Well, hopefully, unlike us here in the US, they won’t have to choose between the lesser of two (w)evil’s. 
-XT
Rashak Mani, is there anything you find in any case regarding the United States, Capitalism, Iraq, favourable?
With all due respect you seem to have mistaken my meaning, rjung.
I am not a Bush supporter crying out Hallelujah and wondering why I don’t hear a passionate chorus of Hallelujah in reply.
I am simply railing against what I see as a form of hypocrisy (upon which no portion of the political spectrum has a monopoly) that forbids partisans of one side from publicly admitting that their rivals have succeeded in doing something good.
I’ve been following the election preparations in the news with great apprehension. I, too, assumed that it would be a bloodbath. When I saw the turnout numbers I was astonished. I was also amazed that not a single bomber had managed to get inside a polling station. The images of voters waving their ink-stained fingers and openly defying the insurgents went contrary to everything I had expected. I realize that this does not mean an end to the violence. I realize that Iraq is still a powder keg. I realize that the true effects of the election will not be seen for a very long time. I also realize that not everyone in Iraq was dancing in the streets in jubilation, and that many Sunnis boycotted – only to be expected, as even a 100% turnout on their part would still result in their winning a minority of seats. But I do not think that one must be a blind Bush supporter or a Fox News junkie to see yesterday’s events as a remarkable milestone. In fact, and this is my entire point, I think that only an embittered partisan could watch these same events unfold and refuse to ascribe them any significance.
Whether the Republicans like it or not, the Democrats sometimes succeed in making good things happen. Whether the Democrats like it or not, the Republicans sometimes succeed in making good things happen. I think that each side should be privileged to proclaim its victories as they happen (with restraint, of course).
Incidentally, I’m quite aware that the toppling of Saddam’s statue was not at all impromptu. I’m also aware that the award winning photo of the US Marines raising the American flag over Mt. Suribachi was stage-managed. And that Davy Crockett did not die in battle swinging his musket over his head. And that Paul Revere was captured by the British during his famous ride. But I do understand the role of such “glorious myths” in helping a shattered nation regain a sense of pride.
Free elections in Iraq is a wonderful milestone. The Iraqi people are to be congratulated for their courage, in voting in numbers that should make Americans slightly ashamed for our meager turnout under ideal conditions.
Unfortunately, any good news out of Iraq will be used by the Bush administration as retroactive justification for the war. And the American people have such short attention spans that we will let them get away with it. That makes it hard for me to experience unrestrained enthusiasm about this.
Give us a break Rashak. You’re posting a pre-emptive strawman attack.
And your example has another side to it. While you’re imagining the reaction of the Iraqi coach you might imagine how the players felt when they were beaten by Saddam’s regime because their freedom didn’t include losing a match. And God bless the coach for saying what’s on his mind. He would have been executed for saying the same thing against Saddam. His freedom of speech is proof of the events that are unfolding.
Yes, his country is under military occupation but those troops answer to the current government. The US troops would be building roads right now if they weren’t busy fighting non-Iraqi terrorists who use the mentally handicapped as suicide bombers to stop people from VOTING.
…who gets their orders from the American government.
[hijack]rjung, I couldn’t get your link on the toppling of Saddam’s statue to open. I’d be very interested to see it, though, since everything I’ve seen, heard, and read was that it was an impromptu celebration (albeit one that eventually involved American troops helping to pull down the statue).
Military strikes are at the behest or approval of the interim government. That took effect when power was handed over to them. You can look at it cynically if you like but it was (and still is) a significant change in the political status of the country. You might remember that this power exchange occurred ahead of the timetable set forth by President Bush. To date, everything Bush has specified as a timetable has been met or exceeded despite critics who wanted to delay things (such as the last election). The next election is in December.
Some correction is in order here… the Sunnis are not disenfranchised. They were invited to vote and did not do so. The only disenfranchisement they have experienced is having lost the tyrannical privilege that they enjoyed as Baathists. The whole social equality thing is new to them.
Can’t imagine why, unless you’re trying to access it from a corporate site that’s blocking the page.
Main page URL:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
Ahmed Chalabi arrives in Iraq, and one of his entourage turns into a “jubiliant Iraqi native” greeting the troops at the statue three days later:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/images/CHALIB~1.gif
Reuters’ long-range photos of the “massive” crowd:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/images/SQ1.gif
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/images/SQ2.gif
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/images/SQ3.gif
Ask yourself why all the well-publicized photos of the status pulldown are closely cropped, never showing how many people were truly present. When thousands of people genuinely show up for an event, it’s very easy to get a photo of the teeming masses…
Wow… you got that from my quote ?
In case you haven’t noticed most elections in most western countries tend to be “lesser of 2 evils” elections… in Brazil as well as in the US. I never said I was a communist did I ? Or that the US is a total loss either. I do wonder if you can see anything wrong with Iraq ? I think its a total train wreck as far as it was done… and any gain to the Iraqis barely “compensates” the damage done elsewhere to western unity and international relations.
Are things better in Iraq than before… sure… no problem admitting they have somethings better off. (Others not so much) Will Bush keeping low tone and quiet help ? Sure thing too. Even if Iraqis don’t notice… his big mouth might do some damage to what should be a “iraqi victory”.
And what will they say when Barbara Boxer dances naked around a maypole in celebration of the Bush victory in Ohio?
What? You mean that isn’t going to happen? Well we may as well debate that if we are going to debate Bush’s gloating before it happens. (and btw still has not as of this writing)
Are you so hungry for a pound of Bush’s flesh that you condemn him for things you think he MAY do?
Well I see a lot of people pounding “liberals” for condemning the Iraq War… because of that Middle Eastern democracy that MAY be.
This is a discussion board… and even though Bush hasn’t gloated he might… and I think that would be harmful to Iraqis… and we’re discussing it. The same way some other discuss “fictional” futures.
Well the obvious difference is that democracy in Iraq is something we are striving for and have sacraficed greatly to acheive. This makes it worthy of discussion.
Perhaps I will post a thread about how Mike Dukakis may put on a helmet and storm Iran in a tank*. Since he has not done this, it merits discussion as well as W gloating.
*This thread would righlty be placed in MPTIMS…
“we are striving for”? Don’t you mean, “sold a bill of goods about nonexistent WMDs for”?
You’re right about the “sacraficed [sic] greatly,” though. A pity those lives were sacrificed for false reasons.
The new link is working. Thanks.
a) Because close-up images in which you can tell what’s going on are more appealing to readers/viewers than far away images in which nothing appears to be happening.
b) Because nobody cared how many people were there.
c) Because the image of the statue coming down was a good image that symbolized what was happening in Iraq.
d) All of the above.
I’m not terribly shocked that there weren’t thousands of people in that square. I was never under the impression that “thousands” of people were there. But maybe that’s because none of the news reports indicated that there were thousands of people there, and I have no axe to grind against the current administration. Moreover, the importance of an event does not necessarily depend solely upon the number of people that attend that event.
And the reason the image gets so much play isn’t because there were supposedly thousands of people there; it’s because the image so clearly represents what was going on politically, militarily, etc. It’s just a good image.
As for the fact that a bearded man apparently seen celebrating near the toppling of Saddam’s statue looks similar to a man who is partially obstructed in a photo standing near Chalabi – I guess you’ve got me there. I have no idea why someone that looks so similar to one of Chalabi’s (perhaps) compatriots would be (maybe) celebrating the toppling of Saddam’s statue. Unless of course he happened to be in the neighborhood. Then it would make perfect sense.
But you might also want to investigate Chalabi’s links to the Lord of the Rings’ Oscar sweep. And Chalabi’s links to the renewal of Monk. And Chalabi’s links to chewing on scenery. And cross-dressing musicals.
Dear Lord man let it go. (No I won’t! He LIED to us!)
Bush wanted to establish democracy in the middle east from September 12 on, if not sooner. WMD was just his best bet to go in and get the ball rolling. I see it as shrewd and visionary, and in the wake of the elections, I could be right. (Well just because they had elections doesn’t mean we are justified in our invasion)
Yeah yeah yeah.
I am sure in 1776 you would have been pledging allegiance to the throne of King George III, instead of seeing the merits and honor in pursuing democracy. Fortunately there were others ready to risk life and limb then to secure your liberty, and now brave Iraqis and Americans are doing it again in Iraq.
I agree with you there (and the rest of your post), but please don’t drag down the mentally handicapped to the level of terrorist. These are relatively average intelligent men whipped into a frenzy to carry out evil plans in a desparate attempt to return to the old Iraq. The mentally handicapped could never be that evil.
Orders?
Citey cite?