If the latter is the case, let's hear some reasons.

How can I take pride that forced elections are being held in Iraq at the behest of the US? The US has already established or are planning 14 military bases in Iraq and have hijacked the Iraqi economy thanks to Bremer's Orders. This is NOT democracy in action.

CH! The elections were not forced at all. Get over your prejudices and you would be able to see that.

Do you mean that as in we could never really impeach him if anyone actually wanted to because he's covered his tracks to well, or as in your intrepertation of what he says is more correct in some way? If the latter is the case, let's hear some reasons.

Under law, you have to prove that the President has committed a crime! Since no law was broken, you can't impeach him.

Under law, you have to prove that the President has committed a crime! Since no law was broken, you can't impeach him.
I never suggested we should. I was using something called an example, calm down. That is the way most of the legal systems in this country works, I was simply asking him if he meant it in that sense or if he was simply being hypocritical. And I'd appreciate it if you had a little more foresight towards what I say.

I never suggested we should. I was using something called an example, calm down. That is the way most of the legal systems in this country works, I was simply asking him if he meant it in that sense or if he was simply being hypocritical. And I'd appreciate it if you had a little more foresight towards what I say.

My apologies. I see to many times on this board to impeach Bush and I assumed that is what you ment. Please accept my apologies.

My apologies. I see to many times on this board to impeach Bush and I assumed that is what you ment. Please accept my apologies.
No problem :) . I may not agree with his policies but if he got into office for a second term then far be it from me to try and remove him. He has his good intentions and so do most of those who support him. Besides, I don't think impeachment is really a good policy in the first place, if it's bad enough that the president needs to get out of office it would be much more amusing and entertaining to start a revolution, and people would be too lazy to do that unless they really wanted to, so it would be a good measure of whether or not the leader really need to go.

This thread is dedicated to sharing news reports and stories of the historic Iraqi election.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=2KT1YHZFG1OCSCRBAEKSFFA?type=worldNews&storyID=7475497


It was in southern iraq, there are never any problems there...

No...I will leave it up to you to support your claim that Sistanti doesn't want a theocracy....which prompted my reply in the first place.

I have already produced one news report contrary to your claim, so the ball is in your court.
Just because someone wants a bit of religion in a government does not make it a theocracy. A theocracy is a government ruled by religious leaders, where sacred texts are law. That is not the case with Sistani. Sistani has voiced his support for an elected government time and time again, and for constitutional rule. Other clerics, of course, want theocracy, but not Sistani.

2 + 2 = 4?

The request for authorization was for War against Iraq, and included the general accusations regarding terrorism and 9-11. How much more detail would you like?


I would like an actual sentence saying Iraq = Terrorists!

Do you always read between the lines?

I would like an actual sentence saying Iraq = Terrorists!

Do you always read between the lines?


From the 2003 state of the union address:

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

From the 2003 state of the union address:
I fail to see a problem in that. Even though that was false, the war was extremely justifiable in many respects.

I doubt it too. I think that people on both sides of this argument are celebrating or criticising these elections because of how they feel about Bush. But they shouldn't be, that's all I'm saying. Bush being an arsehole or a hero has little if any bearing on wether Iraqi democracy will succeed.


These elections aren't going to instantly transform Iraq into a wonderful free society, but I don't recall anyone saying that they would. There is a danger that it will slip back into a dictatorship of some sort, perhaps a theocracy, but that is for the future to determine. What we have had today has been an apparent success, with some qualifications.

Also, the implication that because Sistani is an 'Ayatollah' he will be pushing for something more or less the same as what they have in Iran shows a really superficial understanding of Middle Eastern politics and culture. Of course Sistani will want religion closely involved in politics - if you're going to have democracy in the Middle East then that's something you're going to have to get used to - but that is not the same as saying that he wants to establish a west-hating theocratic oligarchy.That seems sensible enough.

I fail to see a problem in that. Even though that was false, the war was extremely justifiable in many respects.


Johnny was just asking for proof that GW had ever called "Iraq=terrorist". so I gave him that.

Seemed an odd thing for Johnny to ask if Bush had ever equated Iraq to a terrorist given he has advertized it as a part of the "war on terror".... but he did.

Of course, there was also his line (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html) "The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror", and Dick Cheney saying that IRaq (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/10/nfcnn.02.html)"had an established relationship to al Qaeda.", Powell's "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html), etc. etc. etc....

but hey, if Johnny doesn't think that the War on Terror was being targetted against what the Administration was calling terrorist states, then who am I to argue with him?

:D

I fail to see a problem in that. Even though that was false, the war was extremely justifiable in many respects.The war had many positives and negatives, and there is much disagreement over whether or not the positives outweigh the negatives. The outcome so far has been drastically negative, but this does not mean that nothing good can come out of this. There is much to be told, and I think that much of Iraq's story rests on the true intentions of the Bush administration. They have acted with selfishness and dishonor quite often, but I am not one of those who are apt to peg people as entirely without good motives because of selfish acts. Therefore, it may be possible that there are good intentions here. However, the complex politics of this country will not be denied. There are enemies of democracy in this country, the Religious Right-wing, whom Bush has shown sympathies for, and this is deeply troubling to me. There is the possibility that his support for the voices for theocracy and tyranny in this country were entirely Machiavellian political strategies, and some of the President's acts have given me reason to believe that this could be so. If this is the case, my worries may be misplaced, but be warned, if you deny George W. Bush's faults, you have fallen into a mindset that allows the ascension of tyrants and madmen. There are few politicians who are entirely selfish and completely without a will to do what is right, and there are none who are completely without faults. One who fails to realize this has descended to a level of foolishness that cannot be forgiven.

The war had many positives and negatives, and there is much disagreement over whether or not the positives outweigh the negatives. The outcome so far has been drastically negative, but this does not mean that nothing good can come out of this. There is much to be told, and I think that much of Iraq's story rests on the true intentions of the Bush administration. They have acted with selfishness and dishonor quite often, but I am not one of those who are apt to peg people as entirely without good motives because of selfish acts. Therefore, it may be possible that there are good intentions here. However, the complex politics of this country will not be denied. There are enemies of democracy in this country, the Religious Right-wing, whom Bush has shown sympathies for, and this is deeply troubling to me. There is the possibility that his support for the voices for theocracy and tyranny in this country were entirely Machiavellian political strategies, and some of the President's acts have given me reason to believe that this could be so. If this is the case, my worries may be misplaced, but be warned, if you deny George W. Bush's faults, you have fallen into a mindset that allows the ascension of tyrants and madmen. There are few politicians who are entirely selfish and completely without a will to do what is right, and there are none who are completely without faults. One who fails to realize this has descended to a level of foolishness that cannot be forgiven.

Oh, he does have faults. But I see those faults as something good, like his boldness (which you may call his brazeness), or his committment (stuborness to you).

Oh, he does have faults. But I see those faults as something good, like his boldness (which you may call his brazeness), or his committment (stuborness to you).I do not refer to the more innocuous faults in his character or to his diplomatic blunders.

I do not refer to the more innocuous faults in his character or to his diplomatic blunders.
I know you didn't. But the left is so good at standardizing their arguement, that I could assume what you were saying.

You know, it's one thing to oppose the U.S or the war in Iraq, or all of that. But it's just sick when I hear people who are so blinded by thier hatred continue to hold on to the hope that things will fail in Iraq. Just so they can sit around someday saying "I told you so". You want these people to fail that badly? Just to see Bush fail?

You know, the terrorists hate bush and the USA and they want democracy in Iraq to fail as well. Who is in bed with whom I wonder? Some of you hard-nosed liberals need to think before you speak/type and consider the weight of the words you are using. Instead of discrediting any and all good news that comes out of that country, you should be hoping it is true, and hoping that peace will come to that area, however misguided you make think Bush or the US is or isnt.

The truth of the matter is this: success and failure in Iraq depends ultimately on the Iraqis. They sent a big message as a people today by showing up in the numbers they did. Honestly, I was hoping at least 25% would show up, but it was indeed much more than that. We should all be glad that a middle-eastern country with a history like thiers is going to give democracy a chance...not hoping they will fail just to satisfy our political whims.

I'm very ashamed of about half of my countrymen and most of Europeans right now.

You know, it's one thing to oppose the U.S or the war in Iraq, or all of that. But it's just sick when I hear people who are so blinded by thier hatred continue to hold on to the hope that things will fail in Iraq. Just so they can sit around someday saying "I told you so". You want these people to fail that badly? Just to see Bush fail?

You know, the terrorists hate bush and the USA and they want democracy in Iraq to fail as well. Who is in bed with whom I wonder? Some of you hard-nosed liberals need to think before you speak/type and consider the weight of the words you are using. Instead of discrediting any and all good news that comes out of that country, you should be hoping it is true, and hoping that peace will come to that area, however misguided you make think Bush or the US is or isnt.

The truth of the matter is this: success and failure in Iraq depends ultimately on the Iraqis. They sent a big message as a people today by showing up in the numbers they did. Honestly, I was hoping at least 25% would show up, but it was indeed much more than that. We should all be glad that a middle-eastern country with a history like thiers is going to give democracy a chance...not hoping they will fail just to satisfy our political whims.

I'm very ashamed of about half of my countrymen and most of Europeans right now.

Here here Dai Nippon Teikoku!

I agree with you.

Here here Dai Nippon Teikoku! I agree with you.
Me too!

Me too!
Me three.

You know, it's one thing to oppose the U.S or the war in Iraq, or all of that. But it's just sick when I hear people who are so blinded by thier hatred continue to hold on to the hope that things will fail in Iraq. Just so they can sit around someday saying "I told you so". You want these people to fail that badly? Just to see Bush fail?

You know, the terrorists hate bush and the USA and they want democracy in Iraq to fail as well. Who is in bed with whom I wonder? Some of you hard-nosed liberals need to think before you speak/type and consider the weight of the words you are using. Instead of discrediting any and all good news that comes out of that country, you should be hoping it is true, and hoping that peace will come to that area, however misguided you make think Bush or the US is or isnt.

The truth of the matter is this: success and failure in Iraq depends ultimately on the Iraqis. They sent a big message as a people today by showing up in the numbers they did. Honestly, I was hoping at least 25% would show up, but it was indeed much more than that. We should all be glad that a middle-eastern country with a history like thiers is going to give democracy a chance...not hoping they will fail just to satisfy our political whims.

I'm very ashamed of about half of my countrymen and most of Europeans right now.No, we're saying "I told you so" right now. I'm one of those who still think that things might work out in Iraq, but I have my reservations. I do not hate Bush so much as I am troubled with the political interests he seems to support at times. I have reasons to think that his loyalties are not entirely with the religious wing, though. I honestly hope that he isn't, or we're all fucked, knowingly or not. I have reason to doubt the legitimacy of the elections in Iraq, but I do hope that these doubts are unfounded. Stow your accusations, for I would like very much to see Iraq head in a good direction. I'd also like to see America and the rest of the world head in a good direction.

I know you didn't. But the left is so good at standardizing their arguement, that I could assume what you were saying.Stuff it up your ass, neocon asshole. The cult of personality that has formed around Bush is the real threat to the future of American democracy, even if Bush does have some noble intentions. I can tolerate Bush, but his fanclub is a really bad sign for the future of American politics.

Stuff it up your ass, neocon asshole. The cult of personality that has formed around Bush is the real threat to the future of American democracy, even if Bush does have some noble intentions. I can tolerate Bush, but his fanclub is a really bad sign for the future of American politics.
Don't worry, as this happened with Reagan and Clinton.

Don't worry, as this happened with Reagan and Clinton.Not to this extent. Get out of my country. You'll feel welcome in North Korea.

I would like an actual sentence saying Iraq = Terrorists!

Do you always read between the lines?
I think Zep's post # 94 will help you with the equation?

While I am not reading between the lines, the lines are clearly stated and perhaps you just choose to ignore some of the lines? The co-relation is there for everyone to read in plain English.

Not to this extent. Get out of my country. You'll feel welcome in North Korea.
Oh, please. If you want me to say something bad about Bush that I honestly believe, here it is: he is too compassionate, and he can't stick up to a Congress on a spending spree. Happy?

Oh, please. If you want me to say something bad about Bush that I honestly believe, here it is: he is too compassionate, and he can't stick up to a Congress on a spending spree. Happy?Okay.

You know, it's one thing to oppose the U.S or the war in Iraq, or all of that. But it's just sick when I hear people who are so blinded by thier hatred continue to hold on to the hope that things will fail in Iraq. Just so they can sit around someday saying "I told you so". You want these people to fail that badly? Just to see Bush fail?

You know, the terrorists hate bush and the USA and they want democracy in Iraq to fail as well. Who is in bed with whom I wonder? Some of you hard-nosed liberals need to think before you speak/type and consider the weight of the words you are using. Instead of discrediting any and all good news that comes out of that country, you should be hoping it is true, and hoping that peace will come to that area, however misguided you make think Bush or the US is or isnt.

The truth of the matter is this: success and failure in Iraq depends ultimately on the Iraqis. They sent a big message as a people today by showing up in the numbers they did. Honestly, I was hoping at least 25% would show up, but it was indeed much more than that. We should all be glad that a middle-eastern country with a history like thiers is going to give democracy a chance...not hoping they will fail just to satisfy our political whims.

I'm very ashamed of about half of my countrymen and most of Europeans right now.
I have failed to find a single post that doesn't show some kind of support for Democracy in Iraq. I think you're just doing a good job of genrelizing an argument to a rediculously oversighted point. You're assuming that because there are some that are not optimistic about the future of Iraq then they must obviously hate the ideas of Democracy in Iraq, which is completely wrong. I said it myself, I'm happy about the Democracy in Iraq. I'm supportive of Democracy all over the world. But I can't celebrate it quite like some of the people on this forum because the negatives have cancelled out some of my positive attitude. I am very dissapointed that you felt the need to make such a blind and sharpened point on the 48% of the country who expected elections no later than you did, we had no intention of stopping the process. We knocked over the government, we had the responsibility of building it back up, and we had every intention of doing so. I honestly can't believe that you lay liberals as the blame for your argument. Europeans I can't speak for, I'm not one, but the democratic party wanted in no way to keep democracy from the world. Please, find a less opinionated and more sensible view to argue next time.

You need to take a step back and calm down sir, no one is saying that, we are just rejoiceing(sp?) and are filled with pride that we helped these people and have put them on a better road.

No, "we" didn't help them get to where they we. "We" didn't do anything. The 1400 dead soldiers did that. The 10000 wounded soldiers did that. The uncounted dead Iraqis did that. The thing that bothers me the most about all this election giddiness is that it ignores exactly what happened to bring us here.

You know, it's one thing to oppose the U.S or the war in Iraq, or all of that. But it's just sick when I hear people who are so blinded by thier hatred continue to hold on to the hope that things will fail in Iraq. Just so they can sit around someday saying "I told you so". You want these people to fail that badly? Just to see Bush fail?

You know, the terrorists hate bush and the USA and they want democracy in Iraq to fail as well. Who is in bed with whom I wonder? Some of you hard-nosed liberals need to think before you speak/type and consider the weight of the words you are using. Instead of discrediting any and all good news that comes out of that country, you should be hoping it is true, and hoping that peace will come to that area, however misguided you make think Bush or the US is or isnt.

The truth of the matter is this: success and failure in Iraq depends ultimately on the Iraqis. They sent a big message as a people today by showing up in the numbers they did. Honestly, I was hoping at least 25% would show up, but it was indeed much more than that. We should all be glad that a middle-eastern country with a history like thiers is going to give democracy a chance...not hoping they will fail just to satisfy our political whims.

I'm very ashamed of about half of my countrymen and most of Europeans right now.
Although I speak for myself, I do believe that many liberal thinkers will agree on this premise:

That Iraq should be a "free", peaceful, and productive nation, but only through the "free" will of her people.

The US invaded a soveriegn Iraq under false pretenses and that is the major problem in supporting such actions. The very fact that the US is building upwards of 14 bases in Iraq clearly demonstrates that the US fully intends to stay on Iraqi soil for a long time to come and perhaps even use these bases for further strikes against other sovereign states in the region, such as Iran.

The very fact that the US allowed the hijacking of the Iraqi economy through the issuance of Bremer's Orders fully demonstrates the desire by the US to control the Iraqi economy while siphoning off large quantities of capital for foreign (US) investors. This will keep the local Iraqi economy weak as there will be no re-investment by Iraqis themselves, or a sharing of the wealth.

This conquest of Iraq is about greed and power and nothing less.

The US would love to sell the idea (not the truth) that democracy has indeed taken hold in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to justify further actions against other countries on Bush's hit list.

It is not about hating Bush or wanting to see Iraq fail, it is about doing what is right. So far, nothing has been done right to instil true democracy and freedom in Iraq.

No, "we" didn't help them get to where they we. "We" didn't do anything. The 1400 dead soldiers did that. The 10000 wounded soldiers did that. The uncounted dead Iraqis did that. The thing that bothers me the most about all this election giddiness is that it ignores exactly what happened to bring us here.
Exactly. It's simply a difference in opinion on whether or not the ends justify the means right now. We can all have joy in elections, but now that we have a government there, was it really worth it if it's one that has car bombings just about every single day? Was it worth it if there is still a growing death count, and in reality a government is nowhere close to marking an end to a U.S. war in Iraq? And finally, is it worth it if Bush decides to capitalize on the goodness of the elections and use it to propel forward his causes in other Middle Eastern countries? I mean, if it worked in Iraq, why stop there right?

It really boils down to a matter of opinion on this matter, but I just wanted to point out that hating Democracy is completely different then hating how the Democracy came to be, and that just because of the fact that a Democracy has been successfully established (we hope), it doesn't necessarily mean that that's a good reason to just stop disliking how it came to be, or what things they Democracy may end up achieving (Democracy produced Bush, I don't need to be a big fan of him). They are two seperate entities and can be loved and disliked seperately in this way. I just don't think it's right that people on this thread are saying that if we don't like the war then it can be assumed that you don't like the elections either, which isn't true.

Just saying.

Exactly. And finally, is it worth it if Bush decides to capitalize on the goodness of the elections and use it to propel forward his causes in other Middle Eastern countries? I mean, if it worked in Iraq, why stop there right?
This point hammers the nail squarely on the head. The US is already sabre rattling with Iran.

Once the US negates Iran, then they can focus on the true bad boy of the bunch.....Saudi Arabia. You know the country from which 15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked the US on 9-11 were born?