New Dawn of Democracy

[Panther]

Its good democracy has come to Iraq, but lets not forget that all the candidates hold the Bush administration in high regard, most likely.

Welcome to the tough issues forum...

A long-held tradition is to back all sides in such a democracy so that no matter the outcome, someone that you're "friendly with" will be in power.

However, who was elected in Iraq wasn't as important given the fact that the new government is a "coalition" government comprised of many different factions of the population. Some of which are pro-US, some of which are not.

And finally... In actuality, the party that got the most votes ended up not being the party that the U.S. was really backing. Doesn't mean that they're not going to work with the U.S., just that the ones that got the most votes ended up being... well... less enamored to having U.S. forces there for a long period of time.

My prediction is that the U.S. is there for the long haul "to protect our national interests", just as we've been in Korea and Germany for the long haul. And, just as there is opposition by some folks in South Korea and Germany and the Phillipines and other places to continued U.S. forces there, there will be some in Iraq who are against continued U.S. forces being present. Many folks here may be against keeping forces overseas for various reasons, but understanding the "why" for the situation (that IMNSHO goes far beyond the "war on terror"), then folks should be very concerned with the fact that the U.S. military is spread far too thin and is scattered about the globe rather than available here at home in the event that they are needed here for our national defense.

[AAAhmed46]

Well, non the less, democracy coming to Iraq is of coarse, better for Iraq.

However, there is a powerful chance that civil war will start between the Shiites and the Sunni's, because this election was called way way way way too early. I was surprised that Bush was going to call the election. Honestly, the election could not have occured at a worse time. Everyday when i read the newpaper, i read of the iraqi's attacking each other. And many many political science professors themselves said that this election was called way too early.

And what about the kurds?

I am muslim, and in my mosque i have met may Iraqi's(most are sunni, but i met alot of shiites as well) most were very wary of this election being called so soon. Yes, CNN and FOX and canadian news showed many iraqi canadians and americans rejoicing at an election in iraq, but they never showed how suspicious many were. True, many iraqi's in canada and america voted, but they did so because....well they finally got to have some power over the government, but that does not mean they didnt believe this election was called too early for iraq.

My point? THIS ELECTION WAS CALLED TO EARLY!!!!!!!!!!!

[IJ]

C'mon, I think Bush is a moron, and I cut him SOME slack now and then. The election went off with nary a hitch and everyone had to admit that even those who expected a mess. As for the worst time? Well, if it'd been held three months earlier, that might have been worse. Or, we could have waited 3 months? 1 month? 60 seconds? until all of Iraq was up in arms about not having it sooner and having to deal with an occupying army with no say. Can you point to any solid data or logic that suggests there was some bad outcome in this free election, other than that some abstained merely so they could say their voice wasn't heard? I think this was a great victory for Iraq. Written off as a bunch of fanatics mixed with a bunch of waifs in need of liberation, they showed that they are better at risking car bombings and long lines to vote than americans are at risking five minutes of traffic and short lines to vote. Good for them, good for the region, good for our troops.

[AAAhmed46]

Why should i cut him some slack? A country is now crippled economically because of HIS political aim.

Civil war can easily break out BECAUSE of this electoin.

But honestly, if this is a move just to move troops out, thats just bad. If anything, Iraq needs MORE troops in there. Im anti-war, but i believe this should keep them there, otherwise the region will break down.

[IJ]

You should cut him some slack because we're not talking about his political aim right now, we're talking about the narrow victory of the election. And it went well. Could civil war break out because of the election? Perhaps. Hadn't it already broken out? Wouldn't there have been a greater chance if we'd delayed further, further p.o.'ing thousands of iraqis who saw no progress toward soverignty? At what point will holding an election in Iraq be a completely calm, handholding joyfest considering the rivalries and ideologies that some competing nutjobs have over there?

I know it wasn't a perfect choice but we need to see some kind of evidence it wasn't a GOOD choice or at least not the BEST choice.

[Bill Glasheen]

Why should i cut him some slack? A country is now crippled economically because of HIS political aim.

You are a newcomer to these discussions. You should know that by now, Mike Murphy and I already solved all the world's problems. All is right in Baghdad these days because of our brilliant thinking.

Ahem...

Whoever you are... I'm always a bit wary of newcomers hiding behind pseudonyms and making controversial statements. Sometimes it's someone already banned who pops back up with a new name like a rash that will never go away. Sometimes it's a compulsive flamer. What-ever. I'll start by giving you the benefit of the doubt. And besides, I enjoy the fray.

You are entitled not to cut GW slack. That is your prerogative in a democracy. Meanwhile, GW just won a second election by a wider margin than he won his first, in spite of everything that went on, and in spite of an unparalleled slander campaign against him. Hmmm....

Understand that I did not vote for GW first time around. I voted for gridlock, so no money would be spent by any of these politicians. But that's my own cross to bear...

That being said, I'd like to share a few thoughts with you.

First... GW did not cause the economic chaos in Iraq. That chaos already existed long before even the first war with Iraq. Saddam had dreams of being the leader of the next Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. He started by spending his country into near bankruptcy by warring with the Iranians. After killing a million (1 million) of them via any means possible and not getting anywhere, he realized he was in some deep, deep $hit. So what to do? Let's take over Kuwait and seize their oil reserves. Pretty good for the bottom line, eh?

You did know that's where all of this started, right? Granted the U.S. funded a lot of Saddam's war with Iran because we were pi$$ed at them for taking our embassy workers hostage and humiliating us like they did. Why? Oh yea... We brought in this Shah of Iran. He was OUR sonuvabitch who did things our way, and helped us get the Middle East oil and stability we wanted. Unfortunately there wasn't much in the way of self-determination going on. So it all turned into a big old-fashioned clusterfuk. The Iranians pi$$ed us off. They made brother Jimmy lose the 1980 election. Ronny came in, and helped Saddam beat up on them. Now Saddam was our sonuvabitch in the area. HE did what we wanted.

Then Saddam drove his country into the ground economically trying to take all that power and land and oil, and beat off the bad Islamofascists. And sorry if that word offends you, but it is what it is. Fascism is fascism, no matter what flag or religion it hides behind.

So cool. We have all these sonsuvbitches whooping up on each other. But we didn't count on brother Saddam needing to take over Kuwait like that to shore up his bankrupt economy. He was one step away from marching into Riyadh. Then we ALL would have been in some deep $hit.

So Papa Bush and a coalition of good guys chased this new bad guy away. And we were hoping that the people would rise and get rid of this fascist, so we wouldn't have to get into their internal affairs. But nooooo.... Saddam had to go engage in some ethnic cleansing. Let's use some poison gas on those bastard Kurds, and kill a few tens of thousands of Shia because they just won't bloody listen to reason. Sounds cool, right? After all, what does it matter that Saddam and his merry Sunnis were in the minority, engaging in some ethnic cleansing of the majority.

But the U.N. said "Bad!!!! Bad Saddam!!!" And so they passed lots of resolutions. Lots and lots of them. That'll teach him!!!! Saddam's feelings obviously were hurt. Resolutions?? How could they??? And then the U.N. engaged in sanctions. And they had the British and the Americans create no-fly-zones in the north and the south to stop all this ethnic cleansing. And all was good with the sanctions. After all, we have this oil-for-food program. That's going to punish Saddam, and feed the children, right?

Hey.... Why is brother Saddam giving out all these oil credits???

Hey... Why is the son of the leader of the U.N. making all this money???

Hey... Why does Iraq now owe Russia and France and Germany and China billions upon billions of dollars? Why is his economy going farther down the tubes? After all, what do a few dozen palaces cost? What does it cost to re-tool your military that got its a$$ kicked in Desert Storm? Nowhere near what it costs to feed babies, right?

And Saddam took to shooting at the planes protecting the no fly zones. Bad Americans!! Bad Brits!! They are flying planes over MY country. They are keeping me from killing my own damn people. How dare they!!!

And then brother Saddam made the world think he still had more WMDs. After all, can't let those Iranians think you are vulnerable, right? There was this matter of killing a million of them. Oops!!! And besides, all my Middle East brothers love it when I tell the U.S., the Brits, and the U.N. to kiss my Iraqi a$$!!! What are they going to do, pass more sanctions??

Oops... Then the Americans went and elected this nut-job into office. Then his fellow Arabs set up shop in Afghanistan, and took out... oh... about 3000 civilians with 4 civilian planes. Not only that, but they took a chunk out of the Pentagon. Bees don't get mad when you whack their nest, do they??

Oops... Next thing you know, GW went postal. He kicks some Taliban a$$. But his idiocy doesn't stop there. He then teams up with Tony Blair and takes over Brother Saddam's country.

Worse yet, do you know what GW had the gall to do? He held (gasp) ELECTIONS in both those countries. Everyone knows that those stupid towel heads can't govern themselves, right? Just a bunch of idiots on camels. They need a fascist to keep them in order, right?

Sooooo....

I can see why you won't cut GW some slack. After all, he's the first president in a while who has (gasp) PRINCIPLES! He's so stupid that he'll risk his reputation and the lives of his countrymen to fight for the freedom we enjoy in our own country. He's so stupid, that he hasn't figured out that it's easier just to pay off some 2-bit dictator to beat a country senseless so they do what you want until you pass the trash to the next guy in office. He's so stupid that he took a bankrupt country and... well... They STILL are in economic $hit. How could he???

I guess I see your point after all.

- Bill

[Stryke]

You did know that's where all of this started, right? Granted the U.S. funded a lot of Saddam's war with Iran because we were pi$$ed at them for taking our embassy workers hostage and humiliating us like they did. Why? Oh yea... We brought in this Shah of Iran. He was OUR sonuvabitch who did things our way, and helped us get the Middle East oil and stability we wanted. Unfortunately there wasn't much in the way of self-determination going on. So it all turned into a big old-fashioned clusterfuk. The Iranians pi$$ed us off. They made brother Jimmy lose the 1980 election. Ronny came in, and helped Saddam beat up on them. Now Saddam was our sonuvabitch in the area. HE did what we wanted.

So you bankrolled the situation in Iran , and when it turned out you cant manipulate things like that ..... You bankrolled the situation In Iraq .....

and some folks still wonder why other countrys look at some of Americas foreign policy with a magnifying glass

[AAAhmed46]

Principles? Do you HONESTLY think this war was started because of morals? Hypothetical situations:
20 years from now china will be the No.1 economic power. And if some group attacks china from america, china may consider invasion. Of coarse america will be opposed. Who wants bombs dropped on their heads? Of coarse, many americans will be relieved to know that the missles used will be laser guided.

In all honesty, its very easy for us to say that invading another country is a right thing to do, even if it does have a dictator. Would we be so happy if other countries wanted to bomb north america?

Plus, Bush has hinted that pakistan may be a target for invasion. I have family in pakistan, lots of family in pakistan. How can i possibly be supportive of such an invasion when my relatives could get killed? I know an iraqi man with relatives in iraq. And he is very very worried about them.

Honestly bill, would you be so calm about supporting and invasion where you have family living there?

Stupid towel heads? Many christians in jerusalem once wore the same garb, hell even to this day many christians do.

And lets not forget, the many many DEMOCRATICALLY elected socialist presidents in south america being assasinated during the cold war.

[AAAhmed46]

But honestly, this will be my last arguements. I really dont want to get banned again. I tend to get a little emotional, since politica these days is so close to him(im pakistani and im muslim) Ill stick strictly to martial arts discussions.

[Bill Glasheen]

Perhaps folks need to watch a little more Saturday Night Live, and a little less CNN. Where do people lose their sense of humor?

So you bankrolled the situation in Iran , and when it turned out you cant manipulate things like that ..... You bankrolled the situation In Iraq .....

Oh Marcus, how could you possibly be that kind? I'm sorry, but you're a little off here. It's WAY worse than that.

But be careful... What's this "you" word? To whom do you attribute "you?"

Look, the British invaded our country multiple times, killed innocent women and children, burned down the White House, etc., etc. But that was different administrations, different people, and different times. That was an era of British colonialism that has long past. Now the UK is one of America's strongest allies. So... Do I continue to blather about the redcoats in year 2005 the way these whacked-out rednecks down here sport the stars and bars and drone on about the war of northern aggression?

And just why are the UK and the USA strong allies? Partially because - for once - we have leaders that see the merit of advocating democracy and self determination. Both countries have had to deal with terrorism. And the lessons? Whenever you promote representational governments (of ANY kind), terror seems to wane. They aren't necessarily "your boys" any more, but in the long run, the right thing happens.

During The Cold War, former U.S. leaders had a nasty habit of supporting and even bankrolling any government that was anti-Communist. I suppose it may have served a purpose at the time, but the vision was rather myopic. Many people around the world suffered from the bastards we might call "Our son of a bitch." (quoting Teddy Roosevelt)

Folks, I am condemning this policy employed by previous U.S. administrations. Am I perfectly clear?

We bankrolled Saddam. The U.S. and the U.K. helped him acquire his WMD capabilities. Both countries turned a blind eye to Saddam killing a million Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war - some with chemical weapons. We only sent reporters over when he started gassing Kurdish women and children to subdue a Kurdish uprising in the north. We turned on him big time when he killed his economy and tried to make up for it by invading Kuwait.

This is screwed up!!!!

We can argue from now until the cows come home about whether, when, and if we should have invaded Iraq. The fact of the matter is that we did, and we did it using bad intelligence. And this was the same intelligence that all our detractors had around the world. NOBODY had it right. NOBODY knew what the hell Saddam was doing. All we all knew was that he was playing some very dangerous games with the world, and showing the U.N. and the oil-credit-taking allies around the world to be puppets that he could buy off.

Shed no tears for Saddam, Uday, Kusay, chemical Ali, etc, etc. They were bastards playing dangerous games and funding terrorism and instability in the Middle East. They were screwing around with the world for over a decade. $hit happens to people like this.

Don't lay Iraqi civil war on GW. The Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shia have been killing each other for decades in that country. Iraq as it exists today was a stupid contruction of a WWII group of "peacemakers" if my history and memory serves me well. These were the same people that created Israel but screwed the Palestinians over and then set the Jews up to be the BGs for the Arab world. That area is a mess - period.

Don't lay Iraq's bad economy on GW. If anything, GW is rescuing their economy. He's gotten the world community to forgive billions upon billions of bad debt that Saddam ran up in the interest of becoming the leader of the next Ottoman Empire. Things may be bad for a while because of the pre-existing ethnic rivalries compounded with al qaeda terrorism, but it's a damn sight better than the craphole that Saddam had turned that country into. It got so bad that things necessarily will be worse before it gets better. But it IS better economically today than it was. Yes, that's right - BETTER than it was before. It'll take a while before the majority of people are gamefully employed, but that is work in progress. And it won't just be the favored Sunnis from the Tikrit area getting all the good jobs. For once, there will be something slightly close to equal opportunity. Good!

I have no patience for people who worry about GW's principles. His suport of representational governments is far more principled than anyone's support of the corruption that was going on before The Marines came in and cleared the deck.

Invade Pakistan? I've never heard of it. But I will tell you one thing. There's nothing close to a democracy in that country right now. If anything, I'm very squeamish about GW allying himself with the SOB running that country. I think it's bad policy to allign yourself with an oppresive dictator just so you can scour the mountains for some Taliban.

And as for my "towel heads" comment, it was a joke. It was meant - if anything - to imply that anyone who thinks democracy can't be built in the Middle East is racist. I was modeling racist thinking. Apparently that comedic device went over the head of someone.

AAAhmed46, I don't think your points of view should be censored. I do object to people hiding behind pseudonyms though, while flaming. Perhaps you can find a way where we can enjoy our differences and learn from each other. And maybe there's a way where one day we can meet. I enjoy all people from all walks of life. There is no reason to hide whom you are, or in any way have to be concerned about your views of the world.

- Bill

[MikeK]

I believe someone was calling Bush and Rummy evil?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/inter ... &position=

April 15, 2005
Iraqis Find Graves Thought to Hold Hussein's Victims
By ROBERT F. WORTH

AGHDAD, Iraq, April 14 - Investigators have discovered several mass graves in southern Iraq that are believed to contain the bodies of people killed by Saddam Hussein's government, including one estimated to hold 5,000 bodies, Iraqi officials say.

The graves, discovered over the past three months, have not yet been dug up because of the risks posed by the continuing insurgency and the lack of qualified forensic workers, said Bakhtiar Amin, Iraq's interim human rights minister. But initial excavations have substantiated the accounts of witnesses to a number of massacres. If the estimated body counts prove correct, the new graves would be among the largest in the grim tally of mass killings that have gradually come to light since the fall of Mr. Hussein's government two years ago. At least 290 grave sites containing the remains of some 300,000 people have been found since the American invasion two years ago, Iraqi officials say.

Forensic evidence from some graves will feature prominently in the trials of Mr. Hussein and the leaders of his government. The trials are to start this spring.

One of the graves, near Basra, in the south, appears to contain about 5,000 bodies of Iraqi soldiers who joined a failed uprising against Mr. Hussein's government after the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Another, near Samawa, is believed to contain the bodies of 2,000 members of the Kurdish clad led by Massoud Barzani.

As many as 8,000 men and boys from the clan disappeared in 1983 after being rounded up in northern Iraq by security forces at the command of Ali Hassan al-Majid, widely known as Chemical Ali. It remains unclear, however, how the victims ended up in the south.

Investigators have also discovered the remains of 58 Kuwaitis spread across several sites, including what appears to be a family of two adults and five children who were crushed by a tank, Mr. Amin said. At least 605 Kuwaitis disappeared at the time of the first gulf war, and before the latest graves were discovered, fewer than 200 had been accounted for, he added.

A smaller site was discovered near Nasiriya earlier this week. Arabic satellite television showed images of residents digging up remains there.

Mr. Amin declined to give the exact locations of the graves, saying it could endanger witnesses to the massacres and anyone working at the sites.

One obstacle to exhuming bodies has been an absence of DNA labs and forensic anthropologists in Iraq, Mr. Amin said.

In the aftermath of Mr. Hussein's fall, thousands of Iraqis overran mass grave sites, digging for their relatives' remains with backhoes, shovels, even their bare hands. A number of sites were looted, making identification of victims difficult, said Hanny Megally, Middle East director for the International Center for Transitional Justice.

The American occupation authority, after some initial hesitation, began classifying grave sites, and international teams began traveling to the sites in 2003 to conduct assessments or exhumations. But toward the end of 2004, rising violence led nearly all the teams to abandon their work.

Only one site has been fully examined, a grave of Kurdish victims in northern Iraq, Mr. Megally said. That work was overseen by the Regime Crimes Liaison Office, which is gathering evidence for the trials of Mr. Hussein and his deputies.

The interim Iraqi government, working with the United Nations, has drawn up plans for a National Center for Missing and Disappeared Persons that would have authority over all aspects of the process, from exhumations to providing assistance to victims' families.

[AAAhmed46]

Look, im no supporter of Sadam or even Musharaf. I think Saddam should get death by torture. Musharaf is not nearly as bad as Saddam, i mean he made no attempts of genocide like Saddam, and has promoted womans rights. But he is a dictator. But there is more to this then you think. I think you know that he took over through a military coup. Pakistan was democratic. But ironically, the rival political parties would try killing each other on the streets. THe political parties were more like gangs then anything else. So musharaf took over and put some order in.

But should he stay in power now that some sort of order has developed? I think not, i think he likes his position of power now.

But yes, there was, in the beginning, some talk of invading pakistan, but Musharaf, unlike some of the other leaders in the mid-east, actually co-operated.

uh...whats a pseudonym? Sorry but i gotta sharpen up my volcabulary

But if you want me to reveal my real name, here it is Its Adeel(Adam) Ahmed. How are my views so concerning?
I do NOT support terrorists, but i DO believe that terrorism is not a bunch of guys who out of no where pulled out guns and started ramming planes into buildings. There are other issues behind thier stupid actions. Religious extremism is sparked by other external factors. An example would be the chechnyans who took the school in russia. What they did was cowardly, but the reason they did so was not black and white. President Yeltsin once organized one of the worlds biggest plans for genocide in history next to the Holocaust against the chechnyans, 500 000 were murdered.
Is this justification to take a school of innocent kids hostage? NO it is not, but it does give us a reason NOT to look at things so black and white. I these issues seriously because Im just scared for my safety and that of my family.

Comparing Bush to saddam? Come on, Hitler would know that Bush would look cleaner then saddam, but note: He will look CLEANER not clean, though by a significant level.

[Bill Glasheen]

A pseudonym is a nom de plume. It's a name someone uses while hiding the true identity.

Very happy to make your acquaintance, Adeel!

We both agree that these issues are complex.

- Bill

[AAAhmed46]

A pseudonym is a nom de plume . It's a name someone uses while hiding the true identity.

Very happy to make your acquaintance, Adeel!

We both agree that these issues are complex.

- Bill

A pleasure to talk to you!

Yes i agree with THAT!