Freedom is at hand for these historically repressed people, for the first time ever!
The naysayers and terrorists (aka “insurgents”) will soon learn how wrong they are, and have been.
It is now estimated that 60% of the Iraqi population will turn out to vote, eclipsing even our own numbers in the U.S.
I find it to be very moving to see the tears of joy from men and women who have never before had this chance.
Three hours into the vote, I’ve seen/heard reports of a few attacks against polling stations, but it doesn’t seem to be deterring the honest freedom loving citizens from exercising their rights on this historic day.
Long live democracy, and may the terrorists all blow themselves up singularly without taking more innocent lives.
I’m not sure I would go that far, clearly this is a step in the right direction, but no country can be said to have ‘freedom’ while 150,000 or so foreign troops are in occupation.
The US government could take a big step to enhance the sovereignty and legitimacy of the incoming government by announcing that all military operations in Iraq in future will be subject to the agreement of the Iraqi government.
Way to stack the deck in your favor. :rolleyes: I said, “Next major step”. A month is more realistic.
Though I don’t doubt it could happen, given the west friendly politics of the likely winners of this election, not the mention the Iraqi Grand Ayatollah, who is all for the separation of church and state.
Ok, have a month. Though, if they are going to do it, surely the time is now. Why wait a month? And do you have a cite for the ‘west friendly politics of the likely winners’, you can have a month for that one too if you like as many of the candidates have been reluctant to reveal their names, never mind their policies.
Really, though, if all we’re interested in is the freedom of the democracy-loving Iraqi populace, the nature of the government that they freely choose shouldn’t make a difference.
Do you really think the newly elected politicians will, given the chance, kick the US out immediately? It would equate to an almost certain civil war, after which the elections that they won would mean precisely dick.
Political posturing maybe, but the majority won’t vote us out until stability and security is achieved internally.
Please stop being argumentative for argument’s sake.
Well before more die-hard lefties come in here to piss on your parade, yes, if you’re right, this is a good day. I have my doubts as to how safe, fair, and meaningful this election will ultimately be, but if the elected individuals ultimately manage to become the soveirgn leaders, then people can rightfully put it into the “pro” category.
I was no fan of this war, but let’s hope you right.
It’s a possibility, I tend to think they won’t for the reason you identify. I didn’t realise that all you meant by ‘west friendly politics’ was that they won’t immediately ask us to leave the country, there is a lot that the incoming government can do, and may do, that may not be to the liking of the US.
You probably should have posted this in another forum if you just wanted everyone to join you in a love-in rather than, like, a debate
Got news for you: many of the American nay sayers do want this to be a successful election, it will be a good reason to then begin to leave. However, since it is the Shiites are looking to come ahead in the election, it will be a tense situation to have guys that are mostly in favor of Iran, as the new leaders of Iraq.
Just knowing that Chalabi was there just made me loss any trust on what the Shiite leaders are saying. However, pragmatically speaking, I am contented to see them get power and representation that they did not have before, and since I see this development as leading to better relations with Iran, IMO the US getting into Iran is going to be less likely.
The involvement of Chalavi is what makes me believe that what the Shiites are saying in the cite is not to be trusted. One can be confused only if one forgets what Chalavi is and is coming from.
Eleusis seems to also blissfuly ignore the Iranian connections of Chalavi.
Assuming you meant “Chalabi”, he backs my position in saying that he wants a secular state free of any interference by Iran.
To the contrary, GIGObuster seems to be blissfully unaware that “Chalabi” is a friend of Iraq, Democracy, and yes, for the forseeable future, the United States.
Going a bit far now. I’m not sure I’m up to date on this one, does anyone have the latest on the allegations that the fake ‘intelligence’ that the uS received from Chalabi before the war was fed to him by Iran? I think the FBI was investigating at one point, has that been concluded?
