navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Iraq Votes..
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Iraq Votes.. Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2005-01-31 12:44 PM



AP News..

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqis embraced democracy in large numbers Sunday, standing in long lines to vote in defiance of mortar attacks, suicide bombers and boycott calls. Pushed in wheelchairs or carts if they couldn't walk, the elderly, the young and women in veils cast ballots in Iraq (news - web sites)'s first free election in a half-century.

The electoral commission said it believed, based on that anecdotal informatat turnout among the estimated 14 million eligible Iraqi voters appeared higher than the 57 percent that had been predicted.


"I am doing this because I love my country, and I love the sons of my nation," said Shamal Hekeib, 53, who walked with his wife 20 minutes to a polling station near his Baghdad home.

"We are Arabs, we are not scared and we are not cowards," Hekeib said


The feeling was sometimes festive. One election volunteer escorted a blind man back to his home after he cast his vote. A woman too frail to walk by herself arrived on a cart pushed by a young relative. Entire families showed up in their finest clothes.

In the so-called "triangle of death" south of Baghdad, a whiskery, stooped Abed Hunni walked an hour with his wife to reach a polling site in Musayyib. "God is generous to give us this day," he said.

"Now I feel that Saddam is really gone," said Fatima Ibrahim, smiling as she headed home after voting in Irbil. She was 14 and a bride of just three months when her husband, father and brother were rounded up in a campaign of ethnic cleansing under Saddam. None have ever been found.

-----------------------------------------------

We complain of long lines, inconvenience and confusing buttons to punch. Over 7 million Iraqis risked assassinations, threat of bombings and literally risking their lives to vote. How many of us would have gone to a building which could be blown up at any minute to cast our ballot?  These are the Iraqis you don't read about on the evening news....the ones who are happy Hussein is out of power and eager to embrace freedom.

Hats off to their courage and determination


© Copyright 2005 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved
bbent
Senior Member
since 2001-01-07
Posts 521
Alaska
1 posted 2005-01-31 02:06 AM


I agree,i'm damn glad to see there was a big turnout.A big Thank You to the U.S.and other forces that helped make it all possible also.

Live like it's your last day...
Dance like nobody's watching...
Love like you've never been hurt...

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
2 posted 2005-01-31 10:48 AM


In his first news conference since the elections, Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi called on Iraqis to join together to build a society shattered by decades of war, tyranny, economic sanctions and military occupation.

"The terrorists now know that they cannot win," he said. "We are entering a new era of our history and all Iraqis — whether they voted or not — should stand side by side to build their future." He promised to work to ensure that "the voice of all Iraqis is present in the coming government."

French President Jacques Chirac phoned Bush and said he was satisfied by Iraqi participation in the vote. "These elections mark an important step in the political reconstruction of Iraq. The strategy of terrorist groups has partly failed," Chirac said, according to a spokesman.

Russian President Vladimir Putin  called the election an "historic event for the Iraqi people because it is undoubtedly a step toward democratization of the country."

It's rather interesting how silent the liberal papers, stations and organizations have become since the election took place....one hears nary a peep. Perhaps they, with the exception of Teddy (of course), are exhibiting some class.

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
3 posted 2005-01-31 11:06 AM



Nah...Kerry almost stepped in it yesterday.

It was a good day yesterday for the voters.

I sometimes think we have it "too easy" and forget what some will go through to have what we have.  I hope the Iraqis remember this in future elections to come, and increase their voter percentage turnout.

JoshG
Member
since 2004-11-16
Posts 127
TX, USA
4 posted 2005-01-31 01:23 PM


No matter what happens from this point on all those that were involved in this war will be remember as freedom givers, and Bush was the president that fought a world of personal agenda's to give freedom a chance.

Let this day stand as a reminder to us all that freedom will cost us lives, but provide us hope.  It is the cornerstone of our great nation and we should be willing to share it with all.

Yet, those that think continued talks would have brought freedom to the Iraqi people.  I would love to see the table you would be sitting around right now if we had gone that direction.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
5 posted 2005-01-31 01:38 PM


I find it very inspiring and admirable how millions of Iraqi citizens rose to the occasion and expressed their voice through vote.

Though I don't think this election will lead to a stable democracy in Iraq, in any culture or nation, seeing the public active and making their voice heard is an inspiration we can all learn from. Even us Americans could learn from this experience.

I am a liberal and I applaud their determination and intestinal fortitude, for when you see so many out there getting involved as a community in something of these sorts, THAT is what democracy looks like. Democracy should always be of the people, by the people and for the people, and I think Iraq saw much of that yesterday.

And, yes, I believe the more liberal-leaning publications were doing just that; showing class, because liberals like me in general will always believe this was a senseless war and the way in which Hussein was removed was devastating and could have spared so many innocent lives. 99% of the world believes we all deserve to be free, and we just disagree in how we go about establishing freedom. Some believe in war, some believe in peace. I believe in the latter. But I believe both are glad that Iraq could come together and attempt to build a community.

Deep in my heart, I want to be wrong about my prediction for Iraq, in that the nation will break up into seperate nations and there may be a civil war because of the war in Iraq and growing insurgencies. I still believe that will be the case and this election will fail to bring Iraq together in the long run. Particularly among the Sunnis. Word has it the national turnout was about 57%, and among Kurds, it was over 90 percent. The Shias also had incredible turnout. But some polls never opened in some Sunni areas and I fear they may feel underrepresented and that may create tension in the region.

That's where I question the absolute legitimacy of this election as well like Kerry argued. I also believe that many risked their lives to participate in a election not only to vote in a new leadership that defines their interests best, but also to vote for "freedom from foreign occupation" as Robert Fisk put it.

Now that the election is over, I hope the Bush Administration can finally hear out the people of Iraq and Allawi. 82% of Sunnis and 69% of Shiites in a new Zogby poll want the U.S to withdraw either immediately or once the new government is put in place. Allawi, who is the obvious election winner, has even requested the U.S draft a timetable in removing troops from Iraq immediately after he takes office.

Kudos to the eight million Iraqis who came out to vote!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
6 posted 2005-01-31 03:50 PM



An editor for the Weekly Standard drew a parallel regarding the Sunnis
that I had been waiting for someone in the media to make; he compared
the Sunnis to Afrikaners in South Africa.  It would have been considered
unconscionable to allow their little or no participation to delegitimize
an election participated in by the majority, and I think a similar act
of non-participation by the Sunnis should be considered in similar light.
  

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
7 posted 2005-01-31 05:43 PM


I diddo John,

This is a good big step. It is going to be tuff to get a stable government, but if we stick in it and have faith Iraq's will have the freedom they so craved for so many years.
I think that THE LOW TURN OUT, WILL JUST SHOW THE SUNNI'S HOW important it is to vote. If it is deligitimatesized, that would be inane to reward incompatance.

Juju

-Juju

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
8 posted 2005-01-31 07:08 PM


I agree. It seems ludicrous for the Sunnis to stay at home and not vote or even recognize the election and, at the same time, complain that they may not be well-represented. They have the same opportunities an anyone else in Iraq and, should they decide not to use them, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Noah, thank you for your comments. I believe also it was indeed a vote to end occupation as the Iraqis want us out of there as badly as we want to be out of there and they recognize that setting up their own government will hasten that action. That's a GOOD thing.....

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

9 posted 2005-01-31 09:35 PM


I think it was a resounding message to the terrorists. And a light at the end of the tunnel.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
10 posted 2005-02-01 12:05 PM


  In an interview with CNN, Jordanian King Abdullah II on Monday congratulated the Iraqi people on their election and expressed optimism over the future of democracy in the region.

    "I think we can say hearty congratulations to all Iraqis.Everybody is very, very pleased with the turnout and it seems to have been a very successful day for Iraqis yesterday," the King said.
Turkish Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Monday a newperiod will begin in Iraq after the parliamentary elections on Sunday.

    "Holding elections in Iraq despite all ongoing security andother problems, low participation in some regions and all other difficulties, Iraqi people once more confirmed their will to assurepeace and stability in unity and integrity of this country," the statement said.

    "We consider it a step taken on the road to settlement of ademocratic regime in Iraq," it added.


Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi on Monday congratulated the Iraqi government on holding "such a glorious election", termingit a "success" and "sign of nobility of the Iraqi people.

    "The election in Iraq is an important step on the way toward the establishment of a democratic structure based on people'sdetermination," Kharazi was quoted as saying in a message to his Iraqi counterpart Hoshiar al-Zibari.

    "I hope that the election will bring stability and security tothe region without the presence of alien forces as well asexpansion of bilateral relations between Iran and Iraq," Kharazi said.


Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak who was taking part in theAfrican Union summit in the Nigerian capital Abuja, telephoned Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi on Sunday to congratulatehim on the holding of landmark elections in Iraq.

    He hoped this step would lead to a political participation thatinvolves all segments of the Iraqi people and would open the door for restoring calm and stability in Iraq.


Speaker of Kuwaiti National Assemble Jassem Al-Kharafi expressed satisfaction on Monday with the Iraqi elections, the Kuwaiti News Agency reported.

    "I would like to congratulate the Iraqi people on their steadfastness against all odds to bring a successful national election," Al-Kharafi was quoted as saying.

This is how Iraq's neighbors have reacted to the election. I think it's VERY encouraging....


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
11 posted 2005-02-01 12:36 PM




Yes Balladeer, exactly! It's undoubtedly VERY encouraging.

Make no mistake about it. I believe Sunday was a great day for Iraq. I don't agree with the actions of war in Iraq that led to this day, but I'm just glad that the citizens of Iraq could make their voices heard, and perhaps we can learn from their bravery and courage and, this may just be wishful thinking, but it can encourage more of our own youth or citizens in other countries to do likewise, without the need of military action to influence the passion of civil democracy in action.

I admit I am critical about how the election was organized. I believe in my heart it is a bit unfair to call the election completely legitimate, particularly because this was an election held under an occupation, and all the major parties, including Allawi's party, requested that the election be postponed back in November, and before the independent electoral commission could decide on the request, Bush and Negroponte insisted they be held on the 30th of January. So, you see, I just feel that if the Iraqi parties wanted to postpone the election, they should have been given the right to do so.

That's my general criticism of this election. And I do believe much of what fueled the high turnout was the public response in begging the U.S to leave once the new government is put in place. Currently it seems intentions or plans for departure are so scattered. I hear some say it'll be done once 200,000 Iraqi police officers and infantry are trained, others say it'll be done once their constitution is written, some say in any case they'll remain there for another five years or so, etc. Straight up, they deserve an answer, the world deserves relief, and I hope somewhere in the state of the union address Wednesday, Bush will shed some light on the exit strategy, so both our troops, all Americans at home, and the people of Iraq, won't have to continue to be left bottled up in anxiety or doubt in when we'll see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I've been told they couldn't advertise candidates on TV because they would then be targets for being killed, so they all got together and showed one commercial over and over to the Iraqi people, which was a video of American tanks going away from the camera, then captioned at the bottom of the screen read Arabic for "YOU VOTE. THEY GO."

So now, I think the corporate media in general are probably seeing this successful election as a victory for Bush, etc, especially when France and Germany even praised the election. But one thing that's not going to go away is the Iraqis demand to have their country fully in their own hands again, and begging for the occupation to cease. I hope Bush can respect that and take the word of the citizens of Iraq, show some class, and vow to end the occupation once the government is put in place, for good measure.

Also, the corporate media has been hailing this election today as a "turning point" all day. And, please know I am not taking away any of the achievements of yesterday, but it's also important that we take this to heart and be reminded of this operation and the other "turning points" to date, which, if they all are truly turning points, would mean we've walked in a square and are now walking the same side of a square twice now:

*

* The deaths of Saddam Hussein’s brutal sons, Uday and Qusay, were supposed to be a turning point.

* The capture of Saddam himself was supposed to be a turning point.

* The transfer of power at the end of June was supposed to be a turning point.

* Forcing Muqtada al-Sadr out of Najaf was supposed to be a turning point.

* Taking back Fallujah was supposed to be a turning point.

*

I am quite skeptical that this election will effectively democratize Iraq, but the best answer right now would obviously be, "We'll just have to wait and see what happens!"

But the winners are none other than the Iraqis themselves, and I am happy for them, and I pray things can turn out for the best, as I also pray for this war and occupation to stop as soon as possible.

So I hope that now the citizens of Iraq can be given enough space to begin determining the future of Iraq themselves with least interference as possible. I also hope that as the results come in, officials can get to the bottom of the supposed voting booths that never opened in some more Sunni-populated areas of Iraq and report the irregularities so it's seen all groups are fairly represented, and if indeed the Sunnis just slacked from voting, well, they'll just have to sort everything out with the other groups.

For their sake, as well as for our own health and good-will, no matter our opinion on the war or our ideal diplomatic strategy, may we continue to look up and wish for nothing but the best wishes for the people of Iraq.



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
12 posted 2005-02-01 03:26 AM


I certainly share everyone's admiration for Iraqi bravery. I wish I shared the same optimism.

But, what the hell, I hope Mike, Denise, and John and the rest are right.

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
13 posted 2005-02-01 11:10 AM



'Atta Boy, Brad!

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

14 posted 2005-02-01 01:17 PM


http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
15 posted 2005-02-01 01:27 PM


I hope you understand that this was never about who was right. In my mind, it has always been about what was sound.

This election was successful, but it doesn't change my opinion of this war being senseless.

It goes beyond just the belief that war doesn't solve anything because the tension always remains and all killing is wrong.

America was still rushed to war on faulty intelligence and without democratic input with the way the media completely silenced the anti-war voice and ignored the 61% who believed more time should have been given for inspections and diplomacy.

Tens of thousands were still killed in this senseless war, tens of thousands which, perhaps, could have been with their friends and family at the polls as well, had there been a non-violent strategy in attempting to bring this same sort of election to Iraq.

We've lost about 1,500 of our own men and women, whose lives could have been spared.

Bush took us to war without an exit strategy. Right now you are hearing multiple reasons when we may finally come home. Some say, "We'll pull out once Iraq trains 200,000 military personnel and police officers.". Some say, "We'll pull out of Iraq once their constitution is written". Some are saying, "No, we must stay as long as it takes, which may be five years."

And on top of it all, despite the success of the election, there's been talks of seperation happening and heating up for a while now. Basra wants to seperate from Iraq in the south.

I am glad the Iraqi people could come out together like this Sunday, but this doesn't make the war "non-senseless" whatsoever. Impatience and impromptu fueled this war from the beginning, and if only America could have, as a country, been allowed to voice their collected opinion on how we go about helping Iraq, we could have done so without spending over $140 billion, which has now sent our deficit to unprecedented levels and making the value of the dollar weaker all across Europe, etc. Money that could have went to public schools. Money that could have went to beginning to fund a living wage for all Americans. Money that could have maintained our remaining national forests.

And as long as Bush continues to carry out his vision of military influence and war in bringing democracy to nations and funneling billions more for war machines and such, we just may be heading in that direction of fiscal insecurity.

Not to mention the continued killing will only build tension and resentment in the region.

In terms of who's more optimistic or skeptical about the outcome on if this democracy can maintain itself in Iraq, I agree with Brad, I sure hope I'm wrong. But the war itself I still believe to be wrong.

I also think it's important, to those of you who did grow up during the Vietnam era, to also reflect on the response in the media following Vietnam's 1967 election:



There is some sort of haunted resemblance here. I agree that the elections turned out right overall, but please recognize and understand we're still at war here, and much work STILL needs to be done in attempting to make this democracy stand on its own two legs.

One thing I notice reading this is that the supposed 83% turnout in Vietnam in '67 is almost identical to the 80% that "the American officials hoped for"

Another thing is understanding the media in '67 compared to '05. In '67, the event was read as a "constitutional process" whereas now you hear a lot more cheerleading slogans. "Freedom". "Democracy". "Historic".
But we know what happened after 1967 in Vietnam. After Nguyen Van Thieu seized the South Vietnamese government two years earlier and was elected president in September of 1967, there was the battle of Khe Sanh. The Tet Offensive. The battle at Hamburger Hill. The invasion of Cambodia. But, in the end, it didn't save the mission.

There's a chance here that this democracy could come to Iraq, but we must be aware of the lessons of yesterday, and I pray our administration doesn't get arrogant, doesn't get cocky, doesn't get reckless on the heels of this election. It's those types of qualities that will let irresponsibility seep in and take each of us back to square one.

I believe Mark Brown doesn't understand the true intent of why many came out to vote Sunday. They want freedom, and that also means freedom from foreign occupation. Bush must respect their word. I pray he does that and give the Iraqis the space they need to build their own nation, and doesn't wait until the next administration enters the office to do so. The sooner, the better.

The election doesn't sell my belief that this war, among all wars, is wrong. Nevertheless, I can't turn back time, so I just hope Bush makes the right decision from here on out and in his state of the union address illuminates some sort of exit strategy. The Iraqis deserve an indication, as they are bottled up with so much anxiety and incertainty about when they can be free by all means. Our troops deserve an indication, for they have been working their hearts out and deserve to come home as soon as possible to their families and loved ones, with the halcyon feeling that their service paid off, and not to spoil their sense of accomplishment. And, finally, America deserves to know, so both those for and against the war can sleep with full ease again.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

16 posted 2005-02-01 01:34 PM


"I hope you understand that this was never about who was right. In my mind, it has always been about what was sound."

I think I will side with right over sound.
And not who is right, but what is right.

I have no idea how things will turn out in Iraq and can only hope and pray for the right result and not the sound result.



Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
17 posted 2005-02-01 01:42 PM


I really don't think one can compare Vietnam with Iraq for one main reason: China.

The Tet Offensive came the day after a truce was signed between North and South.  The North broke the truce, heavily supplied, supported, equipped and bolstered by China.  Reminds me of what they did in Korea, but that's another story.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
18 posted 2005-02-01 05:30 PM


In World War II the Japanese military planned
to win not by defeating the American military
but by wearying the Americans at home with
the cost in casualties and treasure.  The same
was true of the Communists in Korea and Vietnam,
(in Vietnam the South Vietnamese, despite representations,
suffered more casualties in each year than the Americans,
and more deaths in the year after the American military
was withdrawn than Americans lost in the entire war).
The war in Iraq will not be lost in Iraq.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
19 posted 2005-02-01 11:49 PM


http://slate.com/id/2112895/
JoshG
Member
since 2004-11-16
Posts 127
TX, USA
20 posted 2005-02-02 01:17 PM


Sunday was a great day for Iraq and have no doubt... IT WOULD not have happened if we did not go to war.  Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to spend sometime doing some research on Iraq and the Saddam regiem.  We fought for those that could not fight against oppression.  We helped free the minds and bodies of slavery.  Yes, and Bush led the way despite all doubts.  Oh, and who cares about them wanting us to remove our military.  It takes nothing away from the fact that war was necessary and absolutely the essential element to Iraq's freedom, today!
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
21 posted 2005-02-02 02:01 PM


Well, I couldn't disagree with you more, Josh.

Just let me say that if we could have had it our way, we could have spared the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis down there, as well as approximately 1,500 of our own men and women.

The Bush Administration could have just specifically said that they wanted to go to Iraq because they wanted to restore democracy to the people for the first time in fifty years and had they done simply that, there wouldn't be any fuss about the credibility of the war, only among those who believe war doesn't solve anything like myself. But, no, we went to Iraq because we were told Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and intended to use them against us or our allies. The search has ended, none have been found, the claim in taking the nation to war has been proven false.

And how do you know that this sort of progress wouldn't have been made under a non-violent approach or not?

The fact is, we were never even given a chance. A majority of Americans believed in the few weeks before the war began March 19th, 2003 that more time should have been given for inspections and diplomatic arrangements. 61% of the U.S population believed that. But the corporate media was as impatient as the administration was and in result, anti-war voices were virtually completely suppressed. Over 99% of the interviews on the major networks in the month leading up to the war were all from pro-war guests, only three interviews conducted were anti-war individuals, and Ted Kennedy did two of the three.

And ever since then, the corporate media continues to pretend there is no anti-war movement going on. But it is going on, and is gradually building. The over 500,000 who marched in New York City rally during the Republican National Convention hosted by United For Peace & Justice was the single largest political demonstration in U.S history. Dissent has been gradually rising and over half of Americans now believe it was a mistake to go to Iraq.

The chance was never given to us. It was never even suggested to us. Going to war was never decided democratically. Impatience and fear was the vessel that drove us.

I absolutely defend my claim the war is senseless and unnecessary because I believe in the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and if only we listen and have more patience, I have faith we could have made this same sort of progress and spare the lives of the tens of thousands killed, which in any event is wrong in my heart.

You should care about the Iraqis wanting us to depart once the government is set in place. That's exactly why many of them went to the polls. They want freedom, period. Not just freedom from terrorists and freedom from fear, but freedom from our occupation there.

I certainly hope Bush can show that class tonight in his State of the Union address and sympathize with their desires and concerns and at least hint out an exit strategy. He should realize that the best way to finish is on top. If he still insists to refuse saying anything about how we intend to end our mission in Iraq, what type of message does that send the citizens of Iraq? What type of message does that send our troops in harms way, who hear this Sunday was a "turning point" and now expect some final stretch or development in the mission, rather than just another ellipse in the same act. It's an exhausting thing to hear, and only shrinks morale in the long run.

The admirable ambition and determination in the hearts of the Iraqi citizens Sunday should serve as a golden opportunity for us all. We should not ruin it by continuing more of the same months and months ahead. If this should happen, I believe most Iraqis will probably begin feeling Sunday was a mirage.

If Bush truly sees this as a "turning point" he must treat it as a "turning point" and send out that update. Otherwise, I don't believe the people of Iraq will feel he really is coming to their defenses.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
22 posted 2005-02-02 08:11 PM


I absolutely defend my claim the war is senseless and unnecessary because I believe in the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and if only we listen and have more patience, I have faith we could have made this same sort of progress and spare the lives of the tens of thousands killed, which in any event is wrong in my heart.


Noah, I can symphasize with the battle you must fight within yourself - and I say that kindly. You are glad that thousands of children per year in Iraq are not dying of starvation and yet you damn the man who stopped it. You are glad that the dictatorship of Hussein is over along with his reign of terror and yet you condemn the actions that took him out. You are happy for the Iraqi people and their election and yet you denounce wverything that made it possible. Your answer is that it would have been good if it had been done by peaceful means. You won't find anyone to disagreee with that but you offer no peaceful path that could have been taken, no alternative. You claim further negotiations could have brought about the same results, ignoring the fact that negotiations- and consessions - were conducted over a decade with no resuts or progress at all. You claim that it was his excuse of WMD's that made such a difference, ignoring the fact that all of the top Democrats including Clinton made the same claims long before Bush. Your dislike of Bush has caused this internal dispute in you and yet you don't recognize it as such.

It's easy to say everything should be done by peaceful means but it's not realistic and, to not recognize that fact, is either self- delusion or self-denial. If you can come up with some plausible avenue that could have been taken to achieve the same results I, and probably the entire world, would have been happy to hear it.

If you are happy for the Iraqi people, then be happy for them and set your prejudices aside while you do.....

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
23 posted 2005-02-02 09:13 PM


The point, and concern here, is rather simple. No chance was given to those in America who believed the Iraqis, as everyone in the world, deserve freedom, but also believe they don't have to be amidst a war to make it possible. America didn't decide to go to war democratically.

Now, I recognize I alone cannot write out the whole alternative. Every diplomatic effort should always be a community effort. That's the fuss here. It's that we weren't given the time to think and collect our thoughts together and discuss the issue of Hussein and Iraq collaboratively.

Iran and North Korea are presently developing nuclear weapons programs supposedly. Bush believes both these issues can be resolved diplomatically, and I believe he's going to address that same hope shortly in his State of the Union Address, which you bet I'll be watching to analyze if he leads closely off the heels of his highly militaristic second inaugural speech. If Bush believes that, then I remain utterly convinced that Iraq could have been no exception to the rule.

And I'm convinced that plausible avenue could have been located with patience on our side.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
24 posted 2005-02-02 09:34 PM


I repeat, Noah, that you continue to disregard that diplomacy was attempted for twelve years. Simply saying there must be a way is wishful thinking - it does not provide a way.

I have no doubt you will be listening to Bush tonight. I can't wait to hear what you come up with!

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
25 posted 2005-02-03 02:15 AM


Noah,

"No chance was given to those in America who believed the Iraqis, as everyone in the world, deserve freedom, but also believe they don't have to be amidst a war to make it possible. America didn't decide to go to war democratically."

12 years
Wasn't that long enough?

Your pacifism as would have sustained Saddam’s terror
is like citing freedom of speech in favor of child pornography.


JoshG
Member
since 2004-11-16
Posts 127
TX, USA
26 posted 2005-02-03 10:07 AM


To add to that...

Iraq had 8 years of of Clinton (liberal democrate) and his peace negotiations, not to mention the previous 4 years of negotiations previous to Clinton.  There is absolutely no way you can say Iraq wasn't given the peaceful opportunity.  Matter of fact after Desert Storm, we with drew our troops and with in a matter of years Iraq was already pushing out the UN inspectors.  Saddam WAS not a peaceful leader, but maybe you feel given the chance we should have flown in a million peace marchers.  I mean if negotiations don't work, how about peaceful protest?  So we fly 1 million peace marchers (Americans, oh and to make sure we are "marching with the support of the world (seems to be a huge thing to liberals)" we will let the UN know and might get a few other "peaceful militants" to join in from other countries.  Yeah, so we drop you off in Bagdad and there ya go.  The biggest slaughter in the history of the world and before its all said in done, American's cry out for the "Military" to rescue the peaceful alternative.

I think you get my point.  This was the last and only options, oh and WMD's.  Everyone knows he had them and if he decides to hide them in another third world, go him, but lets not pretend like we didn't have any other valid reason for going.  Oh, and if you don't understand why Bush said that is why we are going to war, I suggest sometime of visit to a politics 101 class.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
27 posted 2005-02-03 11:54 AM


quote:
Oh, and if you don't understand why Bush said that is why we are going to war, I suggest sometime of visit to a politics 101 class.

Understanding why someone lies to you, Josh, doesn't make lying the right thing to do. When government controls through spin and deception, because they don't feel they can trust the people to make the choices government wants made, the result is no less of a dictatorship than that which we fight.

Politics 101 should be about persuasion, not deceit.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
28 posted 2005-02-03 02:07 PM


Firstly, I was never even a Clinton fan. I have no respect for what he did in writing the Welfare Reform Act, signing the Telecommunications Act, and reluctance in trying to resolve the conflict in Sudan in particular.

Clinton never struck me as a real liberal Democrat. I think he was very much in the center, and that's where the both of us seem to see him as ineffective.

Josh, I don't need to take a Politics 101 class to believe, in my heart, war is senseless.

I myself was absolutely disappointed that even after a strong election, Bush still refuses to hint out an exit strategy timetable. He had a golden opportunity there, and as long as there's more of the same, I will continue to protest the war with every fiber of my being. To justify keeping the occupation in Iraq by what one interpreter said to a reporter ("Tell America not to abandon us.") is an unhealthy and alarming position to take. A majority of Iraqis patiently want us to leave now. They tell us this was a "turning point", so it should be treated as one.

Impatience, fear and cynicism was what fueled this war. You can say all you want that the WMDs are in Syria or Lebanon and that explains why we haven't found any. It's exactly this type of thinking that is unhealthy and could only lead to domino effects of ricocheted rage across the world.

I have heard the stories of my relatives and the wise words of others. I have studied history and could only imagine the experiences in the darkest of times. I have reflected on my own experiences. And I feel in my heart hatred and malice is like a virus. You can fight fire with fire, and in the short term, everything is accomplished, but I believe the fire only incites more tension, and like viruses do, they mutate or develop into some other form. I believe in the end only understanding can scratch beyond just the surface and resolve the deepest psyches and conditions of these raw emotions that fuel such aggression and hostility in the world.

Bush quoted Franklin D. Roosevelt in his speech last night, where he said, "each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth." and added that we live in the country where the biggest dreams are born, citing the end of slavery here, fascism in Europe, and communism worldwide.

Our generation indeed has dreams of its own, and I am one among millions of Americans who believes the "uneven road to Providence" does lead to freedom, and we can ultimately get there by the means of non-violence and peace.

As John Lennon so eloquently put it in "Imagine", "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." Some may now look back cynically and think of "Imagine" as a beautiful but utopian silly pop song. I still feel and believe in the cadence of his lyrical heart, and as I respect there will be other millions who may disagree with me or see my dreams as "unrealistic", I turn the other cheek and respect their three feet of personal space and say, "I hope someday you will join us".

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

JoshG
Member
since 2004-11-16
Posts 127
TX, USA
29 posted 2005-02-03 03:40 PM


"Understanding why someone lies to you, Josh, doesn't make lying the right thing to do. When government controls through spin and deception, because they don't feel they can trust the people to make the choices government wants made, the result is no less of a dictatorship than that which we fight."

I don't feel that Bush deceived anyone.  He believed in WMD's, but he also believed in ending a terroristic regime.  The strongest attempt to build a coalition is to prove a threat beyond the boarders of that country in question.  Everything is fine if Iraq is hurting Iraq, but once they can reach out and touch someone it becomes a UN issue.  You sell your strongest card, but that does not mean its a unilateral and sole initiative.

Bush did not lie, but rather persuaded with his best selling card.

Noah, I wish that you were right about your peaceful dreams.  Yet, human history is laden with fighting and disputes.  Just because I dream and hope for peace does not mean I ignore the reality of our current world.  Bush did not start this war, but rather reacted to it.  He is a preventer not an instigator.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
30 posted 2005-02-03 04:41 PM


Well, I do believe there was great deception on his and his administration's part before and during this war. I also believe Bush wasn't an architect of the war, but he DID start it. Anyway, I want to talk about that later in some other thread.

Right now I want to talk about that very moving, touching moment in-between the mundane recycled campaign rhetoric last night. That moment when Safia Taleb al-Suhail, the daughter of a man killed in Iraq, and Marine Corps Sgt. Byron Norwood gave each other a heartfelt hug. That very moment was a breath of fresh air last night. I was moved and impressed by that gesture of kindness and love.

It's those type of moments that we desperately need more of, and non-politically motivated of course. Some may even have seen this as so, some may believe that sending an Iraqi voter here was indeed some sort of photo-op. That may possibly  be true. But in my heart I absolutely believe the emotions that triggered the hug were natural. That hug was a natural gesture, and anyone who wasn't touched then, I wouldn't understand it.

There's one other thing I noticed last night, that I believe also suprised, perhaps even shocked, many.

The issue of abortion or Roe vs. Wade was never brought up. If you may recall, Bush spoke directly to the protesters at the 32nd Annual March For Life last week from Camp David, on the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade and he told them, "This movement will not fail." and added, "This is the path of the culture of life that we seek for our country."

Yet, last night, he didn't resound that message off to pro-life audiences.

What will this mean in the weeks ahead? How may pro-life groups be reacting to the silence last night? Are they disappointed, perhaps upset, or is the fact this issue wasn't brought up in one speech just overreacting?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
31 posted 2005-02-03 04:50 PM


To justify keeping the occupation in Iraq by what one interpreter said to a reporter ("Tell America not to abandon us.") is an unhealthy and alarming position to take. A majority of Iraqis patiently want us to leave now. They tell us this was a "turning point", so it should be treated as one.

Really, Noah? Then what about this....?

At his news conference, al-Yawer was asked whether the presence of foreign troops might be fueling the country's Sunni-led insurgency by encouraging rebel attacks.

"It's only complete nonsense to ask the troops to leave in this chaos and this vacuum of power," al-Yawer said.

He said foreign troops should leave altogether only after Iraq's security forces are built up, the country's security situation has improved and some pockets of terrorists are eliminated.

"At the end of this year, we will witness the beginning of the decrease of forces and not their withdrawal," al-Yawer said.


Seems he doesn't agree with you. What we are seeing here is simply a Democratic diversionary tactic. The elections went off and were a resounding success which left the top Democrats with little to say. So, instead of saying anything about the election, they immediately countered with, "Ok, then. When are you bringing the troops home?!?!?!" The question itself is ridiculous. As Bush said last night, to give a date for troop withdrawal would be giving information and support to the enemy, telling them how long they had to hold out. How senseless would that be? Kerry tried that during his election campaign and fell flat on his face because people saw how stupid an action like that would be. Bush has said repeatedly that troops would be pulled out when Iraqi forces were trained and equipped enough to be able to defend their country and freedom. What else needs to be said? Al-Yawer agrees in the above quote. To pull out now would be completely senseless. I don't think Bush wants to stay there one more day than is necessary but he's not going to remove the troops before the Iraqi forces are ready or else it would all be for nothing. Can you not agree with that?


And I feel in my heart hatred and malice is like a virus.

That's right, Noah. WHen was the last time you conquered a virus by asking it nicely to leave or begging it to become a good virus? When you have a virus to take medicine to expunge it from your system. You don't try to reason with it because it does not care about reason. You eliminate it. If you don't the sickness continues...

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
32 posted 2005-02-03 05:18 PM


Josh, I don't want to cite yet another litany of all the times this Administration made claims that were later shown to not only be false, but to be knowingly false. There are plenty of old threads here for that. I have absolutely no doubt that Bush thought his exaggerations were justified. And I am equally convinced they can never be justified. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason, in the name of expediency, is what got us into this mess in the first place. I'm old enough to remember when the expedient thing was to support the dictatorship we have since decided must be destroyed.

I'm tired of expedient. I'm tired of self-serving. If our government can't convince the population to do the right thing for the right reason, I'm honestly not sure we have anything to celebrate. Freeing a people from tyranny is a worthy goal. But it wasn't ours, and making it ours now, when the goal we said we pursued turned out to be a fiction, seems just a bit hypocritical.

I will be gladdened if something good comes of this war. But I'm not going to take credit for it.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
33 posted 2005-02-03 05:26 PM


That is not a diversion, Michael. It's the truth. The last response you bold-faced echoes the administration's very own diversion, in treating an individual as a metonymy, thus attempting to justify everything with use of metonymy.

al-Yawer has the right to his opinion, but he can't speak for all Iraqis. They want to take their country into their own hands and we should respect their wishes. We should help out in setting up the new government, but then we should give them the space.

That question isn't ridiculous. Those in support of the war tend to think that there will always be war and fights no matter what, while I prefer to remain optimistic that it may be some time before much of it dissolves but it can happen. It doesn't matter if it's tomorrow, 2007 or fifty years from now. There will be misguided, tortured, tangled, troubled spirits who'll hear out that information one way or another, no matter when we pull out, which I believe this war has only incited more of these instincts.

I recognize there is indeed hatred and terrorism in the world. I don't deny that. It is a virus, and viruses and bacteria are often said to play a vital role in our ecosystem. I don't deny that it can be general human behavior when children who weren't loved or uneducated tend to bully other children around, and there will always be quarrels and skirmishes and such. Yet, we shouldn't be paranoid about these viruses or sneeze them at one another. There has always been a natural way to keep healthy and to protect yourself from sicknesses a large percent of the time. Keep well-hydrated. Keep your blood circulating. When we get struck by the common cold, we must accept it, but also try not to take it so seriously. Often the more you worry, the more likely and often you'll get sick. Just accept it and keep well-hydrated and free yourself of the bug naturally. Viruses make a vital role in our ecosystem, so we should just train ourselves not to get overwhelmed or overly fearful of it or we'll only exhaust ourselves out and make us more vulnerable to it.

And please note that I'm referring to the common cold simply as a metaphor here, not malaria or HIV or any other greater diseases of that sort. In any case, in reality, we should and must continue to find natural antidotes and cures for these great ailments and I believe someday we'll find these cures, but we musn't despair.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
34 posted 2005-02-03 06:08 PM


Hussein was not a common cold, Noah. Common colds do not kill millions of people....ask the Iraqi people if they considered Hussein a "minor" virus to be tolerated. While that wonderful "natural" antidote is waiting to be discovered then you suggest we simply tolerate the discomfort? Sell that idea to an Iraqi or a SUdanese.

I feel fairly certain that if you were to poll the average Iraqi citizens today they would not  want the allied forces to leave yet. They want them gone, yes, but not until their own forces are ready otherwise what happens to them? Think about it....


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
35 posted 2005-02-03 07:49 PM


Understanding why someone lies to you, Josh, doesn't make lying the right thing to do

Ron, for the life of me, I just can't understand your thoughts. You are not a "I hate Bush so anything he does is wrong" fellow and I'm sure you're capable of rational judgement so I can't understand why you keep referring to Bush's "lies". In numerous threads I have listed all of the speeches the Democratic leadership made in the 90's...all of them, Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, Clinton...that declared they knew for certain that Iraq had wmd's and were a threat to the world that had to be taken care of immediately. If you don't remember them I can repost them for you. Somehow it seems that when Bush used the same facts they used and said the same things they said, his turn out to be lies. Even though the entire world believed in their existence (and, if I recall, you stated in a thread that even you believed in their existence) somehow when Bush stated it you call it a lie. I would appreciate hearing your reasoning there.

Obviously there were no WMD's. Hussein propogated that belief for his own purposes, perhaps to keep Iran at bay. Bush was wrong, Clinton was wrong, all of the Democrats were wrong, you were wrong and most of the world was wrong - yet Bush is the one you label a liar.

Why is that?

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
36 posted 2005-02-03 09:38 PM


Mike, I think there was sufficient evidence to suggest WMD. However, there clearly wasn't convincing evidence, else everyone would have been convinced and everyone would have approved military intervention. I don't fault the Bush administration for believing Iraq had WMD. I do fault them for not presenting evidence fairly (I'm being kind), and for acting prematurely in the face of what turned out to ultimately be unconvincing evidence.

There were simply too many incidents (one would be too many) such as the reported aluminum tubes that could only be used for nuclear weapons production -- only to find out later that our government had already been told it wasn't true before they ever reported it as true. Again, I don't want to repeat a litany of the inconsistencies the Administration used to justify this war. I think Bush was convinced he was right. But I also think, when he found the evidence wasn't sufficient to prove he was right, he felt justified in twisting the facts to support his beliefs.

I think Bush knowingly lied. Even had he been right instead of wrong, that's not something I would quickly forgive him.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
37 posted 2005-02-04 12:31 PM


Ron,

“Mike, I think there was sufficient evidence to suggest WMD. However, there clearly wasn't convincing evidence, else everyone would have been convinced and everyone would have approved military intervention.”

Mike is right.  Ample information has been provided as to how everyone
both in and outside Iraq believed Hussein had WMD, (including Hussein).
Also why countries like France and Russia out of their own self interest
opposed intervention.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
38 posted 2005-02-04 09:09 AM


Ample, John? Perhaps for you. Others, however, might feel more is required before they are willing to pull the trigger.

I can see myself sitting on a Grand Jury and voting to indict a man on strong circumstantial evidence. However, I'm going to need to see a smoking gun, or at least something much stronger than circumstantial evidence, before I send the same man to death row. And God help the D.A. should I later find out he manufactured the smoking gun he couldn't find.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
39 posted 2005-02-04 11:57 AM



Ron,

No one was going to wait for a smoking gun after 9/11.
And with the emasculation of human intelligence capabilities
over the past years, you were not going to get an American agent
lugging back a canister of nerve gas or smallpox to show
the world, (as if that would make a difference).

I just don’t understand where one gets this fantasy that
there were people within our own intelligence service,
and there were other national intelligence services that
were telling Bush that Saddam did not have WMD.  The
contrary facts have been cited repeatedly here without
dispute.   Everyone, everyone, the French, Russians,
Germans, Saddam and his own said Saddam had WMD,
(we knew he had it before, had used it; we even have an
idea where some of it went before the war, which Saddam
and everyone knew would come with his non-compliance).
On and on and on, and yet this romantic fiction that there
were individuals and groups advising Bush who knew
different and told him otherwise.  To suggest that he never
the less knew they were all wrong, yet lied, is to attribute to
him a certain divinity, (however ill used), not typical of any
political figure, (outside of Massachusetts).

JoshG
Member
since 2004-11-16
Posts 127
TX, USA
40 posted 2005-02-04 12:49 PM


Yeah lets think about this for a second.

9/11 happens and we decide to attack the terrorist in Afganistan to try and desolve the threat.  YAYA everyone is supporting it and believe its a great effort.

We start uncovering more information of financial support coming from the Sadam regime in support of terrorism.  On, top of the proven suspicion of WMD's in Iraq and the years of threat Saddam was to his people and the world.

We are already in Afganistan taking care of business, but let me get this straight.  Your saying we should have talked another year maybe two, till we have the support of the world potentially brought the majority of our military home and then gone back?  Wow, want to talk about the story then, it would be Democrats screaming about an even more intolerable war budget.  War was inevitable with Iraq, I am glad it happened before they executed anymore harm on its people or other countries.

The truth is that he didn't lie.  His only mistake was not getting more buy in before moving forward.  I personally think it was the best course of action, but obviously if your not on the fence of being sold that war was necessary you aren't going to agree.  It does not mean he lied.

Not to mention that China and Russia would have never joined or approved the war efforts, given the amount of monetary transactions they were getting for weapons.  I find it hard to believe they would have jumped on board.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
41 posted 2005-02-04 01:51 PM


quote:
No one was going to wait for a smoking gun after 9/11 ...

John, outside of tone and mentality, 9/11 had and has nothing at all to do with Iraq. Using a disaster to attack people not responsible for the disaster is an affront to everything we fight to preserve.

quote:
I just don’t understand where one gets this fantasy that there were people within our own intelligence service, and there were other national intelligence services that were telling Bush that Saddam did not have WMD.

I never said that, John. On the contrary, I've already said I think Bush and his people believed the WMD existed. Indeed, they believed it so strongly they felt justified in manufacturing evidence to prove it.

quote:
We start uncovering more information of financial support coming from the Sadam regime in support of terrorism.

Seems to me, Josh, that was one of the lies. No one has ever been able to show anything except negative links (they got along not at all well) between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

quote:
On, top of the proven suspicion of WMD's in Iraq ...

LOL. Josh that is exactly the kind of double-speak with which I fault the administration. Proven suspicion? Come on, which is it?

quote:
... and the years of threat Saddam was to his people and the world.

The threat he posed to his own people was never raised, Josh, and it has become increasingly clear he was no direct threat to anyone outside his borders.

quote:
The truth is that he didn't lie.

Bush repeatedly presented interpretations, like the aluminum tubing as one example, that we later discovered had already been exposed as faulty, in this example by the reports from Oak Ridges about those tubes. Bush either knowingly lied or was amazingly inept and uninformed. Frankly, I'd really prefer to believe he lied.

For the record, guys, I have never said I was against the war or, indeed, even believe today that it could have been avoided. What I do believe is that I was never given an opportunity by this administration to make an informed choice. I wasn't given the chance to fight for the right reason, and hardly feel I can take pride in the results, no matter how laudable they might be.

If you start a fist fight with your neighbor to stop his dog from digging in your yard, only to discover he doesn't have a dog, I don't think you can take any credit should it turn out the guy was beating his wife. The woman may appreciate what you did, but you still did it for selfish reasons that had absolutely no basis in fact. I just don't think that deserves a pat on the back.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
42 posted 2005-02-04 02:08 PM


Ron,

As has been said before, Vladimir Putin has publicly,
for all to hear, stated that he had informed Washington
that his intelligence services has gathered information
that Saddam’s regime was planning attacks against
the United States both within and outside its borders,
and Russia, which also believed WMD still to be
present in Iraq, (no doubt it was there before),
by virtue of its links was in a far better
position to know.  9/11 was relevant in that it gave
us an illustration of what a “smoking gun” could look
like, (just with nineteen guys with box cutters).  No President,
conscious of his responsibilities, could face that prospect
given the information that was provided from around the
world and from within Iraq itself and not act.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
43 posted 2005-02-04 04:07 PM


And you feel that justifies lies, John? If all of what you say is true, if even half of what you say is true, why fabricate evidence? Why say we're going there for one reason, then emphasize a different goal when the first is proven wrong?

The neighbor didn't have a dog. We thought he did, our own leaders said they had proof he did, but when push came to shove, they lied and we were wrong. All the "yea, buts" in the world won't make us right.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
44 posted 2005-02-04 04:42 PM



Ron,

To “lie” you must know that what you are saying
is untrue.  Where did the Administration lie?

“if even half of what you say is true,”

So everyone else was lying as well?
You seem fixated on the idea that the Administration
had some ulterior, (even evil),  motive.  I think
they were good men and women doing the best
they could with the resources they and the world
had available to them.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
45 posted 2005-02-04 06:59 PM


quote:
To “lie” you must know that what you are saying is untrue. Where did the Administration lie?

If you don't know, John, you're coming to the party much too late to catch up now. I've given one example already, and don't intend to repeat a litany.

quote:
I think they were good men and women doing the best they could with the resources they and the world had available to them.

I completely agree, John, and that's what has most frightened me. There's no need to fear evil, for evil never has the heart to stay long against good. But good men willing to do evil in the name of good? Ah, now there is a thing that makes me cower, for good men are willing to sacrifice all for a noble cause.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
46 posted 2005-02-05 12:04 PM


Here's one:

quote:
This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.
—President Bush, in an exchange with reporters, June 17, 2004



[A]cting pursuant to the Constitution and [the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002] 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. [Italics Chatterbox's.*]
—President Bush, in a letter to Congress outlining the legal justification for commencing war against Iraq, March 18, 2003


From Slate, Whopper's section.



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

47 posted 2005-02-05 04:12 PM


quote:
including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.



He said or, Brad, not and. Saddam did aid terrorists by being a safe-haven for them. There was even an Al-Qaeda training camp within Iraq. But that's different than directly orchestrating the attacks with Al-Qaeda, so I don't see that as indicative of a lie.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
48 posted 2005-02-05 04:13 PM


Ron, I doubt that Bush's talk about aluminum tubes or the other things that went unmentioned were what had convinced you that Hussein had WMD's. The world believed they existed long before Bush even came on the scene. Kennedy called for war, Clinton spoke of "immediate action" - and this was back in '98. However, for the sake of argument, let's say you were right and Bush misrepresented the facts. I personally believe that Bush considered Iraq a large terrorist threat. 9/11 showed us that terrorism was not only alive and well but ready to attack us on our own soil.  The Taliban lost control of Afghanistan. Terrorist groups could not operate freely there any longer as they had. So there is Iraq, a country under the control of a dictator who hated the US, who supported terrorism and had foiled any attempts at inspection for wmds for over a decade. It would have been criminal NOT to have considered them a huge threat. Even then Bush went to the UN, gave Iraq more opportunities to conform to the inspections - all with no results. So, for the sake of the argument, we will say that Bush misrepresented the threat of Iraq having wmd's in order to invade and take Hussein out of power and thereby eliminate a huge threat to US security. It wouldn't be hard since the entire world believed that they DID in fact exist.

You claim that it is that misrepresentation that offends you and you give examples. Permit me to give an example myself.

A friend asks you to meet him at a car dealership and give him advice on buying a car. While there, you meet the salesgirl who comes across as pretty, friendy and the type of person you would like to know better. You ask her out, you begin dating and eventually it leads to marriage. After the wedding your friend tells you the whole thing was a set-up. The girl was a friend of his and he just KNEW that the two of you would hit it off well together so, since the two of you were close friends and with her being agreeable, he "arranged" the meeting to see what would happen.

What is your reaction?

Do you tell him that, even though it worked out well, even though you were very happy, you did not want him to proudly boast that he brought the two of you together because the metting was arranged on the basis of deception and lies? Even though the results turned out beneficial to you, do you tell him you have no respect for him due to his dishonesty?

I hope your answer is no.....

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
49 posted 2005-02-05 06:40 PM


Mike, I honestly can't say I would be terribly angry at my friend. However, I would be a fool to not begin questioning everything he said to me, poking and probing for a hidden agenda.

People who lie to us for self-serving purposes are a burden we all must bear. The usual defense against such people, I think, is to not entirely trust someone who has something to gain from lying. We have no such easy defense for people who lie to us "for our own good," and I think that makes them a hundred times more dangerous and a thousand times more offensive. I don't like being treated like a child.

People who don't trust us to make our own decisions can never be trusted to make decisions for us.

p.s. Marrying me off to a used car salesman was a cruel ploy!

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
50 posted 2005-02-05 07:24 PM


Denise, why do I think you're going to dance around that wonderful little word, aid, again?

I guess it all depends on what your definition of  . . .

Is that really the argument you want to use?



Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
51 posted 2005-02-05 07:27 PM


Mike,

If everything turns out well, I'll give Bush credit for the damn thing.

It hasn't turned out well, yet.

At every point where everybody talks about turning the corner, there is a setback.

The current news (speculative, I admit) on the results of the election do not bode well right now.

  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
52 posted 2005-02-05 07:50 PM


There you go again, Ron, misconstrooing my words. I said nothing about a USED car salesman!

Brad, I agree. The advances and the setbacks seem to be running neck and neck. I think it does look encouraging, though. On the evening news tonight they spoke of the Sunnis who had boycotted the election demanding participation in the creation of the constitution. No surprise there but what is interesting is the Shiites agreeing, stating that Iraq had suffered long enough under a dictatorship and was not interested in creating another. Olive branch has been extended...let's see what happens.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

53 posted 2005-02-05 07:58 PM


I'll dance if you will, Brad!

But I like my dance partners to lead...so...what is your definition of aid?

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Iraq Votes..

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary