Rippley

Ok, I saw this discussion on another board. Well, a mailing list I'm on. And I thought I'd throw it to the intellectual sharks of the TFP:

So, against all predictions, the Iraqi elections had
very high turn-out with little violence and no
accusations of foul play. US troops kept themselves
out of sight, Arab news channels gave positive and
optimistic coverage and in general everyone seems
pleasently surprised at how well the whole thing
went.

Bush claimed that democracy in Iraq would make the
invasion worthwhile. Does this prove him right? Is
there merit to his "domino theory" of democracy in
the Middle East? Was this worth 15,000 lives? (not a
rhetorical question).

Was the anti-war movement wrong?

I'll kick off the discussion with another question: DOes it really matter? Is the point of the exercise to have a side in the global debate that's right, or to supprt that Iraqi people in their choice? This guy Says it far better than I. Hope you have BugMeNot or an NYTimes subscription...

__________________
roadrazer - 300kgs, 300hp = pure fun.

Mojo_PeiPei

As largely a Bush supporter I can't say that this alone makes him right. As stated here many times on the board this is a step, a ginourmous step, in the right direction. I can only hope that things get better from here on out like I know they can, at this point we are passing the ball out of our court and into the Iraqi's. You also can't look at this as an end, this is only the beginning. In less then a year the Iraqi's will go back to the election booths with a constitution drawn up, and they will be electing permanent officials. Also hopefully within a year, after the establishment of a constitution I'm hoping the Iraqi's will have a bigger a better permanent security force in place so we can start bringing our boys and girls home.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Pacifier

No, the reasons they presented to go to war were faulty and will remain faulty.
Only the future can tell if the election will be successful or if we will have another weak goverment with a bunch of warlords (like afghanistan).
When the US troops are gone and they had their first election on their own (without help) than you can talk about success (a "free" and democratic goverment) or failure (some theocratic asshole)


BTW: You don't even have the results of this election, how can you start talking about success now? What if this election was won by some islamic theocrats?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

drewg

I must say I was supprised how smooth the elections seemed to go (except for the low turnouts in the Sunni dominated areas). Maybe there is hope for new peacefull democratic Iraq. If that eventually happens, I'd say Bush was (somewhat) right and the anti-war movement was wrong. But there's still a LONG way to go, so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just two days after the election.

Besides, I have always felt that the anti-war movement (atleast in Europe) is not really an anti-war movement (in the pacifistic sense) as much as a movement against American unilateralism and increasing global dominance.

DJ Happy

People seem to forget that Iraq has had elections before and Saddam Hussein was "elected" as a result of them.

Hopefully things won't turn out that way again, but who knows?

StanT

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

We'll see, this was the start of a long process to create a constitution for Iraq. There is a long way to go.

Charlatan

Why would this NOT be a success? If the Islamic Theocrats were democratically elected who are you to say it's wrong?

Sure it might not be the best thing for Bush but if that is what the Iraqi people voted...


I still don't think you can say the "anti-war" people were wrong. Morally it is wrong to have a preemptive war... It is also wrong to force a political direction upon another sovreign nation, regardless of the outcome.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

raveneye

There is not a chance that the U.S. would have ever gone to war had we known then what we do now. Neither conservatives nor democrats would have supported it.

As Kerry said, it is the wrong war in the wrong place. Bush was wrong regardless of the outcome of the elections.

As most Europeans seem to understand better than the U.S., wars have a terrible human cost. They are justified only as a last resort, in response to an immediate, terrible threat.

Our soldiers exist to defend our freedom. Our soldiers are not Iraqis. They should not die so that Iraqis can have an election.

tecoyah

Put in context...........This alone does not create a justification for the destruction and death we have inflicted on these people (and our own).
That said I am quite pleased with the reported results, but am quite aware we are seeing only the rose tinted side of this election, as we are meant to see it. I am cautious, but hopeful that this is a step in the right direction, as it would lay the ground work for a withdrawal of our troops. Perhaps Bush was right in this.......I hope so, as he has a less than acceptable track record thus far.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

martinguerre

Swiped from Daily Kos...

I don't think a single day tells us one way or the other. The general trends of the insurgency lead me to be pessimistic.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Mojo_PeiPei

So I suppose John Kerry was blowing smoke out of his ass back in 1998 in and around Desert Fox right? Oh and he didn't vote for Gulf War II either... Oh that's right he did, he voted for it, before he voted against it.

And God bless the Europeans and their governments. I can't imagine what type of place Iraq would be if had not been for them illegally enabling him for all those long years while his people suffered...

Also Charlatan, I think it's pretty ridiculous that you assert that preemption is immoral. One of a national governments, more importantly America's, main purposes is to provide for "common defence", at least that's what the constitution states. I would think that if down the line, the government had credible information to act on and didn't, and American citizens died, that would be immoral.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

jimbob

The anti-war movement wasn't anything to do with whether or not there should be elections so it's not appropriate to ask this question in relation to that article. The anti-war movement did get many things right - there were no wmd, saddam was not a threat to the west, the war will lead to more terrorism/civil conflict etc - but the hawks had the better propaganda.

dksuddeth

this is sarcasm, right? It's not a real election if theres only one name on the ballot.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

But they didn't have credible information did they?

Let's face it... no nation is really going to attack the US are they? Not and expect to come out of it on top. Terrorists, are not nations, they are groups of individuals... you cannot root them out by attaching any one nation.

The solution to terrorism is not more violence. It is fixing the root causes. But doing this is difficult and blowing things up is quick, easy and makes for good TV.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

StanT

The administration acted on information that was not credible and American citizens died as a result. Is that any more moral?

jimbob

You conveniently forget why Saddam came to power in the first place and perhaps you aren't aware of the help given to Saddam by the US during the Iran-Iraq war. And presumably you've not seen the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with his chum Saddam. Some people attack the anti-war movement by asking 'Where were you when Saddam was gassing his own people?' Well plenty were demonstrating against western governments selling arms to him, but we all know what Donald Rumsfeld was up to.

Bush was given information that an attack was planned and there is some circumstantial evidence that the intelligence was acted upon, but there was an effort to cover this up. Maybe to hide shortcomings in the intelligence services or that the warnings were not fully investigated, maybe to try to hide that there was any warning at all. How immoral would you say that was?

raveneye

Regardless of what he said or did any time in the past, he is still correct in saying it is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Of course, the U.S. is certainly not innocent in this regard, either.

And since the subject of the thread is the elections, let me repeat. Our soldiers are Americans, not Iraqis. Americans should not be dying so that Iraqis can have an election. No matter what the outcome of the election is, that fundamental fact is still true.

roachboy

i am looking at oranges waiting for them to turn to apples.

i am thinking about the criticisms of the bush rationale for war and wondering at what point, by what means, the problems that attend that will turn into the question of "elections".


conservatives seem to have become alchemists.
everything can be turned into everything else.
so at the level of argument, there can be no non sequitors.
which explains much about their logic, here and elsewhere.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Seaver

OOOOOH, I see.

So it's ok for me to bet $10k on the Super Bowl, lose, and then go back saying I really supported the other guy and deserve my money back?

Hindsight is 20/20. He cant support it, agree Saddam needs to be gotten rid of, agree'd there were WMD's. Then turn around when the political winds shift and say how wrong it is. Doesnt work like that.

jimbob

Tony Blair also likes to act on dodgy intelligence.

When a majority of the British people were against the war we were told through the press that Saddam could strike at us within 45 minutes. This became one of the main influences in bringing opinion round in favour of war. The story was obviously passed to the media by the government but it later turned out that it was actually 'British interests' that could be hit - army barracks on Cyprus were suggested. This got much less attention that the original 45-minutes-from-oblivion type of headline so opinion wasn't swung back. Shortly before the war started we learned that the furthest any of Saddam's weapons could reach was about 2 miles further than UN restrictions (about 90 miles), and that was only when you remove the guidance systems to make them lighter! I didn't hear any comment about what interests we had within 92 miles of Iraq's weapons bases. In the middle of all this was the David Kelly affair and resignations at the BBC for reporting that the 45 minute claim was false and was inserted at the request of Tony Blair himself.

Eventually the 45 minute claim was dropped by the government's Joint Intelligence Committee and it emerged that the intelligence so much had been made of came from an Iraqi exile living in South London. This leads us back to the topic of the elections because his name was Iyad Allawi! Funny how it all worked out so well for him. Maybe the original headlines should have been 'Asylum seeker lies to government, gets given his own country to run.'

jimbob

You'd be wrong to infer that you could do that. What you would be able to do is to bet on one team, lose your money and later say that the other team was the best. I for one would respect you for it.

tecoyah

I have to wonder (actually it is quite obvious) how this discussion of a possible correct action by Bush, has become a discussion of incorrect actions by Kerry. Is it possible that certain individuals have resorted to defending held positions by attacking opposition .......of course not, that would be relatively ignorant.
I am pretty Sure Kerry lost the last Election, and the person under discussion here was victorious, thus the focus on HIM and his descisions.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

roachboy

it is alchemy, tecoyah.
this is how it works.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

djtestudo

Some people seem to be mistaking "credible" information for "correct" information.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Bodyhammer86

This is a myth, we didn't put Saddam in power and the US comprised only 1% in the way of arms shipments.

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstr...PRTS_73-03.pdf

__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

jimbob

I know you didn't, that's why I didn't say it, but he was the CIA's man in the Ba'ath party. Check 1963 (he bodged the assassination!): http://theinsurgent.net/index.php?vo...ticle=usterror

Willravel

The point is that one day does not make all the lives lost worth it. What might make them worth it is a government in Iraq showing compassion to all ethnic and religious groups (that means you too, sunnis). What might make this worth it is for the new Iraqi government becoming it's own country, free from America in every way. What Might make this worth it is Iraq becoming a beacon for peace, and an example to all the other regimes in the area. What might make it worth it is for Iraq to lead by example, but not to incite bloody rebellions in the Middle East.

The anti-war movement was not wrong. Actually, an anti-war movement is rarely wrong. What would have happened if the anti war movement stopped Vietnam? Korea? Panama? We are better off without war. The only time we should see war happen is if it is the absolute last resort. There were better ways to go about removing Saddam from power, ways that would kill no innocent civilians or brave soldiers.

stevo

No matter what good comes out of Iraq, it matters not to the liberals. What matters to them and the haters of George W Bush is that he is wrong. Even if it means life for the iraqis is horrible, just as long as bush was wrong. Any good news from Iraq is bad news for them. What DID John Kerry say after the iraqis turned out in large numbers? "It is hard to say that something is legitimate when whole portions of the country can't vote and doesn't vote." Yeah, while in actuality... For the months preceeding this election I was posting on this board that iraqis would turn out in large numbers, that they would not be pushed around by the terrorists. And that is what happened.

All the libs can say is "no matter what the outcome it is still wrong wrong wrong. bush lied." Get over it. He didn't lie, he was misinformed on a few issues. WMD's were not the sole reason we went war anyway, there were many more reasons, and all you can do is cling on to the one thing that was not entirely accurate.

And another thing. Yes, yes the anti-war movement was wrong. It always has been. Don't you know that the anti-war movement that began in the 1960's was an idea introduced to the counter-culture from the KGB? Of course you didn't. But it was. the anti-war movement is/was nothing more than a communist weapon against America. That by infultrating the hearts and minds of the american people America might loose the vietnam war. And guess what happened.

roachboy

this is the funniest thing i have seen in a long time.
i would say thanks if i could convince myself that you were joking.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

ok here's a quickie, but not the only source

http://www.grecoreport.com/the_hidde...ce_rallies.htm

let me know if you need more...in fact when you are done here, why don't you just google: anti-war + communist agenda

roachboy

i knew about this "information" and ANSWER.
and the backstory.
dont worry: that is one reason i found your post so funny.

there are obviously problems with your version of history:
you might start by actually think about the assymetry between a group like answer and the size of the movement against bushwar, but i doubt you will. redbaiting always has a willing audience here in the shangri-la of free speech.
and that is funny too.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

Or you could just go on and ignore what the article has to say. Thats always the perfect liberal response.

Yakk

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

If, as predicted by Bush, the US goes into Iraq, makes short work of the defenders, finds WMD, is greeted with flowers falling from the sky and an outpouring of Iraqi love, builds a successful democracy in Iraq that acts as a beacon, causing other middle eastern states to reform and become bastions of freedom, and along the way prevents terrorism.... then I'd even forgive Bush for Ashcroft.

As yet:
Short work of defenders: CHECK
Flowers: Nope
WMD: Nope
Successful Democracy: Nope
Wave of Reform: Nope
Terrorism become a small annoyance: Nope

He's batting 167. I'll keep you posted.

(the above list is from memory: it may have contained more or less points).

As for stevo, well, at some level, I don't trust articles relayed to me embedded in a white-supremacy editorial. The amount of slant I'd assume would be huge.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

jorgelito

You know, things are not absolute. Bush could be right about this one thing but wrong about others. Everyone seems to be placing all their eggs in one basket.

Even in this case:

A democratic and free Iraq = Good thing BUT...
WMD - no
Threat to US - no
Remove Saddam - yes
You have to separate the issues when analyzing them and put them in their proper context. Haphazardly matching results with intentions is sloppy at best.

It is definitely a good thing that the election went "well". However, that is not the reason why we went there in the first place. Elections are sort of a happy side-effect or afterthought to an invasion gone wrong.

Anyways, we need to give any given policy time to guage its effectiveness.

Willravel

I don't know about you guys, but when I protest something like a war, the last thing on my mind is the KGB or black/white race relations. John Perazzo was good to point out some flaws in the equality movement (read "The Myths That Divide Us" to understand what I'm talking about), but he does not speak on behalf of all people. War protests have been going on since before America, or the KGB, existed.

You also probably shouldn't blindly bash liberals (or conservatives, to cover all of our bases), as it doesn't make sense. Liberals and conservatives each have a wide group of opinions and beliefs within their systems. Most people would think I am a liberal, but I'm not. I'm a conservative libertarian. I am the modern equivalent to what a republican was 50 years ago.

stevo, what you probably don't realize is that you could very well be a liberal yourself! Following Bush does not necessarily make you a conservative. There isn't a certain definition for the word anymore -- some people think "conservative = republican"; some people think "conservative = opposing change"; some people think "conservative = moderate". Likewise, liberal has different meanings to different people. Both terms can represent positive or negative connotations. Responses like "Or you could just go on and ignore what the article has to say. That[']s always the perfect liberal response." are simply falling into something called a stereotype. A stereotype is a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image. What that means is that your statement assumes that all the people in the liberal group ignores your articles as an automatic response. Actually, I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives that would be willing to dismiss an article based on many reasons. I'm sure there are people who didn't read it simply because it was long and looked tedious. Still others may have been offended or put off by you in the past, and chose to ignore it based on that. These are just two of a multitude of examples. I read the article. roachboy clearly read the article. While some stereotypes are founded partially in fact, they are unreliable. I'm sure at least one liberal would be willing to agree with your article.

I hope that helped you out.

Seaver

Lets see here.

South Korea would be starving and eating their dead to survive instead of being one of the most technologically advanced in the world.

Panama would have been a drug production zone that would make Columbia's output comparable to Israel's oil output.

Vietnam would have falled much easier to the Communists, the exact same massacres would have occured that happened after we left. It would have spread to the entirety of Indo-China and Pol Pot would have been one among many who massacred millions.

Lets move past that. What would have happened if we didnt stop Saddam in the first place? Kuwait? why not Saudi Arabia? Why not move into Syria and merge the two Ba'athist governments? Why not move into Jordan? Why not assemble the multiple armies and march into Israel and finally finish off the Zionists?

We are better off without war when the world is run by good men. It's not, so war is nessisary.

KMA-628

This story is being linked on Drudge and I thought it fitting to be added here

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

I'm not really saying either way, but I thought it at least contributed to the discussion.

The_wall

I feel like the lives lost in this war already make it a complete disaster. Though many claim we saved more lives by removing sadam, we sacrificed over 1000 of our guys to do so, which I don't agree with.

__________________
"We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk

Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

raveneye

The only thing that could have happened that would make me concede that Bush was right is the discovery of a functional nuclear weapons lab. That essentially was the reason for the invasion. Without the overhyped threat of a "mushroom cloud" I don't think it ever would have happened.

But there never was such a lab, and we have now given up and called off the search.

So that leaves me asking: what did those 1438 U.S. soldiers die for? Why did we spend over $152 billion and counting?

For an election with a high turnout?

Willravel

Oh boy. The same was said of China after WWII, but they are now the ones loaning America money. I say absolutely not to the starving theory. I'll bet that a lot less people would have died, they would have gone through the movements (same as China), and came out the other end as a unified country under the rule of a semi-communist government.

Not really. Drug production in '89 was on a steep drop because of the efforts of Noriega. Despite the fact that he was facing assassination attempts and coups incited by foreign governments, drug production actually was on the drop. That was right before the deaths of the 4,000 Panamanians at American hands.

Oy. Let's look back, shall we? This story really started way back in 1914, when England helped a small tribe free Kuwait city from the Ottoman Empire, and so under the protection of England the small country of Kuwait was born. During the next 47 years England protected the small kingdom as the Ottoman empire fell apart and became the mess we now know as the middle east. After England released Kuwait from it's protection, Iraq claimed that the territory was traditionally part of Iraq. World powers disagreed and the small kingdom, now very oil wealthy persisted.

Meanwhile, an evil dictator named Saddam Hussein rose to power in Iraq. Under Saddam Iraq became quite wealthy, mostly because in the 70's he continued to sell the USA oil, when the rest of the Arab world had an embargo against the USA. He took this money and brought electricity to the masses. He built schools, and hospitals and opened them to everyone. He also bought a lot of guns and weapons of mass destruction from the USA and from Russia and in the eighties waged war against Iran. In July of 1990 Saddam accused Kuwait of drawing oil from Iranian reserves by placing oil wells too close to their border. The United States and the UN declared this to be an arab problem and chose not to intervene. The evil Saddam decided after checking with his CIA connections who assured him that the US would not intervene*, to once again lay claim to the land known as Kuwait and in a six day nearly bloodless coop took over the small country. (Jan 1991) Six months later a UN coalition attacked the former Kuwait and after a six week battle liberated Kuwait and reestablished the kingdom. 3/3/91 Iraq signed a cease fire and the United States promised ten years protection of Kuwait. A DMZ and no fly zone was established near the southern border. 6/27/91 Claiming to have uncovered a plot to assassinate President Bush, the US resumes bombing of Iraq. 9/2/96 After being caught with his pants down in the oval office President Clinton expands the no fly zones to cover more than half the country and resumes bombing again, on the premise that Iraq is not cooperating with the UN weapon inspections . 11/21/97 Kuwait claims that US interventions are slowing the peace process and are no longer welcome. 12/16/98 US again attacks Iraq, claiming again that they have not and are not cooperating with the UN weapon inspections.


*Qasim, the Iraqi leader preceding Saddam: took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He was assassinated. Qasim was overthrown by the Baath party (with something like 9 tanks, and 850 members at the time). It is quite likely that the US was responsible for the assignation. "We came to power on a CIA train," is a direct quote from Ali Saleh Sa'adi, the Baath Party secretary general who was about to institute an unprecedented reign of terror. (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg01267.html)

The Ba'athist coup, resulted in the return to Iraq of young fellow-Ba'athist Saddam Hussein, who had fled to Egypt after his earlier abortive attempt to assassinate Qasim. Saddam was immediately assigned to head the Al-Jihaz al-Khas, the clandestine Ba'athist Intelligence organization. As such, he was soon involved in the killing of some 5,000 communists. Saddam's rise to power had, ironically, begun on the back of a CIA-engineered coup. (http://www.spectrezine.org/war/Mendes.htm)

Also check out
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm
http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/cia276...olitics_03.htm
http://www.speakeasy.org/wfp/37/american.html
http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/pfvs/.../msg01736.html