Yes, but it would allow the US to get out. I live in the US, not in Iraq, and I want a leadership that realizes they run things for our interests, not theirs. Sorry.
At least I know enough to post personal insults in the right forum.
That was directed strictly at your posts. If I wanted to insult you directly, there are plenty of ways to do it that aren’t nearly as subtle.
I see. So claiming that ‘any’ of my posts are an example of poor thinking isn’t a personal attack, because you are aiming it at my ‘posts’.
It’s certainly a novel approach for getting a cheap shot in. You get half points for that.
What makes you think they backed off? There where something like 8 (?) suicide terrorists who tried to stop it. The terrorist acts were there, but the payoff was much lower. Without the use of cars to transport explosives it required direct confrontation to interfere with the election. IMO, terrorism exists because direct confrontation is a losing proposition. It follows that the election presented itself as a low rate-of-return for the terrorists.
This is the 1st of 2 important elections. It puts an interim government in place and establishes a constitution. The 2nd election is in December. It gives the Iraqi’s a chance to reaffirm their political choices in a short time span. In the time between elections they will probably start getting glimpses of Saddam’s crimes. Since he liked to videotape his atrocities it will be a stark reminder of what the elections represent. I believe this will further unify them and strengthen their resolve to expose the terrorist factions. If Zarcowardly is brought to justice soon it will accelerate the desire of Iraqi’s to move forward. The more events that demonstrated unity the faster it will occur. Time will tell.
There’s ways of dealing with it. You’ve been here long enough to know that. Feel free.
Can we assume you believe that, due to the weakened insurgency, the level of violence will continue to decline from here on out? Want to put you money where your mouth is?
How very selfish of you. Yes, but to many, including the US, we created a mess in Iraq, and its our obligation to fix this mess, for the benefit of Iraqis, not any selfish gain. So yes, we’ll remain there thank you.
Anyone who states categoricially that the violence will either decrease or increase after this point is a moron. And that has nothing to do with what I believe the insurgency to be. Hell, the people I mentioned could easily be numbered in the thousands or tens of thousands. And they may have the backing of states like Syria. Perhaps they will come out in some all-out attacck in the next while. Or perhaps the U.S. has killed so many of them, and today’s elections have dispirited them and what will be left will be more of the kind of resistence we see from Palestinian terrorists - the occasional bombing of a government building, a suicide bomber in a police station, that sort of thing. I fully expect there will be more violence at at least that level.
This is a far cry than the claims of some, that the insurgency is a popular resistance movement operating with the tacit approval and support of the people, growing in strength over time and gaining in number.
And another meme that’s about to die - the notion that the Iraqis might vote in an Islamic, anti-American government. CNN is reporting that the majority of people they exit polled said that they wanted a secular government (even the highly religious shia women interviewed), and CNN said that the most popular party among the people they interviewed was that of Allawi, that evil U.S. puppet.
We didn’t go in there to help the Iraqis. That’s just the last rationalization the US Admin could pull out of its collective ass for the mess they made.
The mess will go away when someone gains a monopoly on power. That won’t happen until the opposition is overwhelmed. To oversimplify, the Shias, under the scenario that is now unfolding, have the upper hand. To succeed, they need to overwhelm the Sunnis. Nothing else will do.
The elections are like a brilliant move made by an amateur chess player against Bobby Fisher. But what counts in chess is not the present move, unless it’s a checkmate of course, but the moves you have in mind. If those are inferior to what your opponent has in mind, you’ll lose anyway.
Like an awful player of chess or poker, the US has already shown its hand, telegraphed its moves: it intends to move on Iran next. Iran will do what it needs to to counter the threat, because they may be many things, but they’re not stupid. The Shias of Iraq will find themselves isolated and alone fighting the Sunnis and all of their Arab allies, or they will ally with Iran against us. It will be in their interests to do the latter, unless we can somehow keep the Iraqi Sunnis isolated at the same time as we go after Iran. Possible, but not likely. Also, it will be costly to follow the road of isolating the Sunnis while going after Iran, far more costly than allying with the Shias and Iran, and then pulling out once the Shias have gained that monopoly on power and subjugated the Sunnis.
This will leave a stable Iraq. It won’t be our protectorate, but it will sell us its oil, which is the only thing that should matter to us.
Number one Shias aren’t united in their outlook, number two, Shias need the other ethnic groups support to effectively govern Iraq.
And I’m sure by that analysis, we should pretty much leave right now :rolleyes: yeah, and I guess the US isn’t stoopid either.
Rubbish. Kurds anyone? :rolleyes:
- Yes, by that analysis we should leave right now. Yesterday would be preferable.
- Re the Kurds: I said I was oversimplifying. Yes the Shias do need other ethnic groups, so to reply to two points at the same time:
Throw in the Kurds. How does this change things? The necessary condition is a monopoly on power. This can be acheived by letting the Kurds have autonomy within a Federal system, hemming in the Sunni Arabs from the north, while the Shias hem them in from the south. The idea is to contain and gradually eradicate the Sunni rebellion, while leaving Iraq strong enough to deal with recalcitrant neighbors like Syria. It won’t be strong enough to deal with Iran by itself, so the only option there is to co-opt Iran. Confronting it only gets you into hotter water.
The danger here is that the Administration is already rattling its sabres at Iran, before it has fully dealt with Iraq. What this means, it would appear, is that they intend to go after Iran as soon as they stabilize Iraq. The problem with this is that to achieve the latter, they need Iran, because the Shias may be a majority in Iraq, but they are a decided minority in the Arab world in total, and a despised minority at that. While nation-states may not go after the new Shia regime in Iraq, terrorists will. We already see that. They’re going to need allies to survive. Unless we intend to stay forever, those allies need to be local.
Polls for a long time have indicated that Iraqis wanted a secular govt. your not bringing anything new… and as for Allawi… would you say other candidates got as much air-time and exposure to have a chance of defeating Allawi ? In both Afghanistan and Iraq the appointed leader eventually won… its a pattern… and I think its not due to the US strictly speaking… but its about chaotic elections where only the guy in power gets “air time”
Iraqi voters risk assassination to cast their ballots, while US voters risk nothing more than missing their favorite TV show. Yet the Iraqi voter turnout outpaced the US voter turnout even at its peak.
In particular, I am amazed at the 9% Sunni turnout. Most likely these people live in areas controlled by the insurgents who threatened voters with assassination. Some of these voters know they may be dead by tomorrow for exercising their democratic rights, but still they came out and voted.
How many of us would have the passion to vote if we knew voters were targeted for assassination? Not many, I’ll bet.
Perhaps I’m not getting through to you. For the Shias, you know lead by Sistani, to effectively govern the country, they need support of the Sunnis, and the Kurds.
Yeah sure they’ll go after the new Shia government, even though they’d have to disregard there own Shia populations.
Terrorists go after Israelis, does that make it successful? No.
Turkey? Us? We have vested interests.
Air time is nothing compared to grassroots political action. Didn’t you learn anything from the US election?
Btw, most Iraqis have tv’s, but no electricity for some parts of the day, combine that with people have lives to lead, the impact is minimal.
Some Sunnis will need to be used. But the operative condition in Iraq, unavoidably, is going to be Shia dominance. Most Sunnis aren’t going to like that, and a significant minority, large enough to cause major problems if they aren’t dealt with, as we already see (you do read and watch the news?) are going to have to be forcibly put down; once traffic starts up again, so will the car bombs.
That’s the ugly reality.
Turkey is simply not a player, except as an irritant in the Kurdish situation up north, where they are desperately trying to limit Kurdish autonomy. IMO, this is a bad thing, not a good thing, except to the extent that they keep the Kurds from forming their own state, which would be a definite bad thing. We do need Turkey on our side, of course, as they are a NATO member state and Iraqi oil is piped through Turkish territory. But their usefulness in stabilizing Iraq is limited.
No, Iraq and Iran share a long border, and the majority of Iraqis share a common religion with the majority of Iranians. On top of that, many Iraqi shias, Sistani included, were born in Iran. They’re still Arab rather than Persian, and still self-identify, far as I can tell from here, as Iraqis, but it does go to show the closeness of the two sides of the Shia family. Iran could be very valuable as an ally; as an enemy, they will be very very bothersome, to put it mildly. If nothing else, the US should realize this much. Apparently, from all the stupid statements coming out of Washington about them, and their refusal to join Europe in negotiating with them about their nuclear program, it doesn’t. Instead, they’re deliberately alienating the most powerful country in the region, the one with ties to the very people we are helping with this election.
It makes no sense. But given this Admin’s record, that should come as no surprise.
If they are waging a terrorist war ,then enough of the operations are going to be pychological in nature, ie just the threat of carbombs , grenade attacks , mortars and such, should provide a force multiplier to the AL Q and the home grown insurgents.
Secondly , its also possible that they did not have everything they needed , prepositioned , so a percentage of the terrorists were denied the use of the roads and all they had was what was on hand.
Third is that enough of the insurgency is controlled by tehran, and they ordered the stand down , while leaving the other factions unco-ordinated in a pre planned election offensive. Which is a nice thought , Zarqawis looking like a chump , to his minions.
Me thinks , the opposite actually. If they did not go with an election offensive, then they would have conceded the political and moral axis of their cause to the new govt , and gives it momentum. So when they do get their founding fathers together and hammer out a constitution of some sort , any threats that are made to disrupt elections are going to be concidered , but the cherry is popped. Enough Iraqis made the trip to cast a ballot, this one is gonna reverb everywhere in the Middle east.
Some people already think that the man is behind a secure set of bars already
But that report came out several weeks ago, with no full court press reporting by fox , cnn, everyone else. Your milage will vary on what you think of the reliability of that site.
Good news if true , thats one animal that should be behind bars for a very long time.
Declan
You know Sam, it is curious that you have so much faith in exit polls, when only a few months ago you had this to say about them:
Why are exit polls now the center of your argument? Are the conditions in Iraq so much more favorable than they were in America in November that we are now to take your word that they are reliable?