No thank you. I am merely asserting that there may be a middle ground.
No disappointment. I was just asking.
How would you tell?
Yes, but this was not the question in the OP. It was more along the lines of what else would Bush have to do to convince you to vote for someone else.
Are you saying that there is no Al-Quaeada fighters there now? Are you asserting that the philosophy of AQ is irrelevent to the current situation?
Well, there is certainly a single umbrella under which they can be encompassed. Surely you can see that they both belong to a sort of “Islamic Militant” demographic. Although there may be more of these two things which are not like the other, surely you can acknowledge that they are not exclusively distinct. Within certain contexts certainly they are unique issues. But within other contexts, surely you can see similarities.
Don’t you mean that no such link existed before the war?
You say it’s bizarre to contend that some people want to keep the perpetrator of said “mistakes”. If you are NOT contending that Bush made no mistakes, then why did you put “mistakes” in quotes like that, as if to say they weren’t mistakes?
There are only 5 possibilities:
You believe Bush made mistakes, but will vote to keep him.
You believe Bush didn’t make any mistakes, and will vote to keep him.
You believe Bush made mistakes, but will vote against him.
You believe Bush didn’t make any mistakes, but will vote against him anyway. (I think we can rule this one out.)
You won’t be voting in this election at all.
So assuming you vote for Bush, you must either contend that he didn’t make any mistakes, or you must admit that you want to “keep the perpetrator of said mistakes”. Those are the only 2 logical possibilities, yet you deny them both.
And if you’re NOT voting for Bush, then this whole debate is moot.
I’m not the one who used that term. However, do you not fall under the category of “those who think Bush made mistakes and will still vote for him”?
I didn’t say there was a general uprising. I said there is a “serious counter-insurgency”. Surely you aren’t arguing with that?
I disagree. When asked that question in his press conference, Bush was clearly stymied. He had no answer.
I think I see now why you don’t like the plan. If you think this is just about painting letters on helmets, you obviously don’t understand the issue at all.
He’s not doing it AT ALL. But for the sake of argument, let’s say you’re right, and he’s just not doing it as fast. I STILL would want a guy in office who is going to get it done faster.
This is what I like to call “attack by adjective”. You take your opponent’s position and simply add unfavorable words like “bizarre”, “conspiracy”, and “rhetoric”, substituting that for any kind of cogent argument.
This is getting truly bizarre. Now you’re criticizing Kerry for NOT calling for Bush to be tried for war crimes? Give me a break - if Kerry said anything like that, you’d be whining your ass off.
You mean like this?: "The US should immediately seek a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a mission with responsibility for the transition and elections."
(from Kerry’s website)
You mean like this?: "We should send a high-level mission to consult with our NATO partners to encourage their participation and get other countries to participate so that American soldiers and the American people are not bearing nearly all the burden and all the risk."
When he says “Our NATO partners”, he probably assumes that you either are aware of which countries they are, or that you are capable of looking it up. If you’re expecting him to furnish a list of all the countries that have already agreed to furnish troops, I have to point out that Kerry isn’t president yet. I don’t know if you’re aware, but the person who actually is president gets to negotiate with other heads of state. The challenging candidate does not.
Yeah, that’s really odd how our CURRENT PRESIDENT who got us into the war and maintains that June 30th is a hard deadline, doesn’t even know who’s going to take over, and how Kerry, who isn’t the current president, and isn’t privy to all the information and decision-making that THE PRESIDENT is supposed to be, wouldn’t be able to furnish the exact same details.:rolleyes:
pervert:Surely you can see that they both belong to a sort of “Islamic Militant” demographic.
Huh? Bin Laden is certainly an Islamic militant, but Saddam Hussein? He’s Muslim, but his regime was in no way Islamist—rather, the Ba’ath Party is hardline secularist. Heck, Saddam’s Vice-Prez was a Christian, something unheard of in Islamist polities.
And I don’t think it’s quite accurate to call Hussein a “militant”, even. He was a power-hungry brutal dictator, for sure, but he wasn’t about fomenting any uprisings or rebellions or encouraging militant Islam in general. He had no real interest in promoting “Muslim power” or power for anybody but himself.
Saying that al-Qaeda and Saddam’s Ba’athist regime somehow belong to the same “demographic” is a bit akin to saying that, say, John Ashcroft and Jimmy Carter fall under the same ideological umbrella because they’re both Christian activists. Quite a stretch.
Well, I’m not sure this is a useful distinction. He wanted power for himself and he used militant islamic sentiments amongst his own people and those in other nations to get it. Are you sure that that last sentence cannot be applied to both individuals?
Please try not to go too far. I am not saying anything as radical as you are accusing me ov.
I was only trying to suggest that the mistakes might not be mistakes. For the sake of this discussion, a question was asked assuming things not in evidence here. More problematic, the question was asked assuming that many Republicans who support Bush agree that the mistakes are proven, but support him anyway. My only point in making the statement you quoted was to call this assumption into question.
No.
That the insurgency is serious I don’t contend with. That this seriousness rises to the level the Kerry seems to imply from time to time, I do contend with.
Which in and of itself does not mean that there is “nobody”. It may mean he can’t say. It may mean that the final structure of the body is not finished. Use you logical skills and think up the rest of the possibilities. You did a good job with the possibilities for Bush supporters.
Cool! Please cure me of my ignorance. If the UN is more engaged in Iraq, what will the actual consequences vis a vie troop composition be? Is it your contention that large percentages of American troops will be withdrawn and replaced with Canadian, Nato, Russian, who? I don’t need a guarantee, just an opinion that makes sense. If you think that involving the UN will amount to substantially more than initials on helmets, let me know what it will be.
That’s not true. There are UN officials there at his request doing some of the work that need to be done.
Which is totally cool. But then I would expect that the rhetoric about the war would be toned down a little bit. If all you want to do is speed up the current policies why do you call those policies crimes. If all you want to do is modify the troop composition or increase it a little one way or another, why do you call the situation a quagmire?
I’m sorry, I was refering to the suposition that I heard about this weekend. Apperently there is a rumor floating around that Bush conspired with the Saudis to fix oil prices just before the election.
No, No, No. Do try to follow. I am criticizing Kerry for not living up to his rhetoric. If he wishes to imply that the invasion of Iraq was criminal then he should call for prosecution of those who committed the crime. If not, then he should tone down his rhetoric. Does that really not make sense to you?
No. I meant that if he really thought the invation was a break with internation law, perhaps he should call (or promise that he will call) for a resolution condeming the invasion. Perhaps he could include language clarifying the No Preemptive war policy he supports.
No. Replacing American troops with Nato troops would amount to replacing American troops with American troops in a different uniform. Unless you have an idea which country might be willing to pony up a couple hundred thousand troops. Not a firm commitment, of course, just an opinion.
Again, I’m not asking for firm details. You keep saying this. It is not true. All I am asking for is either a reduction in the rhetoric or an increase in the radical nature of the proposals to solve the problems raised. That is, if the current policies are so wrong, I’d expect more significant differences in Kerry’s proposals to replace them.
Even that is overstating it a little I am really not asking Kerry to do anything. I am just pointing out that powerful rhetoric is empty if it does not call for significant changes in policy. I should note also, that I do not think Kerry is the only one guilty of this. It seems to be a disease of our current politicians that every issue has to be the “issue of the century” as it were. Nothing is a simple difference of opinion. It can’t be because we are so apathetic that we don’t vote if there is not some great danger to be saved from. The Bush camp’s claims of waffling against Kerry are akin to the sort of thing I am talking about here.
Would you vote for him, or would you simply disbelieve in the sincerity of his conversion and vote for Kerry or Nader anyway?
The difference for me would be, even if Kerry began espousing reasonable conservative positions, I would believe his record rather than his protests. And so I would still not vote for him.
I suppose if it were Lieberman or someone similar who was running, it might be different, but it would tend too much to be an election-year ploy by someone behind in the polls in the case of Kerry. Especially with his inconsistent record of flip-flops.
Well, I do tend to believe that lying is lying, especially under oath. I am not aware of any instance in which Bush lied under oath, so in legal terms, there is really no comparison between Bush and Clinton. And in moral terms, Clinton is clearly the more extensive liar.
But I meant to illustrate something beyond “Clinton is a liar”. You dismiss Clinton’s mistruths as insignificant. Thus, not only is his lying about adultery dismissed, but also his history of sexual harassment, misuse of the office, etc., etc.
I see Bush as acting in good faith thru out the Iraq invasion.
We are seeing the same set of facts, but thru different lenses. You see Clinton, and see a man who only lied about adultery. I see Clinton, and I see him lying about adultery, the budget, and practically every other subject under the sun. And I see him taking military action against Iraq, not because he much cared about the WMD he said they had, but to avoid impeachment. Certainly it is not a full scale invasion - more’s the pity. But those who died in the Clinton missile attacks are just as dead as those who died in the Bush invasion. And to less purpose - Clinton didn’t achieve much of anything at all with his missiles, while Bush demonstrated once and for all that Iraq and Saddam are no longer the threat everyone believed them to be.
You see Bush, and you see a man who lied about WMD. I see a man who clearly acted on a belief that was almost universally believed, and actually followed thru on a threat he believed to be real. And it is only because he acted that we know any more than we did when Clinton bombed Iraq, or Kerry or Albright or Hilary or Gore all spoke about the threat that Saddam posed.
Maybe I am more partisan than you. Even if Kerry were to begin to behave like a reasonable conservative, I would tend to disbelieve him.
But put it this way. In the absence of a “road to Damascus” experience by Kerry, there is really no reasonable alternative to Bush. Bush isn’t perfect, but he is better than any of the alternatives.
So maybe my answer to the OP is, that Bush would have to do a lot worse, and there would have to be someone out there who I think would do better. And, despite all the bashing, Bush is not doing as badly as the lefties would have us believe, and Kerry is still much worse.
Although thanks for your straightforward answer to the question.
A cite for Saddam using militant Islamist sentiment among Iraqis, please? He did try to play the Islam card against the West, feebly indeed. If you think Saddam was a militant Islamist, you need to explain the state of women in Iraq, who were no more oppressed than anyone else. Compare this to the state of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban, in Iran, and, yes, under our friends the Saudis.
Aside: it appears the Bush Republicans are becoming moral relativists. Lies aren’t lies when looked at a certain way. Or is it the same mindset that calls for yet another study about global warming, or that says that evolution is not actually proven yet? The argument is very much in line with what we hear from the White House, I have to give it that.
Well, here is a speech he gave to his people way back when. It certainly does seem to echo various militant islamist themes. Perhaps I am overgeneralizing. Would you not see anyone as a militant islamist unless they were an ordained Imam?
If I am really totally off the wall here, could you please provide me with a useful definition of militant islamist that might not include Saddam? I’m willing to be wrong, but it seems to me that Saddam had turned Iraq into a militant organization aligned with other islamic militant organizations. Perhaps they were not closely tied to all such organizations. Perhaps his professions of islamic faith were not genuine (although I also doubt those same professions from OBL). But saying that he was something very similar does not seem at all far fetched to me.
Doesn’t seem all that different from an American President who called upon God before a battle - and it wouldn’t make that president a militant Christian. The text seems far less militantly Islamic than I was expecting, to tell you the truth.
The very first thing I’d expect from a militantly Islamic leader of a country is the institution of Islamic Law, something Saddam definitely did not do. They would then support Islamic groups in other, more secular countries to try to form more Islamic states. Would you, for instance, consider Assad of Syria as an Islamic militant? He’s probably the closest analog to Hussein.
But doesn’t this presume some sort of true devotion?
Or perhaps rhetorically or actually fight islamic countires because they are not enough or of the right kind of islamist?
I’m not sure. He does seem to support Islamist organizations in Lebbenon I think. But maybe that was his father?
Let me be clear. I’m not claiming that Saddam is identical to Ossama Bin Laden. I am merely trying to suggest that the proposition that they are in some ways similar is not ridiculous.
I’d make the distinction between a Islamic militant and Islamic activist this way. A militant is someone who uses the Islamic rhetoric, quotes from the quran, Islamic practices or other aspects of muslim culture to aquire power over others specifically in an attempt to commit violence against those who cannot be controled. An activist is somone who supports or promotes that culture or those practices because he honestly believes they are a better way to live (or at least that they are God’s will for how people should live). Specifically, a militant does not necessarily follow any of the rules he sets for his people. Remember the technology found in the homes of the Taliban leaders which was forbidden to Afghanistan’s citizens? They were militants. Some aspects of each may overlap making it hard to distinguish.
I think your definition cannot be used to distinguish between Islamic charities, for instance, and terrorist organizations.
As I was listening to various news programs this evening, another thought struck me. It could also be that Kerry could take the other tack. He could say that the war was a mistake, but were in it now so we have to make doubly sure we will win it. He could then support serious increases in troop strength. I’m not sure that would please his peacnik supporters, but it might be the sort of significant policy shift I was talking about in the last couple posts.
I’m not ready to say that it would be enough to sway my vote, but it does seem to be more reasonable than simply saying we shouldn’t be there at all but I’m going to keep us there at about the same troop strength for the forseable future.
BTW, In the “Is Bush Really in Charge” thread, I did identify a notion that might make me change sides. It was asserted that Bush believes in Creation Science. IF such a thing could be adequately proven it might be enough.
Okay, I have recuperated from my lost-message rage, and I’ll try again…
How’re ya doin’?
Maybe I’m going to surprise you here, but I agree with everything you said. If Tenet actually said that to Bush (and there were, apparently, lots of witnesses and Woodward swears by it), then Tenet’s head should roll. That he’s still on the team is an indictment of Tenet AND Bush. Bush is ultimately responsible, and if he had sunshine blown up his ass by his CIA director over an issue as critical as war, it’s his responsibility to get rid of the man. So why hasn’t he? The cynical (and accurate) answer would be because he doesn’t want another Richard Clarke-ish loose cannon running around with a grudge right before the election. If there’s going to be a house cleaning, it’s going to come after Nov. 2.
But not firing Tenet is not exactly a fatal error, because it’s somewhat understandable from a political perspective. If Bush fired Tenet now, you know that Kerry would be running around saying Bush is looking for scapegoats. It would look like the administration is panicking.
And where did I say that? I said that Bush made reasonable decisions given the intelligence he was presented. That the intelligence was wrong is not really in question now, is it? The important question is how everyone got it wrong. And I mean everyone. France, Germany, Britain, the U.S., Australia… Even Jordan’s intelligence service thought Saddam had WMD. And given that Syria and Libya both have advanced WMD programs, it’s quite surprising that none was found in Iraq, don’t you think?
It was reasonable to believe that Iraq had WMD. That they apparently didn’t is confusing, and a lot of people are still scratching their heads over that.
But there is still a possibility that WMD will be found. Did you hear about that explosion in Fallujah today? Do you know what it was? The Iraq Survey Group (which is still very active in the WMD hunt) had pinpointed a suspected WMD site, and they sent a team in to check it out. When they arrived, the building blew up. Perhaps booby-trapped.
And Jordan just foiled a massive chemical attack. The people they caught said the plan was hatched in Iraq by Abu al-Zarqawi. The terrorists were caught with several tons of sulfur dioxide and ‘other chemicals’, and no one seems to know where it came from, other than that it came through Syria.
But certainly, no WMD were found on the scale that the U.S. presented, so the intelligence was wrong even some amounts of WMD are found. This requires an investigation. I would support a bi-partisan investigation into the intelligence failures that preceded the war. But that investigation has to take place after the election (and not because I’m protecting Bush, but because it would turn into a useless mud-slinging contest if it were held now).
First of all, you’ve been doing an admirable job of keeping this civil, which is why I’m taking the time to give you serious responses. Don’t blow it with cheap shots like saying I’ve ‘stolen talking points from the monkey fist collective’. Continuing…
From what I can tell, Juan Cole is full of it. I have not seen anyone else claim that Sadr’s support was greater than a small minority.
Here’s another ABC Poll, this one focuses on Shiites. I’ll discuss more of it later, but note this paragraph:
al-Sadr is widely seen as being the leader most supported by Iran, and his uprising appears to have been funded in part from Iran. There is VERY little support for this in Iraq. al-Sadr’s support has grown a bit since the uprising, as those who oppose the U.S. cheer him on. But this support still isn’t above 20%, and it’s very shallow - the minute the uprising ends, he’s going to lose a lot of this temporary support.
And I flat-out disagree. The Shiite uprising is almost completely contained within the small group of al-Sadr’s followers. He may also be getting help from Iran (hence his embracing of Hezbollah). The Sunni uprising is a mix of ex-regime dead-enders and foreign terrorists from Syria and elsewhere. Neither of these is a ‘popular uprising’. It is what Abu al-Zarqawi said he wanted - an attempt to stir up trouble between Sunnis and Shiites at the same time, in hopes of causing chaos or a civil war before the handover of power. As Zarqawi himself said, the forces trying to tear apart Iraq are facing a clock that is running out, because once Iraqis begin governing themselves further attacks will be seen as attacks against Iraqis rather than against an occupying power. I predicted this violence several months ago when Zarqawi’s letter surfaced (and was of course ridiculed for that), and I predict now that the violence will continue to get worse between now and June 30. After that, it depends on how the handover goes and how it is perceived within Iraq.
From the ABC Poll:
Got that? Only 12% of Shiites say attacks against the coalition are acceptable. That’s an awfully small number if 50% of Shiites are following al-Sadr. In fact, that 12% probably represents al-Sadr’s current followers - and no one else.
This is indeed a concern in the future. Currently, there have been signs of cooperation in two ways - cooperation in working together agaist the U.S., and cooperation to show solidarity in opposition to the attacks. if things aren’t handled properly, this could become a problem.
Aw, I’ll give you a cite anyway, just because I’m feeling nice. From the same poll:
**What Iraq Needs At This Time**
Shiite Arabs Sunni Arabs
An Iraqi Democracy 91% 76%
Single Strong Leader 83 85
A Government Mainly of Religious Leaders 69 44
A Government Made Up of Experts 66 65
**Preferred System of Government**
Shiite Arabs Sunni Arabs
Democracy 40% 35%
Islamic State 26 15
Single Strong Leader 23 35
It’s clear that the Sunnis and Shiites want a democratic, non-theocratic state. And of course, if you throw Kurds into the mix the result skews WAY towards a secular democracy. I’d say there is virtually no chance of a fair election causing Iraq to choose an Islamic state.
See the above poll. Only 12% think violence against the coalition is acceptable. Of that 12%, only a certain number will be actually willing to pick up arms. And that ‘fanatic support for al-Sadr’ would be about 1%, not 20%. Let’s not exaggerate the problem.
Apparently a VERY small sub-group. See previous poll. The Kurdish North is peaceful, rapidly improving, and VERY friendly to the United States. The Kurds maintain their Peshmerga militias primarily in fear of a Shiite or Sunni government that might seek to oppress them again. NOT because they want to violently break away from Iraq. An overwhelming percentage of Kurds say they want to stay part of Iraq. Again, don’t exaggerate the problem.
They did? Wasn’t the Iraq Governing Council’s makeup an attempt to prevent exactly such problems? Your leap from, “there are potential problems” to “these problems have been ignored” is not warranted. The CPA is trying. They know what the problems are. They’ve made a bunch of mistakes. But they’ve also gotten an awful lot right. By focusing only on the mistakes or problems left unsolved it’s easy to paint a picture of gross negligence. A more reasonable point of view is that they are trying, and the results to date are a mixed bag. Some mistakes seem pretty obvious in hindsight, such as disbanding the army and instantly creating several hundred thousand enemies. De-ba-athification was taken too far, etc. The thing is, the successes are quiet and fly under the radar. The failures stand out.
The thing is, your side applied a ‘shotgun’ approach to detailing problems. If you list every potential problem, you’re bound to get some right. But shall we go back and look at all the disasters your side predicted that DIDN’T happen? You know, like the mass famines, the invasion by Turkey, the oil fields on fire, ecological disaster from Saddam blowing the dams and flooding vast swaths of land, the siege of Baghdad, WMD being used against the troops (your side believed in them too - when it was convenient to do so), riots on the ‘Arab Street’, etc. None of THOSE came to pass, did they?
And if you’ll go back and look at the conversations then, I was quite realistic about the problems facing the occupation. I said the most troubling thing for me about the war was that I was not convinced the government could handle the reconstruction. As a small-l libertarian, I am very suspicious of grand government plans - they usually fail. I thought that the risk was worth it. Apparently, the Iraqis thought so too.
As I understand it, the plan is: Between now and June 30 establish a legitimate authority to which control can be handed over. Bush has enlisted al-Brahimi in that effort, among others. After June 30, a provisional authority will begin organizing and planning for an election in January of 2005. This will require a census among other things. During this period, the U.S. will be actively working to restore order - including, it looks like, an increase in the number of soldiers. The plan to turn over security to Iraqi forces has been set back after mass defections during the latest violence. Therefore, the government is learning from their mistake and bringing back some qualified Ba’ath officials and ranking officers (the ones who can not be tied to atrocities and appear to have been just doing their jobs during the Saddam era). This carries a risk of its own, but may be necessary. Anyway, the Iraqi officers are being re-trained, and they are starting joint patrols so they can learn on the job. This is going to take a lot of time, and requires an Iraqi command structure strong enough to control the police and security forces.
Over time, more and more security will be handed over to Iraqis. Hopefully, after the January elections a legitimate government will arise, backed by the people. This government will be given sovereign control, with the proviso that the U.S. be allowed to maintain enough forces in Iraq to keep security and secure the borders (exactly as was done with Japan and Germany).
That’s the plan. It may change as events on the ground unfold, but for now it’s pretty clear.
What was Kerry’s again?
I worry about it too. Anyone who thinks a peaceful Iraq is a fait accompli is selling something. Where we differ is in our perception of what’s going on there now. As I’ve been citing, the current uprisings have almost no popular support. Nor does al-Sadr. And most especially, the insurgents in Fallujah. As I understand it, Fallujah has always been a trouble spot. Saddam recruited many of his henchmen from there, and it is seen by Iraqis as being a last holdout of the old regime. There are a lot of Iraqis who are mad not because of attacks in Fallujah, but because the U.S. hasn’t use more force in getting control back. But the situation is very volatile, and it wouldn’t take too many screwups before you see those currently small numbers grow dramatically. So your fears are not unfounded.
I’ll admit that ‘hated by all Iraqis’ is a bit of hyperbole. But certainly many opponents of the war have a highly distorted impression of what the average Iraqi thinks of the United States. As I’ve shown, support is actually quite high.
I posted the results of the recent poll which shows that even today, a year after the regime fell, and even amidst all the current violence, the largest group of Iraqis polled still believe it was a war of liberation. Do you doubt that the number was higher immediately after? Do you not remember the cheering when Saddam’s statue fell? Or the images of people running alongside the tanks shouting, “Bush! Bush!” I would say that on the eve of war at least 90% of the population felt that they were being liberated.
But I just showed you poll results that show that nearly 50% of Iraqis STILL support the invasion. And if you took out the Sunnis who lost power and resent it, the rest of the country still overwhelmingly supports the invasion (Kurds - 87%. Southern Shiites: 56% Other Shiites: 46%). Bear in mind that this poll was taken during perhaps the worst period since the war for the Shiites. If you’d taken a poll immediately after the war, the numbers in the south would be much higher. Remember the reception the Brits got when they rolled into some of the southern Shiite cities? “Flowers and candy” was about it.
Being greeted as liberators does not imply eternal undying love for a continuing occupation. No one wants to be occupied. Arabs are especially unlikely to tolerate what they see as subjugation. Kind of like Americans, no?
The tension you see now has two components - one is the calculated attempt to sow chaos by terrorists and ex-regime members who hope to occupy a power vacuum if they can get the U.S. to go home. This is also al-Sadr’s plan (that, or just a rise in status by being the one to stick a finger in the CPA’s eye). The other is an entirely understandable slow rise of tension due to being occupied. The real danger is where those two forces intersect. The insurgents threaten Iraqis and slow the progress that would make them feel more comfortable with occupation. In turn, the rising discontent will eventually feed the insurgency (although that has not happened yet). This is why the June 30 day MUST stay firm - even if it’s a very limited handover of power to an interim government, it’s a sign that things are progressing. Pushing that date off would play into the hands of those who are claiming that the U.S. intends to occupy Iraq permanently. If something doesn’t happen on June 30 I predict riots and a rise in status of the insurgents.
As long as the government abides by a constitution that recognizes basic human rights, including the rights of women, then I would let them form whatever government they want. Obviously, a secular government is the desired outcome, but I predicted before the war that there was little support for an Islamic state, and I was right. Iraqis are educated, relatively sophisticated, and have a history of secular government.
Why do you consider Juan Cole an expert? His 30% ‘low’ number is still a gross exaggeration. Methinks this is just partisan spin.
Precisely why he doesn’t have much support. Well, that and because he is considered to be a young hothead who is using his Father’s name to attain a standing he does not deserve. Not only does he lack support, but there is a large amount of disdain for him among many Shiites.
I’ll have to get back to you on this one. This is a tough thing to google for to get exact cites.
I’m also going to pass over a bunch more exposition on the nature of the uprising. I’ve said enough on that.
I was speaking of Iraq. America’s worst enemy in the region, now America’s friend. Libya has also moved out of the ‘enemy’ column, although I wouldn’t exactly call it an ally. And if Iraq can be stabilized, I think you’ll see a huge thaw in relations with Jordan. Syria and Iran are royally pissed right now, but on the other hand they are also feeling a lot of new pressure. Syria in particular has been facing revolts amongst the Syrian Kurds, and surprisingly responded not with a bloodbath but by actually listening to their demands. But certainly the U.S. is in a much better position to influence Syria now than it would have been had Saddam still been in the game. And with Syria goes Lebanon. No one said that this was going to happen overnight, but I see Iraq as a beachhead. Not just in a military sense, but a cultural one.
But the facts are on my side. I refer you back to the polls we have been discussing. If 46% of all Iraqis think the war was a liberation today, do you not believe that the number was even higher on the day of the war?
That is a separate issue. You can be liberated and still be mad at your liberators for making some boneheaded mistakes. But it WAS a war of liberation. Go back and look at the tape of Saddam’s statue falling, and tell me that that wasn’t a scene of liberation. Go ask the Marsh Arabs. Or, as you say, the Kurds. The reason that 46% number is not much higher today is largely because of the Sunnis, but then they were the ones with all the power. When determining whether a war is one of liberation, you don’t count the people who you liberated the country FROM.
That’s because I don’t think the governing council is a mere puppet body. I think they felt the new holiday was an important part of separating Iraq from its vicious past and forming a new sense of national unity.
One thing that struck me about that poll - it’s a rather odd way to phrase the question, don’t you think? Is the choice really between liberation and humiliation? What do you suppose the numbers would have looked like if the question was, “Would you like Saddam back?” 95% no, perhaps?
Wow. What a non-sequitur.
See the poll I linked above. Southern Shiites: 56% war was right, 28% that it was wrong. Exactly a 2-1 margin.
The number I quoted for all Iraqis was 46%, which was the largest representative position. My statement was factually correct. I did not say a ‘majority’ of Iraqis, I said a plurality. For those who aren’t clear on the definition: In a polling or election with more than 2 choices, a plurality is defined as the choice that receives the largest number of votes, despite still being less than 50%.
See the poll I linked above.
And since 40% of Arabs are Sunni, they pull down the average for ‘Arabs’. As I said, if you take them out of the mix the picture changes dramatically. This is exactly my point.
Well, that’s one way to spin it. The other is that 49% considered it totally or somewhat right, while 39% felt it was totally or somewhat wrong. Still a plurality, no?
Hans Blix. Last week. Along with tons and tons of people against the war. I’m surprised you haven’t heard this point of view.
I’m not sure what your point is. I posted those very values. It’s not surprising that the lowest results would be in the greater Baghdad area - again, during the Saddam regime Baghdad got a disproportionate amount of resources and perks. A large number of highly paid regime officials lived there. Baghdad had most of the electrical power. Because Saddam lived there, it was maintained quite nicely and had beautiful green spaces and monuments. For those willing to toe the line and keep their mouths shut, Baghdad wasn’t too bad. But if you want to break the numbers down even further, check out how the people of Sadr City in Baghdad felt. As soon as you get away from the middle-class government workers and Ba’athists, things change rapidly.
Before we go any further, I’d like to point out that you have been unquestioning in your acceptance of data that portrays the war and occupation in a bad light, including outageous figures like 50% Shiite support for al-Sadr, based on nothing more than the word of a partisan like Juan Cole. But now you are engaged in parsing the positive data with a microscope, trying to deconstruct it away. While this may be a natural tendency for people on both sides of the issue (including myself), I just wanted to point it out. A little healthy introspection never hurt anyone.
Can I provide what I think is the answer? The answer is that you’re looking at it from the perspective of a rich westerner who doesn’t know what it’s like to be under the boot of a tyrant. My reading of the high percentage of people who say that ‘life is good’ despite what both you and I would consider to be extreme hardship is that the Iraqis view their current circumstances in relation to their lives under Saddam. When you are afraid to speak to strangers, when every knock at the door makes your heart jump with fear, when every family knows people who have vanished or been tortured and murdered in front of their loved ones, freedom must be a glorious thing. Just to be able to walk outside and speak your mind to a stranger would be liberating.
But also, standards of living ARE improving in Iraq, in some cases quite dramatically. Doctors, teachers, and other professionals have seen their wages rise ten-fold. Electricity throughout the country is now much more available than it was before the war. Fresh water is available in all areas, including some areas that NEVER had it. The shops are bursting with goods, automobiles are being imported into the country at a fantastic rate, satellite dishes and telephones are being purchased in huge quantities, and people can contact relatives outside the country for the first time in decades.
There is still a long way to go, but that 70% figure did NOT surprise me. I expected it.
No. Are you suggesting the results were rigged? I think my explanation above suffices.
Nothing worth doing comes easy. I never pretended the reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq was a fait accompli. Rather, I felt that it was the moral thing to do, and that the risks of failure were worth it, given the tremendous potential gains from a success.
And they wouldn’t think that if they thought their country was spiralling into civil war, or that they were about to be permanently occupied. That was my whole point.
It does tend to indicate what Iraqis think of the likelihood of a civil war. But I was also drawing on other data, such as the apparent reasonableness with which the Kurds and Arabs in the north are settling their differences. Remember that? That was another of the anti-war side’s potential disasters - Arabs displaced Kurds in the north in a number of areas, and it was assumed that there would be a bloodbath as the Kurds took their property back. But both sides seem to have been quite reasonable. The Kurds have also made significant overtures to the Shiites, and vice versa. And the governing council didn’t show a lot of internecine conflict, despite being made up of proportional members of all three areas. In fact, the much-feared civil war between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites seems to have completely fizzled so far. That’s not to say it couldn’t still happen, but if you’ve got your good/bad ledger book open, this one’s got to go in the ‘good’ column.
We’ll just have to disagree about this one. I see Democracy as a good thing, period. I also see it having a positive influence in the Middle East. I also see it being the creator of a powerful economy in an economically depressed region.
What a shame that after all this you had to end with a cheap shot.
Just this one point, Big Svin can have the easy stuff…
Overlooking the wonderland of misinformation contained in the phrase “your side”… these monstrosities were not remotely unlikely…except for the part about WMD’s being used against our troops, that is fundamentally impossible, consequent of non-existence. And again, the unfounded slur that “our side” believed them “when it was convenient”. Kindly reserve your mind-reading act to local access cable, OK?
A man who bets his ass, your ass, and mine on drawing one card to an inside straight is a fool. Even if he wins the pot, he’s still a fool. Things in Iraq aren’t going particularly well, they could have gone a lot worse.
And may yet, for that matter. It ain’t over till the fat lady is shot.
Althought I voted for Bush last time around, I am not a Bush Republican, so I will limit my comments here to posting the below excerpt from conservative Republican Scott Ritter. I keep hearing of an awfully lot of Republicans who are turning tail on Bush.
It would be nice if we had “real data” about a future event, wouldn’t it? I was responding to your speculation about how Iraqis would react to future terror attacks. My anecdotal cite was at least on par with your speculations, which were pure personal opinion.
I see I’m seconding this question, but just how much is “a LOT”. Let’s not forget that your original point was that this hopelessness lead to becoming a suicide bomber. Consider the number of the population of the “people of the middle east”, and then consider the number of suicide bombers to date, and then try to make your case on the basis of that percentage. A LOT???
I still think your perception of the “people of the middle east” is a bit naive, to say the least.
And this differs from Kerry’s stated postion how exactly? Read that MTP cite again (my cite - not your sound-bite edit).
Sam please. They ALL said it. I’d quote all 61 comments, but as a kindness to everyone who knows this already I’ll direct you to Iraq on the Record, the searchable database of the Bush admin.'s statements about Iraq. You wanna talk about frustrated???
Well, analogies are fun, but let’s say your “wasp” analogy might be flawed:
Let’s say we can liken terrorists to microbes: Kill the current host, and they will simply find another host to infect. Of course, while you are in the process of “killing the host”, the host is weakened, and thus subject to secondary infection, which might mutate into forms never before considered, and which you are unprepared to treat appropriately. Unfortunately, these microbes are highly contagious. In effect, your “cure” leads to a new strain of the disease, and a possible epidemic. Happens in medicine all the time…
What happens to your “rogue state/nest/primarily military” analogy then???
And how many nests can be removed, practically speaking? (Not forgetting that no nests have been “removed” thus far, and western miltary force is already streched beyond limit)
I won’t comment on that poll much, since Mr. Svinlesha has most succinctly done so, but I’d like you to note the date it was completed - before even the Basra attacks during the Shia holiday.
“Recent” is relative to acceleration of events. Polls change with changing circumstances. Remember when Bush had a 70+ approval rating?
Do you not remember how often this event has been debunked as media event/propaganda? How many Iraqis were in that square?
I didn’t “accuse” you of anything. If you believe I have misstated anything, please detail it. Don’t just say I’m “accusing you of radical things.” Let’s avoid vagueness, o.k.?
You were suggesting that the mistakes might not be mistakes, but later claimed that you never said Bush didn’t make any mistakes. There’s 2 sides to every issue, and you seem to be on both of them.
Well answer the question then. Do you think Bush has made any mistakes? Why are you tap-dancing around it?
All right. Then which is it? Do you think Bush didn’t make any mistakes, or are you not voting for him?
Well without you specifying what exactly it was that Kerry said, I have no way to answer that.
It’s “not finished” because the people who were supposed to take power bailed out. C’mon - you do read the papers, don’t you?
How can I know that before Kerry has had a chance to negotiate with our allies?
Bush is spouting just as much rhetoric as Kerry, if not more. That’s what you do when you campaign. Why do you hold Kerry to a higher standard than Bush? The war was a mistake, and Kerry needs to point that out. As far as I’m concerned, the point can’t be made too strongly.
What does that have to do with it?
Oh, I follow. If you can’t express your ideas any better, that’s YOUR problem.
Again, I need a quote, not just vagueness.
Why? Wouldn’t the better course of action be to try to fix the problem, as per Kerry’s plan?
Yes, NATO consists of only United States.:rolleyes:
I don’t get you. You whine that Kerry ought to propose replacing U.S. troops with allied troops, but when I point out that that’s exactly what he is proposing, then you say it can’t be done. It’s alway bait & switch with you, isn’t it?
Oh, now you don’t want more details; you want more radicalism. I don’t think you know what you want. I think you’d be against Kerry no matter what proposal he were to come up with. You would find something to criticize. And the thing is, you don’t even have a rational objection; you just come up with vague things like “it should be more radical”. That says nothing.
I couldn’t disagree more. This is not some trifling issue. This is a WAR that Bush started, in which American lives are lost almost every day. It may not be THE issue of the century, but it’s in the top ten. What I don’t believe you are understanding is that the ENTIRE CRITICISM of Bush’s Iraq policy is that he in effect thumbed his nose at our allies and the world. In spite of your contention that this is some picayune matter, it is in fact the CRUX of the issue. Bush has pissed off everyone who used to be our friends, and as a result, we are forced to go it alone in Iraq. This is a major, major issue. There is no issue more important right now. The difference between whether a head of state tries to work with his allies, or tells them to take a hike, is CRUCIAL.
One more thing. You keep harping on the fact that Kerry is blasting Bush for the Iraq war, and asking “What’s Kerry going to do about it?”, and complaining that he doesn’t have enough proposals, or not radical enough, or whatever you’re trying to say. But you’re forgetting that nobody can UNDO what Bush has done; they can only try to make the best of the crappy cards Bush has dealt. So it’s perfectly consistent to say that Bush screwed up royally, even if one doesn’t have a time machine to go back and UNDO what Bush did. So if Bush gives you lemons, you make lemonade. What other choice does one have?
