Marijuana.com

Puffer

Originally posted by MickityMike:
If such a large majority want elections, why is it that such a small minority is registered to vote? (Last week, I read an article on AlterNet that claimed only 1% of Iraqi citizens are registered to vote.)

__________________
Just say "know" to marijuana!

 

MickityMike

Iraqi voter rolls derive from food ration lists, so there is no need to actually register to vote. However, there have been about 2.1 million Iraqis who've confirmed that their names are on that list so that they're eligible on election day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...?nav=rss_world

So, it appears as if at least a few million Iraqis are planning on voting, but we won't know exactly how many (due to their registration system) until the actual election. The article I quoted above mentions some polls where 90% of Shi'ites and Kurds plan on voting, but with the caveat that around 20% of Sunni Arabs "strongly intend" to, and possibly as many as 60% (of Sunni Arabs) have shown some desire to vote.

Also, I've read where supposedly millions of Iraqis living abroad have confirmed their registration status as well, and plan to vote absentee.

Should be a fairly interesting next 30 days in Iraq to say the least.

__________________
I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons. - Glenn Reynolds

Stephanie S.

First, I ain't a "Left" I think for myself. Maybe you see it as left-leaning but really, I just lean toward what I deem to be "right".

When I asked, "I'm at a loss to wonder, does it not eat you alive, as it does me, that families, children, babies, moms, dads, and their homes have been destroyed?" The question was not intended to be a flame, it was a genuine question. See, to me, there is not middle of the road with regard to life wth regard to guns, tanks and bombs. If I could somehow see this war as justified, necessary, or positive in some way, I may be able to rest easier knowing that so many people have lost som nay lives and homes. But see, i can't rest easier. We know, YOU KNOW, that the grounds this admiinistration presented to go to war in Iraq were full of crap. You know it, Mike. Rather than reading blogs and right, conservative garbage, or left liberal hooey, try just learning the facts and ascertaining for yourself what is right.

I can't for the life of me figure out how one can support a war that the reasoning for it, has been switched so many times its like an old pair of underwear. First it was Al Qaeda, then nuclear weapons, then...liberating Iraq...now..it's just cleaning up an awful mess.

I think that George W. Bush is an evil power hungry freak and that those closest to him are also money grubbing, power and control freaks. Desiring control over other humans often leads to disastrous results. One never really has power or control, they have intimidation and fear working for them, but control and power, just figments of their imaginations. I don't see alot of difference in the actions of the US vs. Saddam. What makes our intimidation and weaponry and better than his?

And yes, seriously, peace

__________________
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio)

MickityMike

I read all kinds of things and I'm pretty certain I've got a fairly good grasp of the facts. Maybe we just plain old disagree? Maybe it's not a matter of one or the other knowing the "real" facts as much as we just have completely different views on the facts at hand?

The reasons have remained constant since prior to the invasion, although the emphasis placed upon each of them surely has not. (And I think that's unfortunately confused some and played into the hands of the opposition trying to disrupt support for the war.) Some were focused on more than others by the administration, but I'm still harping on the same reasons I always was, and so is the administration:

1. WMD proliferation and the ability to produce them in the ME

2. State support of Islamic extremism in the ME

3. Subversion of tyrannical governments in the ME (planting the seed o' democracy)

In my mind, no. 1 is a short term concern, while nos. 2 and 3 are long term goals and the true root causes of the war. And yes, the US (along with the rest of the world) have, up until recently, been complicit in the crafting and maintenance of these conditions in light of bigger conflicts (Cold War).

I don't think George is all that great, but I also don't think he's "evil" by any stretch of the imagination. (I didn't think Clinton was evil either for bombing Serbia or the sexual escapade centering around a cigar - in fact, I voted for Slick Willy in '96! Bwawawawawa!) Maybe we’re seeing some of the same kind of demagoguery that was directed at Clinton during his term in office? It seems that abject hate and an insistence that one’s political opponent is somehow “evil” tends to cloud the judgement a bit.

Same to you!

Stephanie S.

Okay, we disagree, but I'm right.



Oh my Gah! Are you serious?
Where are the WMD??? I must've missed something.

To single out Iraq is like only washing one finger rather than your whole hand. With neighbors like Syria and Iran, eliminating state supported terrorism is a far reaching fantasy. It's just not logical to violently attack one country amid many others doing the same things...if not worse.
Unless the US intends to obliterate every freaking Arab Islamic country save maybe Kuwait and Dubai, nobody will ever stop state sponsored support of Islamic Extremism. Islam was born of Extremism.

I'm not gonna touch this one right now.

I don't hate Georgie Porgie Puddin n Pie. When I look at him, when he comes in my mailbox on the cover of time, sometimes I feel downright nauseous. When I look at his eyes I get freaked out by what I see. He seems totally out of touch with most of the population he represents. Something about him has just always made my skin crawl. It's not hate, I just have a very bad feeling about the man. Didn't you ever come into contact with someone you just had a bad feeling about? I got that with George. Yeah, my judgment is probably clouded, I have tried though to see through the cloud..I really have.

peace

 

MickityMike

That's odd - I feel the same way!

Completely. It's certainly true that some people ****ed up pretty good when the claims were repeatedly made that Iraq has stockpiles of WMDs (note that I said '****ed up' and not 'lied' - there's a big difference), what's often overlooked is 1) Iraq's refusal to cooperate beforehand, and 2) what has been found. Programs, raw ingredients, and a very clear intention of restarting these programs once the Oil-for-Food compromised "sanctions" relaxed.

Iraq has not been singled out - diplomatic pressure is being turned up on Syria and Saudi Arabia, and something called the "Caspian Guard" has been enacted to keep Iran in a temporary box. The process of curbing state-supported Islamic fundamentalism has to begin somewhere, and it's one that actually began in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Islam may have been born of extremism, but that's immaterial to whether or not the moderates among Islam can win out over the extremists. It stands to reason that propping up a couple of Islamic democracies with something in the way of human rights and the rule of law might go a long way to achieving this end goal.

Ok, but I still think it's necessary if the long-term problem is to ever be solved.

Eh, if he's out of touch, then why did so many vote for him? But yeah, I had that same feeling when I met Ashcroft as a kid. I was one of those people that voted for the dead Democrat (Mel Carnahan) over Ashcroft when he ran for Missouri governor in 2000. But yet I still try like hell to remain objective when discussing, advocating and/or analyzing policy.

Re:clouding: In many ways, I wish that Clinton (please note I have no love for the guy) had been eligible for a 3rd term. I think that he would've carried out the Global War on Terror after the shock of 9/11 in much the same way, including the invasion of Iraq. But I think he was a much better politician and would've done a better job of convincing Americans that we're doing the right thing. *sigh*

Cassius

That's what really gets me. People with your line of thinking go, "oh, there were many reasons to go to war! the reasons haven't changed, it's just that the ones that are most important now aren't the ones that were when we started."

You're right that #1, #2, and #3 are problems for us. But, in my mind, #2 and #3 do NOT justify going to war. If #2 and #3 were the only reasons presented at the beginning, I think there would have been a much larger outcry from the public, it may even have costed W the election. You even say yourself that Iraq isn't being singled out, that pressure is being put on other countries in the middle east, but we're not in the middle of a war with those countries, are we? Doesn't that suggest that #2 and #3 are not a reason to go to war, in light of the fact that we are still as yet pursuing other options with regards to other countries in that area, to which #2 and #3 apply just as easily?

What justifies going to war? Does it have to be a last resort? Do you have to have a reasonable chance of winning? Does the end result have to be clearly, specifically known?

Whatever your reasons, #1 (if it were true) would fit the bill for most Americans, and #2 and #3 much less so. This country was founded (in part) on the principle that America should keep its nose out of other people's business. Why did we wait so long to join WW2, after all?

You say that "there were multiple reasons, and the reasons never changed". But only ONE reason in my mind was justification for invasion, and that reason has proven to be flawed.

Now that we're in, it would be pretty callous to abandon them now, and I would never advocate that. But I think W is either pulling the wool over everyone's eyes (if they truly believe that war is a last resort) about the numerous "reasons" -- or else, he's appealing to people who think that America SHOULD force democracy on the world, whether they want it or not.

Sadly, I'm beginning to think more Americans have the same feelings as Bush than don't. We're becoming a country of bullies =(

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

Stephanie S.

:sniff: That damn near brought a tear to my eye.


Bill is a much better pitch man. I'm not sure he coulda sold me on invading Iraq though. I understand your explanation of the building of democracies in the ME, I just don't agree with the concept.

peace

Puffer

Originally posted by Stephanie S.:
I get the same feeling. Duhbya has always impressed me as a man whose elevator gets jammed a couple of floors short of the penthouse.

MickityMike

I agree... somewhat. (And please note that the 3 reasons I gave were severely simplified for the sake of brevity.) Nos. 2 and 3 would have been much harder to “sell” to the American people, but they are, post-9/11, wholly legitimate reasons to go to war. And eventually I think a better “pitchman” like Clinton could’ve – and would’ve – been able to convince the public.

If one accepts the notion that Islamic extremism and the danger poised there from is not simply limited to al-Qaeda but to several larger factors or “root causes”, then ending state support for it by any means necessary is quite legitimate. The president’s primary job is to protect the American people, and if he or she believes as I do, that Islamic extremism is a regional problem derived of regional conditions, then the president is duty-bound to act on that threat represented by those conditions. Naturally the first option shouldn’t be war, but re: Iraq, the first option wasn’t war. Negotiations and going through the toothless UN were tried for the past decade and quite desperately and hurriedly after 9/11, but to no avail.

I also think you’re seriously remiss if you actually think that the only sort of pressure that proves that Iraq was not singled out is war. Pressure can be applied via many diverse means, and war is only one – usually one of last resort. Syria is being pressured and threatened with additional sanctions, the Saudis are being pressured diplomatically at the very least, and Iran is under intense diplomatic pressure. Even with our ground troops most likely insufficiently staffed to undertake an actual invasion of Iran, the US commanding general in Iraq recently reminded the Iranians of the remaining power of the Air Force and Navy. I think to assume that war is the only means of applying pressure to nation-states is to vastly underestimate the options at hand. So I think your conclusion that nos. 2 and 3 aren’t legitimate reasons is a little too black-and-white, and that maybe you’re leaving out some differing but vitally important aspects of “pressuring” countries to end state support of terrorism and cease WMD development.

And finally, I don’t want to forget this: People with your line of thinking go, "oh, there were many reasons to go to war! the reasons haven't changed, it's just that the ones that are most important now aren't the ones that were when we started."

Sure. But you’re omitting the reason that some aren’t “as important.” It’s not that the WMD reason is suddenly less important than the others, it’s that the WMD question has been answered and people have stopped discussing it! We’ve not found the promised stockpiles, but only the odd weapon or two. But we have found programs, ingredients, and a clear desire to restart once the corrupt sanctions regime melted away. So, while perhaps you think that maybe the WMD reason was pushed a bit too hard (I even agree with you on that), the simple absence of stockpiles do not therefore make it unreasonable. What if our intelligence had been correct, and we didn’t invade and Saddam never cooperated with the UN? It’s a catch-22.

I think that yes, if one is to go to war justifiably it should be a) a last resort, b) one must have a reasonable chance (otherwise people are being sacrificed for absolutely nothing), and c) no. I say no to “c” because it’s not always possible to have a clear-cut goal at the start of a war, other than simply “winning.” And more to the point, it’s not always advisable, nor strategically sound to blatantly telegraph one’s goals to the enemy. During the months preceding the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration began pushing the idea of democracy and reform in the Middle East. Strategically sound or not, they apparently assumed that it couldn’t be hidden much longer. So even though I don’t think all 3 reasons are needed for a “just” war, I think that in this case all were fulfilled.

I agree. But when did we finally enter WWII? After the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I propose that 9/11 was a comparable act (in that we were sufficiently provoked). After 9/11, we were suddenly very concerned about WMD and the reasons why Islamic extremism was so prevalence in the Middle East, and what could be done about it.

So, up until we all learned that no stockpiles would probably be found, you thought the Iraq war justified? Sure, the reason is still flawed, but that wasn’t known until its very absence was discovered: If you based your support on the reasonable proposition and yet unproven belief, not certainty, that Iraq had WMD stockpiles, then why does the validity of your reasoning depend upon the final answer? You wouldn't have known either way until it was proven, so why should your preliminary reasoning be either condemned or justified based solely on the final outcome? (Have you a crystal ball?)

Let’s say that there’s a chance of rain in the afternoon, and you (very reasonably) take your umbrella to work with you, so that in case it rains, you’ll be straight. The end of the day arrives. Though the sky darkened and clouds formed over the course of your day, no rain fell. Do your coworkers now call you an idiot and a fool and mercilessly knee you in the genitals, for your valid, but ultimately faulty, preliminary reasoning for having brought an umbrella?

Is there really no third option in your eyes? Is it really so simple as Bush either lied, or we’re a nation of bullies?

Really? Why so? Clinton was no stranger to military force in his own right... Bombed Serbia (including one Chinese embassy - ooops!), succumbed to a severe bout of "mission creep" and went after Adid in Somalia (with its own little armor controversy even), blew the crap outta some Sudanese aspirin factory workers and more than a few Ba’athist Iraqi janitors late at night, etc.

Clinton just doesn’t seem like the kind of president that you’d ever have any affinity for... ?