Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: cav58d on November 09, 2006, 04:12:17 PM
-
I'm not doubting we have made mistakes in Iraq, but I just can't see how anyone can call it a failure, and I would like one of you libs to explain this too me....
If Iraq is such a failure, why, in the face of serious bodily harm or death, have there been larger per capita turnouts for democratic elections in iraq, then we have ever seen here in the US?
-
Is election turnout in Iraq the measure of success?
-
Yes, it is to an enormous degree...Do we not call the elections here in the US the voice and the will of the people? So whats different about Iraq? I think it is even more significant because of the consequences they faced going into the election....These people very well knew they may face bodily harm or death upon themselves and even their families for simply voting, but they went ahead and did it anyways, because they love their new freedom, and want their country to move forward...
so yes, it is very significant in my book
-
I personally wouldn't call the need for armed military at polling places a success if you are going to relate it to voting.
From my coniberal stand point, the continued loss of life because of the Bush administration's constant intelligence oopsies has driven people up the walls. One of these would be the WMD's, They don't exist (or never did) but heck, we're already over there so why not get rid of Saddam Hussein, which did happen, and try to democratize the Middle East? I believe what some people see as a great step to democracy in the Mid East, others see as a waste of life for people who don't care.
Just my view though.
-
Hindsight is 20/20... But can anyone really say that invading Iraq was even close to necessary?
Compared to some of the other nations over there, Iraq seems like a huge waste of time.
Again though, hindsight is 20/20.
-
The Neocons salivated for a decade between the Gulf War and current Iraq adventure to invade Iraq. 9/11 gave them an excuse to do so.
-
If Iraq is such a failure, why, in the face of serious bodily harm or death, have there been larger per capita turnouts for democratic elections in iraq, then we have ever seen here in the US?
I want to know why, with no threat of bodily harm or death, voter turn out is not higher in the US?
Texas has approximately 12,385,887 registered voters. i counted up the total votes for govenor and only 4,386,159 votes cast, what were the other 8 million voters doing. thats sad really
-
Originally posted by Vudak
.. But can anyone really say that invading Iraq was even close to necessary?
.
why don't you ask an Iraqi if the invasion was necessary. ask one whose family was tortured and killed by the madman saddam. ask the Kurds, ask Kuwaitis, ask Iran, ask the she-ites.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
If Iraq is such a failure, why, in the face of serious bodily harm or death, have there been larger per capita turnouts for democratic elections in iraq, then we have ever seen here in the US?
I want to know why, with no threat of bodily harm or death, voter turn out is not higher in the US?
Texas has approximately 12,385,887 registered voters. i counted up the total votes for govenor and only 4,386,159 votes cast, what were the other 8 million voters doing. thats sad really
2 be brutally honest, I think it has to do with the fact that American's have settled for the status qou, and are way to comfortable with what they have....There is no denying that the majority of people in Iraq love freedom, and i'm still waiting for someone to actually respond to the per capita turnout
-
Originally posted by john9001
why don't you ask an Iraqi if the invasion was necessary. ask one whose family was tortured and killed by the madman saddam. ask the Kurds, ask Kuwaitis, ask Iran, ask the she-ites.
Ask one of the at least 150,000 dead's family members since the invasion while you're at it.
-
Stang answer the question...What does that voter turnout tell you?
-
I agree with you on the Iraqi voter turnout, especially since it was a potentially fatal thing to participate in. It's far more sad here that poeple don't care and a 40% turnout is considered "high." lmao.
However, just because they've had a few votes doesn't mean the adventure has been a success. That point is painfully obvious every day.
-
Saddam got a huge voter turn out as well.
You know what that tells us, that tells us that voter turn out without context doesn't mean squat about how free/peaceful/progressive a country is.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Saddam got a huge voter turn out as well.
That's not a fair comparison at all. The people had a choice and were not threatened by the government in the post-invasion votes. With Saddam, they damn sure were and had no choice.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I'm not doubting we have made mistakes in Iraq, but I just can't see how anyone can call it a failure, and I would like one of you libs to explain this too me...
1.Mission necessity,
2.promises made,
3.nothing found, goals? why?
4.search for answers,
5.meanwhile deads, deads, deads...
6.goto 2
-
Originally posted by Viking
Is election turnout in Iraq the measure of success?
IT can be.
Under the old regiem they could find themselves shot for not voting, and voting for Saddam
Now they run the risk of being shot FOR voting.
And they vote anyway
-
Let see, what were we told were our objectives...
1. Git rid of those numerous WMD's.
Dispite all the claims of them being in certian areas by Rumsfeld, we have found none that can be associated with the threat level that was sold to the American public. FAILURE
2. We were told that we would be welcomed with flowers and a thankful Iraqi populace. FAILURE
3. We were told that the vast majority of the cost of the invasion would be paid for by the Iraq oil revenues. FAILURE, so far.
4. We were told that this war would last 'a few weeks or months, but no more'. FAILURE
5. Colin Powels presentation to the UN has now been proven to have included extreemly faulty data and in a few instances, diliberate lies, although it seems Powel believed the some of info he was given to present
was true, it has now come to light that some claims were kept in his presentation that some knew were false. So, by eroding our stature and honesty in the worlds eyes. FAILURE
There are so many more failures in the execution of this war that I could be here all day listing them. Instead of doing that I'll give you one success that I think we all can agree on. SADAM is TOAST....but was it worth the blood of thousands of our soldiers and the death of tens upon tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians? Not to me.
-
Originally posted by Stang
That's not a fair comparison at all. The people had a choice and were not threatened by the government in the post-invasion votes. With Saddam, they damn sure were and had no choice.
That maybe the case. But it seems to me that cav is young and needs to learn to be more concise. He's the one who said,
"If Iraq is such a failure, why, in the face of serious bodily harm or death, have there been larger per capita turnouts for democratic elections in iraq, then we have ever seen here in the US?".
By implication,
Iraqi % voter turnout > US % voter turner out = The Iraq occupation is a success
Now he doesn't qualify anything here, it's very simple. He doesn't say why Iraqi voter turnout being great than US voter turn means that the occupation is succeeding, he just links them through implication.
It's pretty irrelevant though, except as an logical exercise, because he's wrong. Iraq % voter turn out isn't great than American, it's less. At least less than the 2004 elections.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO501F.html
-
Originally posted by nirvana
I personally wouldn't call the need for armed military at polling places a success if you are going to relate it to voting.
From my coniberal stand point, the continued loss of life because of the Bush administration's constant intelligence oopsies has driven people up the walls. One of these would be the WMD's, They don't exist (or never did) but heck, we're already over there so why not get rid of Saddam Hussein, which did happen, and try to democratize the Middle East? I believe what some people see as a great step to democracy in the Mid East, others see as a waste of life for people who don't care.
Just my view though.
Those were Clintons intel oopsies as well
there was no difference between the intel Clinton received. then the intel Bush received.
Not surprising inasmuch as they both received the intel from the same people. Bush didnt make any wholesale changes int he intel community when he took office and left it largely in place as it was.
Prior to bush taking office. The Dems in congress were all for Clinton going into Iraq. The only difference between Clinton and Bush. is Bush actually decided to go in and do something.
Everyone likes to say this was "Bush's War "
There are few innocent parties in either party in this war.
and plenty of blame to go around for everyone.
If Bush can be blamed for anything. Its the way the situation has been run following the invasion
Personally I have always supported the move to go into Iraq. For an entire host of reasons not even including WMDs and still do.
It was a situation that had to be dealt with sooner of later.
The situation was such with sanctions failing and the secret deals being made that we were better off doing it sooner rather then later
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Saddam got a huge voter turn out as well.
You know what that tells us, that tells us that voter turn out without context doesn't mean squat about how free/peaceful/progressive a country is.
He also won pretty much unanimously
Gee I wonder why LOL
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
He also won pretty much unanimously
Gee I wonder why LOL
Way to miss the point LOL
-
Well Thrawn the way you expressed it Cav was never going to get it, lol.
Thanks for the clarification.
;)
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Yes, it is to an enormous degree...Do we not call the elections here in the US the voice and the will of the people? So whats different about Iraq? I think it is even more significant because of the consequences they faced going into the election....These people very well knew they may face bodily harm or death upon themselves and even their families for simply voting, but they went ahead and did it anyways, because they love their new freedom, and want their country to move forward...
so yes, it is very significant in my book
What measure of success is voter turnout when the results of that vote plummets the nation into de facto civil war? The Iraqi people are not a unified people. The Kurds voted for Kurds to secure their separate Kurdish state. The Shi'ite voted for Shi'ites to gain control of the new Iraqi government and subdue the Sunni minority. The Sunnis largely boycotted the election in protest.
If you think the Iraqi election had anything to do with democracy, you're sadly mistaken.
-
I'm sorry but you are dead wrong thrawn...Whether its 72% or 58%, it shows that a majority of the population believes in the democratic process and is willing to risk their life, so it can suceed...I know that sucess in Iraq, and freedom for the Iraqi people is bad news for you liberals, but the truth speaks for itself...Deal with it
-
Originally posted by cav58d
but the truth speaks for itself...Deal with it
unfortunetaly yes, we all read the news.
Intsalling a "working" democracy on the fly in this region is a nice wish,
unfortunetaly the price is bloody high.
Why the heck Iraq?, why not insta-democracy Cuba? All this people in Cuba would be
happy and welcome you with flowers while you entering it with Tanks.
Next Country to insta-democracy, Iran, North Korea? Lots of
Countrys just waiting for!
-
Originally posted by Viking
The Kurds voted for Kurds to secure their separate Kurdish state. The Shi'ite voted for Shi'ites to gain control of the new Iraqi government and subdue the Sunni minority. The Sunnis largely boycotted the election in protest.
If you think the Iraqi election had anything to do with democracy, you're sadly mistaken.
and the democrats vote for democrats and the republicans vote for republicans and the independents boycotted the election in protest.
-
This guy thinks election turn out is a measure of success? Insane. Shoot, South Vietnam had elections even when it was corrupt, infiltrated by Viet Cong, and torturing and executing 'suspected' VC.
Eliminate the insurgency, stifle the corruption, stop the torture and execution of suspected insurgents. That would be a measure of success.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I'm sorry but you are dead wrong thrawn...Whether its 72% or 58%, it shows that a majority of the population believes in the democratic process and is willing to risk their life, so it can suceed...I know that sucess in Iraq, and freedom for the Iraqi people is bad news for you liberals, but the truth speaks for itself...Deal with it
If you really believe that, you are truely brainwashed. Liberals don't want Iraq to fail, they simply realize that it will. Meanwhile, all these folks shouting "support the troops!" keep throwing our soldiers and marines into the meat-grinder of an unwinnable war.
-
Originally posted by john9001
and the democrats vote for democrats and the republicans vote for republicans and the independents boycotted the election in protest.
Yes, but your different political parties do not reflect opposing religious beliefs and separatist movements. Democrat, Republican or Independent; you all still consider yourself Americans.
A more accurate analogy would be if a majority of Americans lives on the east coast and votes for a Catholic Christian party, one minority living on the west coast votes for a Protestant Christian party, and another ethnic minority all living in Alaska votes for an Alaskan separatist party. To make matters worse the Protestant Party has ruled America under a brutal dictatorship for decades and has persecuted the Protestants and Alaskans, and the Alaskans have been fighting a long guerilla war with America and Canada to gain independence. The Alaskans even sided with Russia in an 8 year long war where the Protestants used chemical weapons on them.
Democracy would fail, as it is failing in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
If you really believe that, you are truely brainwashed. Liberals don't want Iraq to fail, they simply realize that it will.
The difference is, your party has NEVER given it a chance...At the first mistake, liberals turned their back and decided against this war...Worse, you send this message to not only our soldiers deployed and the enemy, but to our allys as well...Your ideology is wrong...You are nothing more than a bunch of too scared to see the truth, derogotory hopeless liberals....
And to respond to whoever said why Iraq, and not Cuba?
Because Sadaam invaded the soveirgn nation of Kuwait in 91', and not only raped and pilleaged (sp) the people of the country, but he also threatened a large portion of the worlds oil supply...
Why? Because Sadaam continually shot at our aircraft in the no fly zone for a decade...
why? Because Sadaam tried to put forth a plot to assisanate a former US President...
Why? Because Sadaam defied the world with 14+ UN resolutions for over a decade....
Why? Because Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Madeline Ablright, John Kerry and John Kennedy all said sadaam had WMDs prior to 9/11, in 1998...
why? Because Sadaam has been the biggest thorn in the side of the world....
thats why
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Yes, it is to an enormous degree...Do we not call the elections here in the US the voice and the will of the people? So whats different about Iraq? I think it is even more significant because of the consequences they faced going into the election....These people very well knew they may face bodily harm or death upon themselves and even their families for simply voting, but they went ahead and did it anyways, because they love their new freedom, and want their country to move forward...
so yes, it is very significant in my book
Personally, I'm skeptical about how long any type of democracy will last in Iraq. And no, I don't believe it's our job to give it to them in the first place. The question is "can democracy be given or does it have to be earned" and for that matter... who over there wrote the president and ask for democracy in the first place. I just guess since it's our way... everyone must want that huh?
-
8:46...Cav...Out...Beer
Expect interesting responce when I get home =):noid
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Because Sadaam invaded the soveirgn nation of Kuwait in 91', and not only raped and pilleaged (sp) the people of the country, but he also threatened a large portion of the worlds oil supply...
That problem was resolved in '91, but next time when a dictator asks you about their conflicts reply with something better than "... we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait".
Originally posted by cav58d
Why? Because Sadaam continually shot at our aircraft in the no fly zone for a decade...
Your aircraft had no right to operate in Iraqi airspace. The so called no-fly zones were not approved by the UN and was in clear violation of the cease fire agreement with Iraq. The Iraqi state had every right to protect its airspace.
Originally posted by cav58d
why? Because Sadaam tried to put forth a plot to assisanate a former US President...
Says who? Oh, the same people that said Iraq had WMD … right. The only nation I know of that has tried to assassinate a national leader is the USA. Not very subtlety either, but even if you failed at least you got his wife and daughter.
Originally posted by cav58d
Why? Because Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Madeline Ablright, John Kerry and John Kennedy all said sadaam had WMDs prior to 9/11, in 1998...
Oh, and that's a good reason to go to war?
Originally posted by cav58d
why? Because Sadaam has been the biggest thorn in the side of the world....
Funny, I seem to remember the majority of the world's nations were against this war.
-
Originally posted by Viking
WAHH WAHH POOR SADAAM...POOR POOR SADAAM
Funny, I seem to remember the majority of the world's nations were against this war.
The majority of the worlds nations were also against taking any action against Hitler in the early 30's, so that just goes to show how much the majority of the world knows, huh?
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I'm sorry but you are dead wrong thrawn...Whether its 72% or 58%, it shows that a majority of the population believes in the democratic process and is willing to risk their life,
You don't know that at all. All you know is: that the premise of your hypothesis is wrong. Iraqis don't vote more than Americans; and that about %50 of Iraqis voted in the last election. You don't have a good whoopee clue why those %50 percent voted. You can guess, but that's all it will be, a guess...unless of course you have some data that you have yet to show us.
so it can suceed...I know that sucess in Iraq, and freedom for the Iraqi people is bad news for you liberals, but the truth speaks for itself...Deal with it
You are building false conclusions on top of your false conclusions.
About %50 of Iraqis voted. - Demostrably True
They voted because they believe in democracy. - Not demonstrated
Because they believe in democracy it will succeed. - We dont' know that they believe in democracy
So we can't know tha your arguement is true, it ain't proven.
You really should look at this voter stuff in context of Iraq. A large chunk (saw a number that said %80) apparently didn't vote. You could have all the Kurds and Shia vote and you would still be in **** town. When a big enough united block of a country feels disinfranchised in a democracy, things aren't going to "succeed". You might be familiar with your own countries histroy with this vis a vis your Civil War.
Now go read a book on critical thought processes. ;)
-
Originally posted by cav58d
The majority of the worlds nations were also against taking any action against Hitler in the early 30's, so that just goes to show how much the majority of the world knows, huh?
Back so soon? And drunk already I see. I though you wouldn't be able to defend your position; I was right. I also though you were interested in a serious discussion; I was wrong. I see now that you are unable to conduct one.
-
Thrawn, why do YOU think the Iraqis voted? They must have had some reason, what do YOU think it was?