Jump to content

Change Mode

The Iraqi Elections


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 500
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The UN didn't kill 10,000 Iraqi's or 1000 Americans

Yes, but that statement implies that the reason the Coalition was there was just to look for WMD.

 

There was a war. Those people didn't die due to the search for WMD, they died due to the war...and that war was not simply a search for WMD by any means.

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

and that war was not simply a search for WMD by any means.

True dat!!!

 

WMD's were not the reason; oil was not the reason; protection of regional ally was not the reason; need for a strategic base-camp in advance of being evicted by the Saudis was not a reason; etc, etc, etc......

 

It all boils down to one reason and one reason alone... $

Link to post
Share on other sites

True dat!!!

 

WMD's were not the reason; oil was not the reason; protection of regional ally was not the reason; need for a strategic base-camp in advance of being evicted by the Saudis was not a reason; etc, etc, etc......

 

It all boils down to one reason and one reason alone... $

There are ultimately only two reasons for war. Sex and money. To the victor go the spoils.

 

Sex (power) and money are ultimately what is at the root of all wars. There is no such thing as even a defensive war that does not have those motivations. To fight a defensive war is to try to preserve ones own power and money from being taken.

 

 

The reasons given for the war had to do with the UN requirements placed on Iraq as a condition of a cease fire. No matter how you slice it, even the UN requirements were about money and power.

 

It's funny that there are those that have said the UN is not interested in spreading political ideals by means of arms....but if you read their documents (their charter and mission statements) they most definitely are interested in spreading Democracy by means of arms. They say it outright.

 

The UN was no different and no better than the Coalition....except for one major flaw, they refused to back up their words.

 

 

I don't think they should have used such language if they were not prepared to back it up, it could have avoided a war. If they meant to be soft they shoul;d have spoken more softly.

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

The UN was no different and no better than the Coalition....except for one major flaw, they refused to back up their words.

The major flaw was that the Coalition used the UN's words as a lame excuse to invade a country and destroy its society (and members thereof).

 

If you want to compare apples with apples, compare the Coalition with one of the horrific empirical powers of yester-year. Too big to give a damn what anyone else thinks. Too powerful to have to worry too much about the morality of their actions.

'Up yours Jack, I'm alright'....all we can do is sit around and hope the Chinese catch up sooner rather than later and maybe bring a little balance back into the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Geee...Mr UN inspector...we don't have any...see?  Where did they go?  Well we disposed of them!  Yes, against UN requirements and in secret of course.  :rolleyes:

 

 

 

I would say it isn't funny at all.

But you do say that it justified what we did.

 

I keep reading over and over that WMD weren't the reason we invaded. Yet in the Presidents speaches it was in his own words that he told us they had WMD and that they were a safety risk to our country. It was WMD that he knew was the only thing that would get the public to begin to even consider invading another country.

When we went back to the UN over and over it was showing satelite pictures of where the WMD factories were. Not reviewing UN charters.

Were we lied to or not? We weren't duped by the media they played the presidents addresses it was his voice coming out of his mouth. I feel duped but not by the media.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very well-timed announcement. It might persuade Iraqis to risk attempting to reach the polling booths, wherever they are;

The US and Britain have privately agreed an exit strategy from Iraq based on doubling the number of local police trainees and setting up Iraqi units that would act as a halfway house between the police and the army.

 

The agreement was reached on Monday between the US secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1400634,00.html
Link to post
Share on other sites

But you do say that it justified what we did.

 

I keep reading over and over that WMD weren't the reason we invaded. Yet in the Presidents speaches it was in his own words that he told us they had WMD and that they were a safety risk to our country. It was WMD that he knew was the only thing that would get the public to begin to even consider invading another country.

When we went back to the UN over and over it was showing satelite pictures of where the WMD factories were. Not reviewing UN charters.

Were we lied to or not? We weren't duped by the media they played the presidents addresses it was his voice coming out of his mouth. I feel duped but not by the media.

No, I don't say that. Whether or not there was any WMD to be found has little to do with justification in my view. From all that I have read I just cannot see it any other way.

 

I just reviewed several key speeches after I read your comments. An example:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030317-7.html

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

From here that seems to refer a great deal to UN resolutions.

 

The next paragraph:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

That is all true. Intelligence reports did say precisely that. They even played voice recordings at the UN of Iraqi officials talking about it. You can misinterpret a photo....but a voice recording? Or do you believe that was faked?

 

There is no doubt that hundreds of tons of nerve agent and biological weapons materials are missing. The UN has never even denied that.

 

 

Yes, it was all about the UN resolutions according to every document I can find.

 

There was some flawed intelligence but the bulk of it was valid.

 

In the end, if they had disarmed , they did it in a way in direct violation of the UN.

 

Even if the materials were destroyed the possibility that they were still there had to be taken seriously. Do you know what hundreds of tons of that stuff can do?

 

If a known murderer waves a plastic gun at the police they will shoot him down. Saddam Hussein was playing a deadly game and betting that the UN would not take action or if they would that he would win. Not very smart.

 

 

The only real question to me is whether or not the idea that diplomacy and sanctions had been exhausted is valid. I believe it is quite valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very well-timed announcement. It might persuade Iraqis to risk attempting to reach the polling booths, wherever they are;

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1400634,00.html

All well and good. Iraqis might have a slightly better than even chance of living through the voting process, but it still doesn't solve the other problems, the main one being that they don't know who is standing or what they are standing for. Aprt from the Coalitions stooges.

 

The candidates are unable to hold surgeries or knock on doors. From the Iraqi blogs I've read, all they can do is tout their position to trusted family members. Any written material/posters etc is destroyed as soon as it is posted. They may as well be voting in Florida for all the good their vote will do them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All well and good. Iraqis might have a slightly better than even chance of living through the voting process, but it still doesn't solve the other problems, the main one being that they don't know who is standing or what they are standing for. Aprt from the Coalitions stooges.

 

The candidates are unable to hold surgeries or knock on doors. From the Iraqi blogs I've read, all they can do is tout their position to trusted family members. Any written material/posters etc is destroyed as soon as it is posted. They may as well be voting in Florida for all the good their vote will do them.

I have made a note that you have predicted nearly half of those voting will be killed. We will see how accurate that is.

 

 

Yes, there are problems. I think that is pretty obvious without looking at blogs to know that.

 

The Iraqis in this building voted this morning. They were very happy about it.

 

Realistically, so far it seems to be going fairly well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made a note that you have predicted nearly half of those voting will be killed. We will see how accurate that is.

Notes taken in a Doctors handwriting cannot be held up as evidence due to their being impossible to read - so blow it out ya ear :P

 

Those voting over here were ecstatic too. Whoops of joy everytime someone cast a vote (according to the press/media). What the heck does that have to do with Iraqis voting in Bagdhad? Those guys may as well go into the booth blindfolded and just tick a random box. That isn't a problem, it is a fundamental flaw. However, this election is all about the Coalition leaderships ticking their own box.

 

Convince public of imminent death from Iraqi WMD's - Tick

Invade - Tick

Install interim puppets - Tick

Hold meaningless election - Tick

Make loadsa $$$ - Tick

Edited by Sir T Fireball
Link to post
Share on other sites

Notes taken in a Doctors handwriting cannot be held up as evidence due to their being impossible to read - so blow it out ya ear :P

 

Those voting over here were ecstatic too. Whoops of joy everytime someone cast a vote (according to the press/media). What the heck does that have to do with Iraqis voting in Bagdhad? Those guys may as well go into the booth blindfolded and just tick a random box. That isn't a problem, it is a fundamental flaw. However, this election is all about the Coalition leaderships ticking their own box.

 

Convince public of imminent death from Iraqi WMD's - Tick

Invade - Tick

Install interim puppets - Tick

Hold meaningless election - Tick

Make loadsa $$$ - Tick

I didn't say it had anything to do with voting in Bagdhad. I just mentioned my firsthand experience with some Iraqi voters. That wasn't according to the Press/Media, I know them and speak to them often.

 

 

Regarding your accusations...I don't buy it.

 

Fundamental flaw? I see it as a fundamental victory for the Iraqis. Those that are voting in the face of death threats have my admiration.

 

 

 

Regarding my handwriting...you are spot on...and I can't spell either. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

( I didn't say it had anything to do with voting in Bagdhad. I just mentioned my firsthand experience with some Iraqi voters. That wasn't according to the Press/Media, I know them and speak to them often.)

 

This is not an attack it's just a question because many people are saying the same thing.

 

Does it really mean much to the Iraqi's in Iraq that people living out side of Iraq are voting for people in their country from truely free country's? So very many of them have no intention of moving back to Iraq. They were showing people on the news voting (here) that were very young when they left Iraq and had no reason to move back. Now it's certainly likely that a few could move back, but there's no indication that there's going to be many. For many of them everything they have in this world is here including children born here.

For the many people that have left our country not temporarily for work but those with no intention of coming back I personally wouldn't be interrested in their vote in our elections here at home.

The fact that Iraq is having elections is a good thing IMOP but at this time it hardly seems free for the ones living there. We can go vote for any of the elections without the thought that there is a strong possibility we'll be killed for doing so. And if it were a very strong possibility here I wouldn't be impressed by those that left our country and are voting from abroad and don't really have a stake in the matter other than they have a relative living here. My hats off to those that will go out and vote for their country.

 

As for my previous post. I do feel lied to and I feel there were better options than what our president chose. I don't feel it was the "right" action. However now today there is one heck of a mess there and I feel the only "right" thing to do is straighten out to the best of our ability what "we did". I don't think it our responsibility to straighten out all of Iraqs problems being as we didn't cause all of Iraqs problem. I just wish I didn't think that it's going to cost us at least as many more lives as it's cost us so far to straighten out what "we did". I find that a shame.

Nothing more than my .02 (It's a Friday make that .01)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The overseas vote is only for Iraqi citizens. I don't know for sure the rules on dual nationality voting in Iraq but the general rule is that peeps with dual nationality have to choose which elections to participate in. They can't participate in American elections and Iraqi elections as well.

Most Iraqis that qualify for an overseas vote are refugees, not citizens of other countries with Iraqi connections.

 

I would say that the vote of a citizen who has spent time overseas is a broader-minded vote than a vote from a citizen who has not. There's nothing unpatriotic about travelling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there are an awful lot of US citizens overseas that vote in US elections and neve plan to actually live in the US again. Believe me that is true. I used to belong to a couple of "underground" organizations of US expatriates (not so underground really), so I know firsthand. I can give links for those who are interested in the expatriate lifestyle.

 

 

 

What does it mean to an Iraqi in Iraq that Iraqis in other places can vote? I don't know. What should it mean?

 

I would hope that they can see that the reason that their far away countrymen can vote at all is because they are in free countries....just as Iraq will be. It is in many ways an example.

 

 

But what does it mean to the man/woman on the street in Iraq? Probably not a whole lot I am guessing...not at the moment at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there are an awful lot of US citizens overseas that vote in US elections and neve plan to actually live in the US again.

How do they manage to stay overseas indefinitely ? You can't renew visitors visas forever.
Link to post
Share on other sites

(Well, there are an awful lot of US citizens overseas that vote in US elections and neve plan to actually live in the US again).

 

That is what I'm saying. If they're gone temporarily for whatever the reason and are coming back well ok. But it's known that many aren't coming back. But never surrendered citizenship and do vote. I'm not talking about what is or isn't legal. Why should we want their vote?

 

 

 

(There's nothing unpatriotic about travelling).

 

So very true and as small as the world has become hopefully more people can do it. However if a person were to plan on taking 10 years (or whatever) to live all over the world and isn't going to be around to have to live in whatever their vote goes towards why should they be voting. They may have the right but is it right? But really that's not where my point was going I was talking about those that have left and don't plan on coming back.

 

There are many Iraqi people not going back that are qualify that are voting. Along the same lines on the news this morning they were saying people at the poles were a little disappointed because so far the turn out wasn't close to what it could be taking into account those that qualify. Who knows maybe some of them figured if they weren't going back they shouldn't vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do they manage to stay overseas indefinitely ? You can't renew visitors visas forever.

That depends on where they are doesn't it? It can be done legally or illegally. Sometimes with looholes, but often by staying below (or even above) the radar or just one step ahead of the authorities.

 

There are a variety of ways and it really depends on where you are.

 

In many cases the enforcement of laws and regulations is very poor and it simply isn't much of a problem.

 

In some cases some countries depend so much on illegals that they don't do anything about it imply because it would do serious harm to their economy and workforce.

 

I have known expatriates in several countries and they ranged from the very poor to the very rich. As a group I find them to be very interesting people and as I said I actually joined in with them for a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes with looholes, but often by staying below (or even above) the radar or just one step ahead of the authorities.

There are depths to which one should not plunge. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by moon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I made it sound too sinister.

 

Just Google expatriate and you will find many pages of sites geared toward that lifestyle. There are sites for schools, work, health insurance...all sorts of things. There are agencies that can help, in addition to message boards and all sorts of resources.

 

There are specific guides for many countries that can help a great deal.

 

This is one example: http://www.escapeartist.com/

 

You can read the stories of many expatriates and their adventures on the web. I find it fascinating.

 

If you have studied much about the early 20th century you will know that the expatriate community comprised a fair number of what we now consider some of our brightest artists, writers, and intellectuals of that time (the lost generation).

 

Regardless of the impression that laws and regulations give it is still a very viable lifestyle.

 

Many contemporary people whose names you would know have lived as expatriates including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Christy Brinkley, and many more. Famous expatriates in times passed include Joyce, Picasso, Hemingway, and many more.

 

 

There is nothing like sitting on a terrace in a place like Amsterdam or Paris discussing things that matter with people like that....or things that don't matter....whichever. They are the sort of people I gravitate to.

 

 

EDIT: Regarding Iraqi expatriates, I expect many will return. I also expect many will leave that wanted to before and could not.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...9-2004Sep6.html

 

:)

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...