BS: It ain't over yet

Subject: BS: It ain't over yet
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:22 PM

The election in Iraq is being seen by both Blair and Bush as vindication for invading Iraq. However, the troops will be there until the need for their presence is reviewed in June. For those of you who may wonder, here's what was voted on today. Any bets on who won?


From Al Jazeera -

The Transitional National Assembly

The assembly will be able to choose Iraq's government and will have the power to enact laws. Its first duty will be to elect a president and two deputies, who in turn will choose a prime minister, also from the assembly.

The prime minister will be the main figure of authority, exercising power over the armed forces, for example. Iyad Allawi is the current interim prime minister. He was not elected but appointed by the former US administrator, Paul Bremer.

The other primary role of the assembly is to draw up a draft constitution by 15 August 2005 and submit this to a referendum by 15 October 2005.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: mg
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:47 AM

Would you like us to leave? An Iraqi blogger said today (or I read it today) that if we did leave to nuke them on our way out because it would kill the scum and give the others a quick death preferable to what they could face and did face in the past. mg

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:44 AM

Dianavin,

Just how many threads are you on, with your virulantly pessimistic views? Yes, it's nowhere near perfect in Iraq, and it's not going to be soon. However, you shouldn't write off people so fast when they're trying.
Bunnahabhain.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:51 AM

That virulent personal attack by Bunnahab is not the custom or practice of reasoning reasonable people here.

Like water, people like that should find their own level.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:05 AM

I don't think it was an attack. It was justifiable criticism.

What do you think the rest of the Arab world is thinking when they see millions of citizens of Iraq exercising their right to vote with pride and determination?

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:55 AM

MArtin:

I think that is a wonderful question. It is something that should be applauded as an end.

The means were woefully shortsighted IMHO. Death, mayhem, bludgeoning, bombing, and creating many more enemies than needed is stupid diplomacy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: C-flat
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:17 PM

Great picture on the front page of "The Times" here in the UK. An Iraqi women proudly holding up her hand, showing her dyed finger, in a "V" (peace/victory?) salute.
We can only hope that this mess has turned a corner and that the first free election does actually come to represent a new begining.
No doubt there will be many backward-steps to come, but I see this as one in the right direction, although hardly "vindicating" of the original decision to invade.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:20 PM

Amos, when did freedom ever come without any of what you mentioned?

At least in a general sense.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:43 PM

A timely, low-key film for this time is Secret Ballot, available on DVD. Ignore or disbelieve the professional and amateur critics on netflix and amazon, and try it yourself if you can tolerate slow moving films.

(I thought the last scene was powerful and encapsulated the entire point - no other reviewer ever mentions it.)

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:47 PM

Wal, freedom comes without invasion, surely!!But your argument is good food for thought. I would be more persuaded by it if Bush had claimed that was his rationale in the first place.

A

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:44 PM

Bunnahabhain - I haven't written off the people of Iraq but I wrote off Bush a long time ago.

I also write off people that have nothing to talk about but whisky, tits and folk dancing.

Ever consider taking a course in politics or anthropology or philosophy or ... oh never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: kendall
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:34 AM

Can you say "Puppet government"?

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:21 PM

Dianavan- Sorry. I jumped to a conclusion about you. Truce, ok?


I also write off people that have nothing to talk about but whisky, tits and folk dancing.

It would be hard to argue any of those are unpopular round here. Be careful.

And as for politics et al, I tend to confine those to real life, as I am not in agreement with most of mudcat.

Bunnahabhain

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:31 PM

"Puppet government." "Puppet government." "Puppet government."

This all reminds me of Vietnam, where similar exercises were engaged in while occupying a foreign country with no justification.

Having gone in militarily, which should never have been done at all, the USA and UK cannot simply leave Iraq now. There's too much at stake and too much chaos would result. They are like 2 arsonists who have set a huge building on fire while stealing the valuables...but now they can't get out of the building! I do not envy anyone who has to deal with the mess this war has made. It will bear much bitter fruit in the years to come. Funding and arming Saddam and encouraging him to kill vast numbers of Iranians and Iraqis in the 80's bore much bitter fruit too...in the 90's and since. That was an earlier chapter of this tragic and criminal policy of America and the UK. They worked hand in glove with Saddam in the 80's.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:43 PM

Thanks, LH. It cannot be said often enough that we never had anything like a reasonable premise for going in. And while I say "Support the troops; bring them home." I must concur that we cannot just pull up stakes. But thoughtful people knew that ahead of time, and were still lied to by the architects, one of whom was just re-elected and another of whom was just appointed secretary of state.

For my money, there were much better things we could have done with our military power, our money, and the good will of most nations as a result of 9-11. We managed to squander all of that, however. Almost seems as if it was intentional.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:47 PM

Oh, it may have been...

How do you maintain a big, lucrative war machine without official enemies to fight?

Remember the Peace Dividend that was supposed to follow the end of the Cold War? It never happened.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: jaze
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:55 PM

My guess,Martin, is they're thinking We're Next-to be bombed , taken over and forced into our(American) way of life. Understandable considering what happened to Iraq. The world is full of cruel madmen and dictators. Are we going to invade them one by one? Or only if they have oil? I honestly hope all turns out well in Iraq. But not for Bush/Blair's sake. For the people of Iraq's sake.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:58 PM

LH,


"Remember the Peace Dividend that was supposed to follow the end of the Cold War? It never happened. "

So, what DID the Clinton adminisration do with all the money taken out of the Defense budget? I know what Reagan did with his part, but where is it from Bill's 8 years?

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:18 PM

Jaze, I think they are thinking it's time we moved our life style and culture up from the middle ages.

I think by seeing the truthful looks on the faces of Iraquis as they voted that the taste of freedom must be sweet.

I hyope we help as many as we can get there.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 11:37 PM

Bill Clinton did the usual stuff, BB. He had a war in the Balkans, and an adventure in Africa (which didn't go too well), and tossed a few cruise missiles around here and there, and bombed a pharmaceutical factory...and kept those military contracts a-rollin', like all American presidents do.

Where did you get the idea that I think there's a Good/Bad divide in the USA with Democrats on one side of it and Republicans on the other? :-) I am not an American. I regard both of those deceitful political parties as two arms of the same corrupt, lying oppressor $ySStem, a $ySStem that is founded upon exessive military spending and foreign conquest and endless war, and they are not about to stop doing it just because someone changes seats at the White House.

Vote for Bush? You get more war.

Vote for Kerry? You get more war.

Vote for the next guy in a suit? You get more war.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: Cluin
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:00 AM

But they always vote for a nice suit.

That's why Nader will never get in.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:08 AM

Oh, for sure. :-) And Bush looks fine in a suit, doesn't he? Kerry was unlucky in that he had way too long a jaw, and seemed way too Ivy-league intellectual. Average Americans won't vote for a guy who might possibly be smarter than themselves. Not a chance.

But Kerry would just have done the same stuff as usual anyway, so no big loss.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: DougR
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 02:01 AM

So exactly what are you proposing that we elect as our next president, LH? A nudist?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: GUEST,Jaze
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 08:30 PM

I hope so,too, Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: It ain't over yet
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 02:45 AM

The elections, and the comparatively smooth way they took place, are certainly a step in the right direction, and a "good thing". It ain't over yet, sure. We have to see a transitional government formed, a constitution drafted and agreed, and the next elections undertaken; 1 to 3 years, is my guess. But it's going the right way at the moment.

However, using this fact to justify the war is anything from pathetic to offensive, because this was never used as the reason for going to war in the first place. No, the War President (his words) had to lie to his own citizens about WMD and to falsely link 9/11 with the need to attack Iraq; how many millions Americans still believe Iraq to have been responsible for 9/11 despite all that's come to light, I wonder...

Of course, Congress would not have agreed to the war if the justification had been "we will bring them freedom and elections" now, would they?

The end can never justify the means. If a criminal takes in the poor and clothes and feeds and shelters them, this does not make him/her any less of a criminal or any less punishable. This is the real world - there are no Robin Hoods.

And the lies, and the dead, cannot be excused this way. And they won't be forgiven or forgotten by History. And I expect to see a documentary on the TV 20 years from now, similar to one shown last week about how a whole nation (Germany) was hoodwinked/manipulated into enabling the Holocaust; only this time it will be about the US and Iraq (and Iran? Syria?). We live in evil times.