Why the election in Iraq will keep troops from coming home

[stormfish]

I found this article on the net and wish to share. Click to see the article or read it below:



Despite free and fair elections in Iraq, the violence continues to spread across all regions of the occupied nation. The %$%$%$%$ administration hyped the election as a prime reason for invasion in an effort to rewrite history, ignoring the real reason of non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

As a result of the hype and success of the elections, many Americans believe that Iraq is on the path to self governance which would mean that our troops can come home. Reality dictates the exact opposite.

Since the elections in Iraq on January 30th, 11 American soldiers have been killed and well over a hundred Iraqis have lost their lives. To date, over 1,400 Americans have been killed in Iraq and over 15,000 wounded have been evacuated due to serious injury. Thousands of soldiers have lost limbs within the conflict which was started over a perceived threat from former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Many also believe that the invasion of Iraq has benefited the country. Not including the estimated 100,000+ Iraqis that have died since the invasion, the majority of Iraqis are faced with a difficult existence which is far worse compared to the former regime. Iraqi's do not have daily power outages, they have brief periods during the day in which they actually have power. In addition water and sewer remain a challenge even in urban areas such as Baghdad.

Many contractors such as Halliburton which were provided with no-bid contracts have produced little results despite millions of dollars in expenditures.

Due to the difficult living conditions, no employment and the stress of occupation, the resistance that Coalition forces battle against continues to grow each day. Many agree with Sen. Ted Kennedy that the American occupation of Iraq is fueling the Iraqi resistance.

As the violence continues and American fatalities mount, supporters of the %$%$%$%$ administration and the invasion of Iraq will begin to question the sense of it all. Comparison's to Vietnam may be valid, but in the case of Vietnam the goal of stopping the spread of communism was clear, in the case of Iraq, the reasoning is not as apparent despite the revisionist activities of the %$%$%$%$ administration.

[Skip N]

[BigFish]

The writer of that article certainly is insightful beyond anyones wildest imagination not to mention a master of the obvious!

I also do not recall the President at any time mentioning bringing democracy to the Iraqi people in the form of a new government by election.....all he talked about was weapons of mass destruction and the threat against the free world. All this election stuff was dreamed up after %$%$%$%$ realized his head was wedged inside his sphincter and needed a way to take the pressure off so he could get his head out!

[spence]

My fear is that we're going to get exactly what we wished for, a Democratic Iraq...which will mean a Shia majority which imposes Islamic law.

It looks like the deal we cut with al Sistani could lead to just that.

I'm still perplexed at how so many Americans can trust the President's continued "no plan" and "reckless optimisim" strategy when the track record of mistakes is at, and over the horizon.

-spence

[fishweewee]

Jeez, Rome wasn't built in a day.

Give this thing some time to gel for crying out loud.

At least the fractious Iraqis (long divided by sectarian and ethnic groups) have a shot at sorting things out for themselves in a reasonable manner. They as a people will be better off in the long run than under the clutches of a lunatic dictator like Saddam Hussein.

Europe, for all its pissiness, will start contributing for long-term economic development (as it had in the past). Right now we and the Iraqis need to mop up the remaining "insurgents" (mostly remnants of Saddam's regime) and get the country's infrastructure back together. At the same time Iraq has to get its main export business stabilized. And so on.

Economic fermentation almost always leads to social fermentation (liberalization in the classic sense). This is happening in countries like the United Arab Emirates, and is eventually bound to happen in places like Saudi Arabia and even Iran, which has a burgeoning liberal middle class.

Like or not, the ouster of Saddam is a long-term investment (which cost American $$$ and yes blood), the return on which is measured in DECADES.

You can't expect miraculous results overnight.

p.s. Combine stabilization of Iraq with improved prospects for peace in Israel/Palestine, and you have a much more optimistic future in the Middle East. It will take time, but gradually Arab terrorists will continue to be marginalized.

[MakoMike]

WW- I'm afraid you're wasting your breath. These are the chicken littles of the world and the sky is falling. No one will convince them otherwise.

[179]

This post is the exact reason the Libs lost big in the election Again. It must be great to be a Lib and belong to the party of doom and gloom.

Did Ted Kennedy write the article?

[Skip N]

"Did Ted Kennedy write the article?"

[Bronko]

GW's presidential approval rating just spiked the other day to its highest point in quite some time. There are statistics slowly filtering out about the election results that are staggering, just little glimpses into how the trend in this country is turning and how far behind the Dems are falling amongst the popular vote. (ie) In the 50 fastest growing counties in the nation GW won 47 of them in the last election. We all saw the red on that map on election night. We all know who voted for GW and why. This is not lost on the Liberals. The Democratic party has a HUGE task in front of them. Their party needs a major overhaul, and they know it. The elitest attitude and self righteous behavior leading up to and following the election is comical. Their post election christian angst is incredible. All of a sudden religion is the "enemy" that cost them the election. (please read that last sentence in the grand scheme of things I know there are many good christian Dems!!) Spence I think your a bright guy and you know your politics....but even you have the tone in your posts of being above the rest. You make it sound like those who voted for %$%$%$%$ are ignorant, that we are stupid. I think thats wrong. In my opinion a debator's biggest flaw is to believe that another's opinion is wrong. I don't agree with many liberal opinions, but I do my best at trying to figure out how they think a certain way and fashion my points as proof to the contrary.

[Skip N]

Bronko, The Dems will be in even more trouble when they elect Howard Dean the chairman of the DNC. The party is just moving further to the left and if they learned anything from the November election that is the wrong direction to go. Common sense would say move more to the middle not further to the left like that nutty Dean.

[Raven]

i agree with Maco joe...... except that it isnt the sky thats falling
...it's actually; chunks of newly elected officials and politicians that have just been blown to bits by the latest suicide bomber ..... ..we've had aerial, "and now ground robots" there to deal with the baddest killers... via remote control.

John Deer has teamed up with US Robotics to create a robot soldier to fight ground wars.

It was just announced today(CNN) that the pentagon has spent allot of money trying to create star trek technology to beam troops behind enemy lines.

also there is still a whole hell of allot of stuff buried under all that SAND. The amount of tonage of explosives that are being used added together is a " HUGE" amount.

[RIJIMMY]

Nicely said Bronko.

[spence]

I'm not sure what makes people think Dean is so liberal, is it because he's passionate and screams?

Is it because he's willing to call the GOP to the mat on issues like using homosexuality or gun rights as politically divisive tools?

Being the leader of the DNC is about fundraising and coordinating the party, something which Dean has demonstrated skill at. If you think His position will see Him as a face man ranting a left-wing agenda, you've been watching too much FOX News

Bronko, I don't think there is any drastic trend. We've come off of 8 years of a Democratic Administration with a very high approval rating. Gore arguably should have won in 2000, at the least it was razor thin. Buhs's victory this time was the closest in re-election history and the fact is, much of the Congressional gain was the result of redistricting (i.e. gerrymandering) in Texas.

The difference was clearly 9/11. The country simply didn't want to, for whatever reason change leaders, and the Dems didn't campaign well enough, or counter the exploitation of K3rry's flaws to compensate.

Counties that are growing are going to be rural, and rural counties will tend to be more conservative. This is no suprise, just 3rd grade spin.

Also, the colored election map was a joke. You may take great pride in knowing that 7,000,000 acres of Wyoming tumble weed and horney toads was "Buhs Country", but I'm more concerned with reality. Adjusted for population it comes out nearly 50:50 split of red and blue. A perfect shade of green

The tone of the Dems is driven by anger and frustration, not liberal elitisim. Buhs is on the offensive and many find His behavior to be reckless, arrogant and patently corrupt. If you care about your country this is something to react to rather than sit and let come what may. If you agree with the president then I damn well hope you understand what He's doing, which makes you complicit

My observation is that people on the Right tend to attack liberalisim for what they think it is, while those on the left attack actual behavior of those on the right. The media processes it into a bland product with no real flavor or texture. There is very little real dialog, it all comes down to who can lie better.

The Democrats need to find a more optimistic voice, but the Party's roots don't need to change.

To be honest I'm still a registered Republican, but as long as the Buhs Administration keeps ignoring the environment, disregarding civil liberties, pandering to mega-corporations to further shrink the middle class, running up the deficit, using gay rights and abortion as wedge issues, waging poorly planned and idiologically justified wars, shunning International cooperation and doing everything possible to escape accountability on all fronts...

I'll be happy to call myself a Democrat

-spence

[chris L]

ted kennedy is too inebriated to write an article about anything but red noses and how you come about having them . hiccup

[Bronko]

This is frightening....Spence is a registered Republican, and I am a registered Democrat. Both of us are arguing against our "registered" parties.

I guess that is what makes this country so great.

Nothing personal Spence, just talking politics! We agree on a very major issue though....fishing.

[179]

Spence- Please do not worry Hillary is coming to save the day!

[spence]

Originally posted by 179
Spence- Please do not worry Hillary is coming to save the day!

God I hope not

I'm hoping McCain can somehow get the Republican nomination so I don't have to think about voting for her

-spence

[DRMatus]

A lot of Americans fail to comprehend the real value of a strategically situated democracy of the sort we seek to achieve in Iraq. They can't seem to get past the weapons of mass destruction bit. If you ever for a minute thought this was only about WMD, you weren't seeing the big picture. Think of it like police work. Police find probable cause and they act on it. WMD and the violation of UN resolutions was our PC for invading, but our real goal is exactly what we're accomplishing. Many Americans are too ignorant and lazy to appreciate our own democratic process so I suppose its no surprise that they miss the boat on the significance of a free election in a place like Iraq. Right or wrong (regardless of how you view it) we, as a nation, are committed. We're past a point of no return, so to speak, where we must finish the job we've started. Go read the post about the Marine who might be considered for the Medal of Honor. What do you think he would say to someone spouting off about WMD, how the cause he's fighting for isn't worthy, and how we're failing in Iraq. First off, he probably thinks its great that there weren't any WMD because if there were, he would have been on the receiving end of them. In truth, I can't speak for him but I'm fairly certain he's given the topic a lot more thought than the majority of the whiners here at home.
The recent election was the first speck of light at the end of the tunnel. Some of us have to look a little harder to see it.

[PNG]

DRMatus well said and my sentiments exactly.
In short I will say "its a toe hold" for democracy in that region. Think of the big picture is correct.

[spence]

Quite simply put, the President didn't have authority to wage war to create a democracy in the middle east. The Congressional authority was very narrow in scope for just this reason.

I completely understand the idiological justification for this war and I have a serious problem with it, not because Democracy is bad, but because the entire scheme is incredibly risky, poorly planned and was sold to the people in a completely unethical manner.

Today it is what it is and I hope for the best, but to remark that acts of heroisim by our troops (while remarkable in their own right) somehow validate the decisions made by the civilian leadership just doesn't make sense.

I'm not trying to undermine any sense of individual purpose, but rather ensure the decisions made to this point are kept in context. We didn't just arrive here randomly, and I don't want to see it happen again.

-spence

[fishweewee]

Regardless of the pretext under which we went to war with Iraq, in the end, Saddam Hussein and his cronies needed an a$$-whooping. Europe sure as hell wasn't going to do it.

We live in a society where results count. Not the circumstances under which things get started or not.

It pays to be a winner, and "Americans will not tolerate a loser."

We're clearly winning over there, that's what most Americans really care about right now.

10 years from now, only grumpy historians and nit-picking hair splitters will examine the validity of Iraq II.

In some ways, I think there were some side benefits of this war that are under-appreciated. Iraq is attracting Muslim fighters/terrorists/whatever you want to call them from all over the Middle east. Better to deal with them all at once in one place than have them scattered across the globe to wreak havoc on us closer to home.

Right now, I'm greatly looking forward to see what will happen Iran and North Korea. The leaders of these countries are clearly testing us - they must think we're over extended. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese were laughing behind our backs.

I don't think Iran understands what a perilous position it is in right now. I'm not sure their whole nuke program is a bargaining chip to them.

In North Korea, all we have to do is carpet bomb the country with cheeseburgers and we'll win.

[spence]

Originally posted by fishweewee
We live in a society where results count. Not the circumstances under which things get started or not.

History has certianly proven the drive for shareholder value can have dramatic negative consequences

By this line of reason, it's ok to mislead people into a war that you personally feel is just. Perhaps I subscribe to a different ethical doctrine

Iran and N Korea are going to be interesting. Welcome to the show...

-spence

[fishweewee]

Originally posted by spence
By this line of reason, it's ok to mislead people into a war that you personally feel is just. Perhaps I subscribe to a different ethical doctrine

No, you misunderstand me.

I don't view this in terms of justification of future acts (even though a ballsy precedent has been established), rather than the general understanding and mood of the public right now. Public sentiment always weighs on the side of the winner, and that is clearly helping our President in the polls right now.

[spence]

Yes, although there is great fear that this "implied" validation could lead the President to believe their judgement is not flawed.

-spence

["uffah!!"]

Lots of Truth Here:

[fishweewee]

this is awful...

-ly funny.

[Raven]

the usa pulling all its troops out of korea ...then you'll know.

[Iwannakeeper]

Red and Blue do not make green - they make purple

Just because it is written down, and the source makes itself seem like a news source. This is a strictly opinion peice. And I think some would view it as a fictional work.

I tried to stay out of this thread, but sometimes I have to just voice my OPINION. And the media is really irratating me.

Spence, I do disagee with your opinion that the right attacks what it views as a left wing point of view and the left attacks the right on behavior. We do agree that the truth is not clear. And the media has watered it all down.

But I believe your opinion is based on the media outlets you use to inform yourself coupled with natural human behavior. Before reading this thread, I had the completely opposite opinion. Then I took some time to think about how and why our opinions could differ so greatly - this is what I came up with.

I think the real problem with the media is that it is never fair and balenced. Aside from Fox News, Sean Hannitty, talk radio and The Wall Street Journal, all major media outlets lean decidedly left. The outlets in the previous sentence lean right. And there is very little in the way of fair and balenced reporting on the issues.

I agree, the situation is Iraq is not a rosey one, but I believe it is a necessary one, and will be viewed as the correct decision in history books. As previously stated the success/failure of this war will be measured in decades. But their are positive stories that could be portrayed to the American public. Stories like the Navy Chief and Duke posted about a real American hero - 1st SGT Brad Kasal. Or some of the more human interest pieces that Sgt Kasal lists in his interview; when the American's open a school of fix a sewer. What about the thousands of Iraqis that would love to have power and water and sewer, unfortately, the insurgent are destroying the services the United States Armed Forces restore.

I see a lot of people ask why? My opinion, which with $5.00 will get you a Starbucks, is they are too busy pushing their agenda. Fortunately, this is not my opinion alone, it is shared by many. So I will give it some merit. The liberal mainstream media is so concerned with discreditting the President and his adminstration, they do not report the news in an objective, fair and balenced manner. This is not to say the the republican media outlets are objective, fair and balenced.

I will now focused on what is most upsetting to me, the majority of left leaning major media outlets. They should no longer be considered objective journalist. If the any media analyst or corporation cannot remain objective, they should not consider themselves journalist or reporters, they should refer to themselves as what they are .... propoganda spreading shills. Maybe to be more Politally Correct we could identify a nice euphanism, like Liberal Advertisers, or Propoganda Spreaders. Axe Grinders...oh...oh...I know, Agenda Drivers. That is not too harsh and it is accurate. The media is not about objective reporting of the truth. News story selection and spin are given to further drive an Agenda - like discrediting the Presidential Administration.

If there was ever a truely objective reporting of the days events around the world, we could all be better informed and make wiser decisions. But we are stuck with what we got. And as such, it is normal human behavior to hear what you want to hear. We all take bits and pieces of news articles. We watch, listen, read sources that spin their articles to support their agenda in the same direction that we lean. I like Fox News. I like talk radio. I like the Wall Street Journal. I do not like CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, the Boston Globe, the New Yorks times or any other left wing media outlet. That is not to say that Fox, talk raidio and the Wall Street Journal are objective, I just like their spin. And as long as both parties have media outlets that report what different groups want to hear - there is going to be a great divide.

As a result we each form our opinions on flawed and bias news sources. Or our opinions are formed lacking some truely necessary information, because we did not see or hear it from 'our' media sources. I think that is why our opinions could be so radically different.

Want to know why I voted for %$%$%$%$...or more accurately against %$%$%$%$%$. %$%$%$%$%$ was not strong enough on defense. This doesn't come strictly from right wing media outlets, it comes from the former candidate from MA's own lips. That and his horrible record for showing up for work, while working for the tax payers of MA. And lastly, I cannot trust him. No matter what you say about spin, he is a waffler.

"I voted for it before I voted against it"

He is all over the map and never takes the same stance twice.

[spence]

Originally posted by Iwannakeeper
Red and Blue do not make green - they make purple

I know, it was a joke. What's green

Spence, I do disagee with your opinion that the right attacks what it views as a left wing point of view and the left attacks the right on behavior. We do agree that the truth is not clear. And the media has watered it all down.

This is my observation, and I've done a tremendous amount of observing.

Show me a right-wing pundit and I'll wager a weeks pay they're attacking "liberalisim" 90% of the time.

When what the last time you heard a liberal pundit generalizeabout the evils of "conservatisim". You will hear them bitch about Buhs, Rummy, Iraq, Corporate scandal etc... but more often than not they are attacking specific issues or policy decisions.

But I believe your opinion is based on the media outlets you use to inform yourself coupled with natural human behavior.

I think you get that opinion because I'm decidedly anti-Buhs and not afraid to get on my soap box. To be honest I spend just as much time reading right-wing media as I do the left. If I sound like I propaganda machine, perhaps it's because Buhs really is that bad

I think the real problem with the media is that it is never fair and balenced. Aside from Fox News, Sean Hannitty, talk radio and The Wall Street Journal, all major media outlets lean decidedly left.

I've ranted about this many times, but I'll do it again. There is no liberal media conspiracy! Media outlets report the kind of news they think will sell. For certian there are extremes, but the majority of news agencies are business hoping to make money, not indoctrinate.

For every example of the Globe doing something partisan, they have run tens of thousands of articles that nobody has complained about.

I know people who think the NYTimes is liberal because they cover a lot of International news. Editorials are one thing, the rest is just covering what their readers want to hear.

If covering news a certian way appears liberal to you, then perhaps America isn't as conservative as you might think

-spence

[BigBo]

Haven't we been down this road before?