Jump to content

Change Mode

The Iraqi Elections


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 500
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think I know what you meant and if I am right I don't disagree.

 

I think what I would disagree on is the significance of it.

If you can accept that truth can be diluted then you shouldn't have any problem with validity. :lol:

 

 

I haven't yet said what I thought the significance might be. We might even agree on that too. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

YUP!

 

None of the nasty ones are left!

 

 

Well....there are others.....but don't worry about those......

 

 

Sleep well.

 

But I want to know your definition and how it differs from the 'others' you mention.

 

Anyway, I asked first ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can accept that truth can be diluted then you shouldn't have any problem with validity. :lol:

 

 

I haven't yet said what I thought the significance might be. We might even agree on that too. :rolleyes:

Possibly we would agree. I don't know, but I suspect not at this point. We shall see.

 

Right now the significance in my view is minor in magnitude but nonetheless far reaching in some regards, but I would love to talk with you about what that significance might be. I think it is a very interesting subject.

 

 

 

 

 

I am sorry, diluted truth, diluted validity? Forgive me, but validity is a term that was just pounded into me through years of science academics and research.

 

Really, as far as that term goes (and probably a few others) I am a victim of my education. :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, the bloc will not have a parliamentary majority on its own. Kurdish groups, which came second, are seen as potential partners.

 

One of the new parliament's main jobs will be to write a constitution, but the representation of the Shia bloc falls far short of the two-thirds majority needed for that.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4263087.stm

 

The coalition has a UN mandate to stay until a constitution is written. That should speed 'em along a bit. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6958807/

 

Al-Hakim, who lost 19 family members to Saddam Hussein’s executioners, sat and wept as he heard the results on Sunday. He later told Iraqi television of the need for cooperation with disenchanted Sunnis already alienated in postwar Iraq.

 

“We believe in the need for participation and will seek harmony among all segments of the Iraqi people,” he told Iraqi television.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This entire situation makes me very sad. I believe that elections are irrelevant at this point. The only question is whether the US and the Shiites will be able to win a civil war over the Sunni's. And how long will that war last. There is absolutely no indication that the Sunni resistance is abating, and the atrocities seem to be growing.

 

There was only one good outcome for the US by entering into the Iraqi war. That is if we found WMD. Finding and expelling Saddam was a very small consolation prize to this tragegy with no end in sight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There was only one good outcome for the US by entering into the Iraqi war. That is if we found WMD. Finding and expelling Saddam was a very small consolation prize to this tragegy with no end in sight.

Wow, I actually see it in the reverse of that.

 

How is it that the entire thing hinges on finding WMD? It's a rhetorical question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. And I see it as a fair price to get rid of the violent Military Dictatorship of Iraq.

 

In fact, I have a problem puttng a dollar figure on the value of such a thing.

 

WMD? If it had been found it could be expensive to dispose of, and dangerous too, so in some ways it is good it was not found. Except that for those stockpiles that we knew for certain to exist it is a little uncomfortable wondering what happened to them. But that was years ago when the aUN was overseeing the situation, so that is on them, not the Coalition.

 

 

I don't see finding it as the best possible outcome for anything other than ill concieved popular opinions.

 

I mean, what if the reverse were true? What if we had found WMD stockpiles but failed to remove Saddam from power? Then we would be sitting here wondering how much more he had......not saying how much "bang" we got for our buck because we found WMD.

 

Yes, the primary reasoning and plan that has been followed is, I think, correct.

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. And I see it as a fair price to get rid of the violent Military Dictatorship of Iraq.

 

 

I wouldn't mind if we would spent 200 billion to remove the violent Military Dictatorship we have in office now. ;):lol:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, but saying that only reveals that we are so spoiled. To think that we live under such a thing could not be further from the truth. Anybody who has actually lived under such circumstances can confirm that I am sure.

 

Military dictatorship? Do you really feel like you have been under military threat by your government?

 

 

If you really feel that way it is easy enough to show your feelings are wrong and put you at ease. There will be legitimate elections in four years. In fact we just had a legitimate election. Those facts contradict the "violent military dictatorship" accusation.

 

Perhaps you forget the kind of "elections" they used to have in Iraq? Only one "candidate" to vote for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If our only goal was to remove Saddam from power, we could have done it for a lot less than $200B.

 

But my original point is being missed, we can debate what the best case scenario would have been, but what about the worst case. I still believe that we are headed in that direction. A civil war with no clear way out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If our only goal was to remove Saddam from power, we could have done it for a lot less than $200B.

 

But my original point is being missed, we can debate what the best case scenario would have been, but what about the worst case. I still believe that we are headed in that direction. A civil war with no clear way out.

Please don't imply that such was the only goal, I have NEVER said such a thing. You did begin your sentece with the word "if" so I will say that absoltely for sure the "if "statement is wrong. It simply was by far not the only reason to invade Iraq. If you wish to know the reasons and see them listed quite plainly the documents are available for all to read. The truth of it is that what those documents say is in conflict with what the media says they say.

 

I believe that we are very far past the reasonable possibility of the worst case scenario. Civil war the worst case scenario? It surely is a bad thing, but far from the worst case.

 

Some would say they are already in a civil war, but I don't think so. Not quite, but not far off either.

 

 

Why do you say there is no clear way out?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...