Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Muckmaw1 on January 31, 2005, 08:31:28 PM
-
Iraqi Election May Affect Middle East
Mon Jan 31, 4:08 PM ET Middle East - AP
By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Iraq (news - web sites)'s election, however imperfect, could increase pressure on other authoritarian Arab countries to begin political reforms and hold free balloting.
"The Americans were able to hold elections in Iraq and that made them much more comfortable in carrying on with their policies in the Middle East," said Lebanese political analyst Ali Hamadeh. "They showed everybody that you can carry on with an electoral process even when you have security problems."
Hamadeh said the message of the election is that if Iraq could carry out "an all-weather democratic process" there is no excuse for other countries not to reform.
Many are feeling the pressure at least to make a show of democratic reform, and 2005 is shaping up to be the year of Middle East elections, even if few of them are expected to threaten the established regimes.
The Palestinians held a poll — widely praised, despite a few irregularities — that brought Mahmoud Abbas to power earlier this month to replace the late Yasser Arafat (news - web sites).
Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy, will hold its first municipal elections in 45 years beginning Feb. 10 — a vote postponed from September.
A parliamentary election in Lebanon, expected by May, will test Syria's grip on the country as the West pushes Damascus to withdraw its army. Three previous elections were influenced deeply by Syria, which will face pressure to back off.
Egypt, the Arab world's most populous country, holds presidential and parliamentary elections later this year, although the presidential vote is essentially a referendum on one candidate approved by a parliament dominated by President Hosni Mubarak (news - web sites)'s party. Mubarak, 76 and in power since 1981, is seeking a fifth six-year term despite calls to retire.
Jordan's King Abdullah II announced plans last week to introduce limited democratic reforms by establishing elected councils to oversee development. In a CNN interview shown Monday, he said the Iraqi elections set a positive tone for the region.
"Once you open the door of reform and it's allowed to be discussed in society, as it is throughout the Middle East, it's very difficult to close again. So I think that people are waking up, leaders are understanding that they have to push reform forward and I don't think there's any looking back," he said.
Others were more hesitant, saying the regional impact of the elections remained to be seen.
"The United States considers that just holding an election is a triumph by itself. This is hollow talk," said Hassan Nafaa, a political science professor at Cairo University. "The core of the issue is whether the elections are the beginning of a solution to the Iraq crisis or whether they are part of an escalation."
After toppling Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in 2003, the United States promised Iraq would become a model for Arab democracy, and it pushed regimes in the region to yield to some local demands for change. Reform, Washington says, will make Muslim and Arab societies less fertile ground for extremists.
That policy was broadly reinforced in President Bush (news - web sites)'s second inaugural speech.
"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," Bush said.
With the Iraq elections over, Saudi Arabia could feel the pressure to proceed with reforms and Syria to seal off its border with Iraq and to stop interfering in Lebanon. There may also be the opportunity for an American dialogue with Iran, Hamadeh said.
Despite the praise for Iraq's vote, some Arab media questioned its legitimacy, notably because of the minimal turnout by Sunni Arabs, many of whom boycotted. Other Arab opinion-makers deplored the U.S. role in the elections.
In the Jordanian newspaper Ad-Dustour, columnist Oraib al Rintawi wrote: "The election in Iraq was dictated by American arrogance against the will of most of its people."
Critics of American policy in the region say the U.S. push for democracy is only another effort to further the U.S. agenda.
Fahmi Howeidi, a liberal Islamic writer in Egypt, viewed the Iraqi balloting as "a moment that served American interests and not the interests of the Iraqi people."
"It will have no bearing on the Middle East, except Iraq," he said.
-
you are talking about the weapons of mass destruction right?
i seem to remember him saying that is why we should do it.
hmmmm.
if anything, monroe would be right in this case.
-
"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," Bush said.
This might've been something worthwhile to mention while he was running for 2nd term. I think he spends money like he is never ever going to have to pay it back. Come to think of it, he never is going to have to pay it back. Your kids are.
-
I think the biggest win was allowing the population of Iraq to hear and see the 'insurgents' targeting them instead of the occupying Americans.
It made them lose more credibility and encouraged national pride. If the Iraqi people don't get motivated now, it will never happen...
-
good point delerium.
-
Can they?
Surely, 50 to 70% turn out for a vote (where 99% used to vote for Sadam ) displays an inate love of freedom.
WMD? They had them, we know that. If they disposed or hid them, it's moot. I frankly don't care what populist reason was given, I am happy we took down Sadam. I hope we don't stop until we eliminate the threats to America.
Was 9-11 so long ago............?
-
Didn't even think about that...
-
WTG BUSH!
WTG PPL of IRAQ!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
WTG BUSH!
WTG PPL of IRAQ!
^^^^^^^^^
-
To have been right all along He would have had to say from the get go that this was why he was going in.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
I think the biggest win was allowing the population of Iraq to hear and see the 'insurgents' targeting them instead of the occupying Americans.
It made them lose more credibility and encouraged national pride. If the Iraqi people don't get motivated now, it will never happen...
You got it right on the head with this one. The moment the "insurgents/terrorists" started targeting Iraqi's instead of us they lost the fight. After all you can't really call yourself an insurgent if you are killing off the citizens of the country you are fighting for.
-
Originally posted by JB88
you are talking about the weapons of mass destruction right?
i seem to remember him saying that is why we should do it.
hmmmm.
if anything, monroe would be right in this case.
you know every time one of you pipes in here with WMDs I'm going to remind you that it has been US policy to enact regim change in Iraq since Clinton.
-
I believe that term used was support regime change. Not enact it.
But if I am wrong I am sure you will show me.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
you know every time one of you pipes in here with WMDs I'm going to remind you that it has been US policy to enact regim change in Iraq since Clinton.
Hate to rain on your parade Guns (I really do) but which President was it that pulled out early and left Saddam in power which set up this whole mess? You know, the one that called for the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam and we would help them, but didn't do it. He had some famous saying about "read my lips".
-
i'm stumped.
perhaps another clue....:(
-
bush should have run as the reform canidate. he could have got got more than 51% of the vote. why didnt bush run as a reform canidate is beyond me, there was alot of to reform. the govt. was so screwed up prez. carrothead could have fixed something.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Hate to rain on your parade Guns (I really do) but which President was it that pulled out early and left Saddam in power which set up this whole mess? You know, the one that called for the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam and we would help them, but didn't do it. He had some famous saying about "read my lips".
It was the one who knew that if we went into Baghdad and took out Saddam, Iraq would spiral down into a 3-way civil war with the U.S. caught in the middle. Pretty astute guy, I'm thinking.
It took guts to go back on his 'read my lips' promise and raise taxes, too. But he thought it was the responsible thing to do. It cost him the election, and I bet he feared it would, but he did it anyway. The easy thing to do would've been to just keep borrowing money and claim the deficit and national debt doesn't matter.
But it was a shame about the Iraqi people he left in the lurch; no question about that.
-
Originally posted by JB88
^^^^^^^^^
WTG BUSH!
WTG PPL of IRAQ!
-
Originally posted by JB88
you are talking about the weapons of mass destruction right?
i seem to remember him saying that is why we should do it.
do you mean these weapons.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
-
Originally posted by Raider179
To have been right all along He would have had to say from the get go that this was why he was going in.
Read the September 2002 Bush Speech at UN laying out the US case on Iraq. This was before the war, before no WMD were found.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html
Unless you are a complete troll and completly dishonest you must acknowlege that a good half of it deals with human rights and freedom for Iraqis.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Hate to rain on your parade Guns (I really do) but which President was it that pulled out early and left Saddam in power which set up this whole mess? You know, the one that called for the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam and we would help them, but didn't do it. He had some famous saying about "read my lips".
rpm,
That is hardly a fair or accurate summation. The move into Kuwait and later Iraq had a single goal that was supported by the coalition. That was the removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait and the reinstatement of the Kuwait goverernment. A very clearly worded goal with a even more clearly worded exit point forbid continuing into Baghdad and removal of saddumb. The fact that the coalition wouldn't support the removal of saddumb doesn't have anything to do with stopping operations in Iraq during gulf war 1 does it....
-
Originally posted by Delirium
I think the biggest win was allowing the population of Iraq to hear and see the 'insurgents' targeting them instead of the occupying Americans.
It made them lose more credibility and encouraged national pride. If the Iraqi people don't get motivated now, it will never happen...
I'm stunned... a new point of view for a change. :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm stunned... a new point of view for a change. :aok
Like the faint clanging of a bouy, floating on a sea of inexorable revisionism.
For the invasion was never about WMD, it was about bringing democracy to Iraq. And were it about WMD, Iraq surely had them.
-
Some ex.pat.-Iraqies don't see it so 'clearly'
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=605289
-
Don't get me wrong. I didn't agree with the invasion, and I still do not. I don't consider the election to be justification for an invasion. It's just one small step on the long road towards stability and U.S. withdrawal from the area.
As Powell said... we broke it, we bought it.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Hate to rain on your parade Guns (I really do) but which President was it that pulled out early and left Saddam in power which set up this whole mess? You know, the one that called for the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam and we would help them, but didn't do it. He had some famous saying about "read my lips".
Operation Desert Storm / Shield was enacted to REMOVE SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM KUWAIT. I hate rain too.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by oboe
This might've been something worthwhile to mention while he was running for 2nd term. I think he spends money like he is never ever going to have to pay it back. Come to think of it, he never is going to have to pay it back. Your kids are.
I'd rather my children and grandchildren have to wrestle with debt, than march into battle because we didn't handle the ever-growing terrorist problem when we had the opportunity and the wherewithall to do it. That'd be a terrible legacy for us to leave behind.
GWB prolly doesn't give a rat's behind what you or I think of him now, as long as this is dealt with here and now.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Read the September 2002 Bush Speech at UN laying out the US case on Iraq. This was before the war, before no WMD were found.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html
Unless you are a complete troll and completly dishonest you must acknowlege that a good half of it deals with human rights and freedom for Iraqis.
90% of that speech is on WMD and Saddam not abiding by the U.N. Yes Bush mentions the Iraqi people and freeing them from their miserable existence but only as another point he is making about how bad Saddam is. Sorry but he is giving his case for war not giving a speech on how everyone needs freedom. IMO
-
Originally posted by Raider179
90% of that speech is on WMD and Saddam not abiding by the U.N. Yes Bush mentions the Iraqi people and freeing them from their miserable existence but only as another point he is making about how bad Saddam is. Sorry but he is giving his case for war not giving a speech on how everyone needs freedom. IMO
GWB:
"And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.
Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.
Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region."
Sadd-man brought it on himself. If they had no WMDs, he should have behaved differently. If a person, much larger than myself, says to me "Look, the 'hood's not gonna take any more of yer rock throwin. Show us you don't have rocks in yer pockets, or we're gonna pummel ya", you think I'm gonna puff up my chest and double-dog dare him to? Hell no.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Sadd-man brought it on himself. If they had no WMDs, he should have behaved differently. If a person, much larger than myself, says to me "Look, the 'hood's not gonna take any more of yer rock throwin. Show us you don't have rocks in yer pockets, or we're gonna pummel ya", you think I'm gonna puff up my chest and double-dog dare him to? Hell no.
You might, if you know that when all the local kids find out you don't really have any rocks they are going to jump your ass.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
...GWB prolly doesn't give a rat's behind what you or I think of him now, as long as this is dealt with here and now.
Agreed. I don't think he ever gave a rat's A about what I think.
A good way to deal to terrorism is to capture and punish those responsible for it. It's nice that we borrowed and spent over $400 billion to give the Iraqi's an election, but I'm still waiting for President Bush to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. I haven't forgotten who the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks was and time has not softened my rage toward him.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Agreed. I don't think he ever gave a rat's A about what I think.
A good way to deal to terrorism is to capture and punish those responsible for it. It's nice that we borrowed and spent over $400 billion to give the Iraqi's an election, but I'm still waiting for President Bush to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. I haven't forgotten who the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks was and time has not softened my rage toward him.
Much Agreed!
-
Originally posted by oboe
Agreed. I don't think he ever gave a rat's A about what I think.
A good way to deal to terrorism is to capture and punish those responsible for it. It's nice that we borrowed and spent over $400 billion to give the Iraqi's an election, but I'm still waiting for President Bush to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. I haven't forgotten who the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks was and time has not softened my rage toward him.
The war on terrorism is a global conflict involving numerous theatres. Iraq was one of them.
-
Originally posted by Furious
You might, if you know that when all the local kids find out you don't really have any rocks they are going to jump your ass.
Which would bring more stability to the region?
The US invading Iraq, or Iran invading Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Don't get me wrong. I didn't agree with the invasion, and I still do not. I don't consider the election to be justification for an invasion. It's just one small step on the long road towards stability and U.S. withdrawal from the area.
As Powell said... we broke it, we bought it.
Much as I respect Powell (I'd even vote for him if he ran for major public office), this an inherently false position. Iraq was broke before we liberated it. It was a source of terrorism abroad and tyranny at home. It failed to live up to the cease-fire agreement that ended GW-I, not to mention in material breach of over a dozen UN resolutions calling for it to comply with the same. It's people, except for the elite, where being ground into the dust beneath in in-human despot's boot, gassed, starved, raped, machine-gunned, and kept voiceless and faceless. To claim it was not broke is akin to saying Hitler's Germany was a civilized utopia.
Finally, as has been born out by every report by the weapons inspection regimes, there is no doubt that Saddam never gave up his ambitions to build a WMD arsenal. Whether or not he had them at the time of the invasion is irrelavent. He maintained not only the will, but the technical means to build them. It was his responsibility to convince the world he had destroyed them, and the infrastructure to reconstitute those programs.
-
Originally posted by Furious
You might, if you know that when all the local kids find out you don't really have any rocks they are going to jump your ass.
Maybe, but I screwed up when I made all the other kids believe I had rocks. They should be mad at me, as well.
-
So the WMD issues were all made up, what are you Libs going to do about it now? You had to be lied to because we know how impossible it would have been to go to war without doubt...We introduced fear in the guise of WMD's and you ate it up like the pathetic whiney little sniveling panty wastes that you are....
There never were any WMD's only an evil dictator that threatened the middle easts stability which would never be enough to justify a war and get whiney Liberal approval thru congress....
The plans for war were layed out several years before 9/11.....19 jihadists sowed up the deal for Saddam, Sept 11th,2001 @ about 6:00PM EST, the descision to invade Iraq was made...
Deal witih it...
Tojo
-
Originally posted by T0J0
We introduced fear in the guise of WMD's and you ate it up like the pathetic whiney little sniveling panty wastes that you are....
Deal witih it... Tojo
Holy...
WE never ate it up. YOU did.
Now yer telling us that you had to lie to us, when you didn't do jack 5hit... except but believe the lies that yer now saying had to be told in order to appease us.
What a twisted crock 'o.....
-
Originally posted by Nash
Holy...
WE never ate it up. YOU did.
Now yer telling us that you had to lie to us, when you didn't do jack 5hit... except but believe the lies that yer now saying had to be told in order to appease us.
What a twisted crock 'o.....
Take your blood pressure meds Nash your turning red... limit yourself to only 4 Cafe mocca Latte's from now on...
Tojo
-
Yer just nuts is all.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yer just nuts is all.
Yeahhh...pretty much sums it up...:)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Holy...
WE never ate it up. YOU did.
Now yer telling us that you had to lie to us,
And Great Britain Lied to you
So did the CIA
So did the French
So Did the Germans
So Did Bill Clinton
and John Kerry....
They were ALL convinced Saddam had WMDs.
So either the whole world lied and is covering for GW, or they were all misinformed.
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
and John Kerry....
Uh, he always is. Or isn't. Or something, but he doesn't state the truth.
-SW
-
Why did you quote me when it was TOJO that said it was some elaborate lie to the pathetic whiney little sniveling panty wastes?
-
If the outcome of the invasion of Iraq is the birth of a lot of new democraties in middle east ...
I would say : Bush was right.
and so I was wrong.
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
And Great Britain Lied to you
So did the CIA
So did the French
So Did the Germans
So Did Bill Clinton
and John Kerry....
They were ALL convinced Saddam had WMDs.
So either the whole world lied and is covering for GW, or they were all misinformed.
Misinformed is what I would say. The INC was responsible for delivering into the CIA's hands several defectors who reported about the WMD's in Iraq. Chalabi has been named as giving false info to the CIA and now he is in Iraq trying to secure a political position.
I find it hard to believe we took the word of these guys without some other "hard" info. There is also the anonymous source named "curveball" who was never identified. Chances are pretty good that most of the "info" at home and abroad was delievered by these "defectors".
Saying dont blame us everyone got it wrong is just a way of not taking responsibility. Since when did we trust foriegn intelligence assets to do our work? Isn't "foriegn integlligence" a kind of oxymoron. No matter what they know you are only gonna get what they want you to hear. Not the whole story you will hear whatever is best for that particular country.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Operation Desert Storm / Shield was enacted to REMOVE SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM KUWAIT. I hate rain too.
Karaya
RPM Masherbrum is right. The MISSION was to remove Sadam and his forces from kuwait AND to defend Saudi Arabia. The was set by the United Nations.....not the United States. I don't recall if you've ever stated we needed UN approval for this invasion....but if you did you can't have it both ways. If we'd taken out Sadam back then and occupied Iraq there would have been the same screams then as there are now that we are Evil oppressors.
-
I never stated that we needed UN approval for attacking a nation that attacks us. Problem is, Iraq never attacked us. I was all for going after OBL. Don't you think he should have been our primary, rather than secondary target? Powell was right, we broke it, it's up to us to fix it. I just don't see a pro-american government in Iraq coming out of this. What happens when they democraticly elect a regime that hates us as much as Saddam did?
-
Always better to be lucky than good.