I split the WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception thread after some paintstaking decision-making on which posts should join this new thread. If I missed one or screwed up a context, please let me know by PM.
--- SkinWalker



Originally Posted By SkinWalker
And, yes, the Iraqi election turn out was better than could be expected.

which is both surprising and good news.

Would probably have happened on its own in a few years, but that is neither here nor there.

Would have been nicer if we had based our reason to go to war on the basis of bringing democracy to the iraqis (though even that is a dangerous precedent mildly analgous to the crusades or the misinaries bringing "civilization" or "god" to the heathens). Rather than Blair saying that if Saddam gave up the weapons he didn't have then he could stay in power.

(So theoretically, if we had a decent intelligence service then saddam would still be in power. ) :D

Anyone seen the stories recently about the Uk atourney general's advice to the UK government on the legality of the war.. apparently it ammounted to a single side of A4 that kind of skirted over most of the issues... :D

Would probably have happened on its own in a few years
Probably not. Several Iraqi tank divisions and assault helicopter wings would see to it that this would not be the case. By precendent, southern Shia communities tried for self-determination in the early 90s but that was violently crushed while Europe and the US stood by.

The Bush administration is nothing but an embarrassment to over 200 years of American spirit and true patriotism.I for one consider Bush, his regime, his neoconservative chums and all those who voted for him, to be absolute wastes of oxygen.

However, I must point out that he's not the first neoconservative idiot president, nor is he the only president to do evil things. Even relatively liberal presidents such as Clinton were guilty of awful crimes against humanity. America's never been a particularly righteous nation.

America's never been a particularly righteous nation.

62,040,606 elegible voters voted for Bush. So you're saying that 62,040,606 Americans who you don't know are a waste of oxygen.

Prejudiced much?

You'd be saying that in German if it weren't for the US commitment to Europe in WWI and WWII. :D

And throwing a bunch of cliche insults and labels on to US presidents and, well, all of America wont change the reality that the US brought free and open elections to Iraq on Jan 30. Sanctions and diplomacy with the Hussein regime would never have accomplished that.

Which crimes against humanity was Clinton found guilty of exactly? ... I must have missed the ICJ trial.

The US invasion of Iraq created a situation of terrorism and insurgency that wouldn't have existed had we not invaded.

Obviously Baathists would have no need to support an insurgency if they maintained their iron grip over Iraq. So what?

I don't hold the US responsible for acts of terror by foreign nationals. The US isn't encouraging and supplying terrorists. Baathists, Al-Qa'ida and other foreign nationals are.

Had the US not intervened in Iraq, there would be no elections. And the forced deportations would have continued, and the Iraqi informant network would continue to persecute civillians. And more bodies would have been added to the mass graves.

Now that Hussein government is gone, the ferocity of anticoalition terror tactics reveals further its immoral, evil core. Freedom isn't free.

Did you know that when the USA "liberated" Afghanistan, they inserted a President instead of holding fair elections
Yes, in order to have a functioning interim government, Hamid Karzai was essentially installed as administration chief. But only until free, fair, and open elections were held in Afghanistan, where for the first time in 90 years, the Afghanis were allowed a national-level voice of self-determination (http://www.elections-afghanistan.org.af/Election%20Results%20Website/english/results_enwww/results_enwww_4.5.html) . I guess somehow Eagle turned a blind eye to the news that the UN endorsed the October elections in Afghanistan. Presumably this type of news contradicts the America-as-imperialist worldview and is ignored.

I'll never accept the implication that America is out to 'colonize' Afghanistan. The US and its allies liberated Afghanistan from a vile enemy.

Since Eagle has taken the brave (some might say foolish) step of marching into the middle of this i should probably cover his flank or something....

The way I see it there are three seperate questions:

1) Should the US have invaded Iraq based on Terrorism and WMD?
2) Should the US have invaded Iraq to install democracy?
3) Given that they are there now (whatever you answered to 1 and 2) what should they do now?

plus maybe a 4th of:
4) Is the world a safer place now?

My answers would be:
1) No.
The evidence was obviously shakey (even at the time) and a blatant excuse. Inspections were working, saddam was losing grip on power, inspectors wanted more time.

2) Maybe.
The aim is noble (if a bit holier than thou). However there are three obvious drawbacks.

(a) It sets a precident of powerful countries invading weak ones when they don't like them. This makes it harder to object when china or russia decides THEY want to invade someone who's internal polices they don't like. Given this danger it should only have gone ahead with full UN backing.

(b) Democracy works best when it exists from the bottom up. When the people have asked for and obtained it themselves. When it is installed from the top down it becomes unsupported and weak. This means it often fails, or needs to be supported by strong extrenal powers (which leads to resentment). Heck, Iraq itself was created in this way by strong external forces (US and UK) mashing a lot of antagonistic groups together "for their own good". That lasted a year or two before the "nice" installed leaders were ovethown.

(c) It was bound to create a huge power vacuum in an already unstable region with a number of naturally antagonistic groups present. Was the risk of removing a contained known threat worse the risk of an unknown threat from a power vacuum? I actually think that the situation in iraq has gone a lot better than it could, but even so a huge number of iraqis have died (30 to 40 timesthe number that died on 9/11).

3) We stay and sort out the mess.
I may not have been keen on going in in the first place, but now it has been started it has to be finished properly. Its odd that the ones who shouted loudest to go in are often the ones who want to leave first. The elections have actually been surprisingly successful, but americans are going to have to stay and die until they are no longer needed.

I'm a little torn on getting other countries to help out. Getting other muslim troops to help would be the best idea, but of course the US doesn't have many allies there. Getting the UN in control would add more legitimacy... but of course it is a lose lose situation for the UN. If they help then they suffer the same loses, and if it all works out get none of the credit and all of the "i told you so"s. If they don't help they get called cowardly and impotent.

It would have been nice if there had been more of a coalition going in, or some actual idea of what to do to keep order once the war was over. But its too late for that, they just need to do the best they can, and try and appear to be following the requests of the iraqi government, not running them.

and...

4) No chance.
Not only are we less safe, the iraqis are less safe. We have also given up all our rights without a fight. We are now so scared that anyone just has to mention the word "terrorism" and people loose all their common sense. Even though (even with all the escalation in iraq) terrorism has to be right down the bottom of the scale in terms of deaths.

I wonder if this decade will go down in history as the year that democracy was spread, or democracy was lost?

we now return you to your regularly scheduled edition of Crossfire with Skinwalker and Wilhuf... :D

I wonder if this decade will go down in history as the year that democracy was spread, or democracy was lost?
[Cough]Patriot Act[Cough]

If Bush wants democracy to be spread, why's he taking away Americans' rights at home?

4) No chance.
Not only are we less safe, the iraqis are less safe. We have also given up all our rights without a fight. We are now so scared that anyone just has to mention the word "terrorism" and people loose all their common sense. Even though (even with all the escalation in iraq) terrorism has to be right down the bottom of the scale in terms of deaths.
Earlier in Iraq, only dissenters got shot. Now everyone is at risk of getting shot: Innocent men, women, and children who would have been spared by Saddam risk getting bombed or shot by Insurgent forces.

About "adding bodies to mass graves": 300 000 civilians killed in Iraq since the USA invaded (not to mention 500 000 killed by US sanctions and bombing before Operation Iraqi "Freedom", bringing the number of US/Coalition-caused civilian casualties up to nearly a million) sounds like it might add a bit to the mass graves, too...

You'd be saying that in German if it weren't for the US commitment to Europe in WWI and WWII.
Who's using cliches now, eh? 'Cause "shaddup an' obey, we saved you in WW II!" is the biggest cliche out there.

You'd be saying that in French was it not for the French involvement in the Revolution.


The French supplied you with 90% of the gunpowder you used. How effective would the glorified Minute Men heroes of yours be without gun powder to fire their weapons with, hm?;)
They contributed tens of millions of dollars. That's a lot of rifles, cannons, and other equipment, supplies, and weapons, especially when considering that a dollar was worth oh-so-much more back then.
They put together a naval blockade that prevented the British from effectively reinforcing.
By the end of the Revolution, there was practically more French infantry in the USA than there were American.

Bottom line: Without the French, the US revolution would be doomed. No question about it. But do you show any gratitude towards the French for this? Not an ounce.

If your ideal is really that "if country A saves country B, country B needs to be forever commited to country A" (which is what so many people are saying, with country A being the USA and country B being, say, Norway), it's time for you to live up to it yourself. From now on, listen blindly to France. "They saved you in the Revolution":rolleyes: .

62,040,606 elegible voters voted for Bush. So you're saying that 62,040,606 Americans who you don't know are a waste of oxygen.Yes. Next question?

I know of those that voted for Bush that which I need to know: They were sub-humanly stupid enough to vote for an ex-alcoholic, religiously fundamentalist, obviously corrupt, warmongering idiot. Frankly, enough said.

You'd be saying that in German if it weren't for the US commitment to Europe in WWI and WWII."Commitment to Europe"? Need I remind you that America waited until their own shores were attacked before engaging in the conflict against nazism that had been raging for years prior to Pearl Harbour... and then claimed the majority of the credit for Hitler's downfall as well as the moral high ground TO THIS DAY?

It is and always has been a truly pathetic attempt at spin-doctoring the truth: That the US never had altruistic reasons for entering the second world war, but only selfish reasons. The US didn't care that countless numbers of their "allies" and other innocents were dying prior to the attack on Pearl. America as an entity cares only for itself and its interests, never for moral concerns. Your example merely proves my point. It does not prove yours.

And throwing a bunch of cliche insults and labels on to US presidents and, well, all of America wont change the reality that the US brought free and open elections to Iraq on Jan 30. Bahahaha.

Elections that are somewhat less representative of the will of the people than your OWN utterly flawed, unrepresentative elections... can hardly be termed "democratic". I consider your stance in this matter to be strewn with gaping holes in knowledge and logic.

Don't you realize that US Task Force 626 is engaged directly in a battle against Al-Qa'ida elements in Iraq?No offence, but I consider this perpetual regurgitation of unsubstantiated, uncheckable neoconservative (nazi) propaganda concerning mythical "Al-Qaeda forces" to be pathetic.

He spelled "Al-Qa'ida" right, though, I think. That's something:).

"Commitment to Europe"? Need I remind you [not going to quote the whole thing when it's right ahead of my post]
Exactly. You eventually got into Europe, but with all due respect, letting the continent be ravaged for two whole years before finally getting your butts around to join the fight doesn't sound like commitment to me.

Yes. Next question?
I love this kind of straight answers:D.

I've lived in Houston for three years, and I have to disagree with you when it comes to your labelling of "every" Bush supporter being an idiot. My therapist back there, whose name shall not be mentioned as the world is smaller than we realize;), was an exceptionally wise woman who taught me more about psychology and coping with various bad things than you'd ever know. But she supported Bush's foreign policy "because there are people out there who want to hurt us." Again, she was a very smart woman (and certainly no waste of O2:D), but she still voted for Bush.

Unbelievable.

I don't hold the US responsible for acts of terror by foreign nationals. The US isn't encouraging (...) terrorists. Baathists, Al-Qa'ida and other foreign nationals are.
So you're saying that when the US does things like toppling democracy (Chile), bombing innocents deliberately (Clinton, Baghdad and certain other places), and selling weapons to dictators (Iran, Iraq, and many others), that does nothing whatsoever to encourage terrorism against the USA? I don't buy that.

As for supplying terrorists: Wrong again.

He spelled "Al-Qa'ida" right, though, I think. That's somethingAs far as I'm aware it's a phoneticised Arabic term, so there's no "correct" spelling in English. I use the spelling that the BBC news service used following the 9/11 attacks.

Again, she was a very smart woman (and certainly no waste of O2), but she still voted for Bush.

Unbelievable.I too thought it unbelievable at first, but then I remembered that the accumulation of knowledge doesn't make one intelligent, much less a worthwhile human being. Neoconservatives in Washington have accumulated quite a bit of knowledge in their lifetimes... doesn't make them any less stupid, doesn't make them any less worthless.

Yes. Next question?
So you are openly predjudiced against 62 million individuals you don't know. That puts your mindset down a notch in the eyes of many people. It is chillingly similar to neonazi thought. The predisposed and intentional condemnation of an entire group of people without regard to situation or value. How embarrassing.

etting the continent be ravaged for two whole years before finally getting your butts around to join the fight doesn't sound like commitment to me.

Your decision to ignore the impact of US-provided lend lease immediately at the war's onset takes you down a notch as well.

Democracy works best when it exists from the bottom up. When the people have asked for and obtained it themselves. When it is installed from the top down it becomes unsupported and weak. This means it often fails, or needs to be supported by strong extrenal powers (which leads to resentment).

A democracy is propped up from the bottom, by definition. You're unlikely to find a modern democracy that wasn't created by force. German, American and French democracies were all created by violent action, in relatively short time periods. It is certainly true that democracies need to be supported, frequently, by external powers. For example, the US forces deployed in Germany following world war II, to shield against east-block military might.

Elections that are somewhat less representative of the will of the people than your OWN utterly flawed, unrepresentative elections... can hardly be termed "democratic".
You know it is said that 'denial is the first step to recovery,' so perhaps you're on the right path. If by 'your OWN ... elections' you mean 'the US elections,' be advised that turnout in the 30 January elections in Iraq was actually better than in most areas in the US for the November 2004 presidential elections. And this was accomplished under threat of terrorist attacks directed against participants.

uncheckable neoconservative (nazi) propaganda
The free western press has stated many times that Al-Qa'ida elements are currently operational in Iraq. For example, Abu Zarqawi, an Al-Q'aida operative has openly issued a number of threats against Iraqis and the coaltion from within Iraq.


1) Should the US have invaded Iraq based on Terrorism and WMD?
2) Should the US have invaded Iraq to install democracy?
3) Given that they are there now (whatever you answered to 1 and 2) what should they do now?

plus maybe a 4th of:
4) Is the world a safer place now?

Very good questions, all of them. My take:
1. No. Iraq had the intent to acquire WMD, but no significant capability. Communications between Al-Qa'ida elements in Iraq and Iraqi officials was not likely a substantial enough basis for invasion.
2. Yes. If not now, when? If not the coalition, then by whom? Bullets and kinetic strikes, not sanctions, are what toppled Hussein. (Feel free to identify an example of a country which changed its regime because of political/economic sanctions, not armed force).
3. Crush the insurgency as quickly as possible, promote the economic reconstruction of Iraq, promote and safeguard Iraqi democracy, train and encourage the Iraqis to handle their internal and external security, remain commited to Iraq until these tasks are completed.
4. Today the world is safer (outside of Iraq) than before. The reality is that with every Jihadist Abu and Haji making a run for Iraq to wage war against the 'infidel', that's one less crazed Abu and Haji the rest of the world has to worry about knocking on their doorstep with a suicide belt or AK.

So you are openly predjudiced against 62 million individuals you don't know.Nonsensical fallacy. I don't have to "personally know" axe murderers to be justifiably prejudiced against them. ;)

That puts your mindset down a notch in the eyes of many people.I'm prejudiced against stupid Bush supporters. That puts my mindset up a notch in the eyes of intelligent people. Why would I care what I seem like to stupid Bush supporters? They're muppets. :confused:

The free western press has stated many times that Al-Qa'ida elements are currently operational in Iraq.The REALLY free western press has stated on many occasions that Saddam Hussein had no proven links with Al-Qaeda. The REALLY free western press has stated on many occasions that the so called "Al-Qaeda network" isn't as large nor as cohesive an entity as the American government likes to make out. The fact that all Arabic guerrillas worldwide are being called "Al-Qaeda elements" by your pathetic excuse for a national press is merely laughable. :)

You're unlikely to find a modern democracy that wasn't created by force.You're unlikely to find a modern democracy. Period. At least not in the US or the UK.

'your OWN ... elections' you mean 'the US elections,' be advised that turnout in the 30 January elections in Iraq was actually better than in most areas in the US for the November 2004 presidential elections.Once again you manage to miss the point entirely... The Iraqi elections were unrepresentative because the population didn't know who the hell they were voting for or why. Candidates' names were kept secret until the last moment. The members of several factions were excluded from voting. There was no space on the ballot for the Iraqis to vote for chucking the damn yanks out. :D

For these reasons and many others, the Iraqi elections were simply a sham. They were not even close to the democratic ideal. Neither were the recent US elections. :)

Turnout? Don't make me guffaw.

Yes. If not now, when? If not the coalition, then by whom? Bullets and kinetic strikes, not sanctions, are what toppled Hussein.Install democracy? Makes it sound like an operating system. How silly. You don't even have democracy in your own country. How can you "install it" anywhere else? Are your system specs too low to handle it or something? :p

Today the world is safer (outside of Iraq) than before. The reality is that with every Jihadist Abu and Haji making a run for Iraq to wage war against the 'infidel', that's one less crazed Abu and Haji the rest of the world has to worry about knocking on their doorstep with a suicide belt or AK.Guh. Yeah, let's ruin an entire country and kill a sizeable proportion of its population in order to DISTRACT those darned terroristas. (sic) With such bait, we can lure them back to where they belong, the DESERT!

Bigoted sentiment, frankly.

Candidates' names were kept secret until the last moment. The members of several factions were excluded from voting.
Candidate names were kept secret in order to protect them from assassination or kidnapping by terrorists/insurgents. There was a very serious possibility the election would fail if candidate names had not been covered. Individual faction members were excluded from the list for various reasons, including their open calls for withdrawal of the Coaltion from Iraq, open religious intolerance, and in the case of Muktada Al-Sadr, terrorist activity.

I don't have to "personally know" axe murderers to be justifiably prejudiced against them.
Of the 62 million people who voted for Bush, you'd maybe find 1,000 axe murderers, at most. It's the gun-toters you have to watch out for. :D

Guh. Yeah, let's ruin an entire country and kill a sizeable proportion of its population in order to DISTRACT those darned terroristas. (sic) With such bait, we can lure them back to where they belong, the DESERT!
In a way (with the exception of the funny 'Guh' part), this is how it is playing out in Iraq. You have recognized that the war in Iraq has indeed (as skinwalker has pointed out) attracted terrorist elements, drawing them to the Iraqi battlefield, rather than, say, Europe.

Candidate names were kept secret in order...Yes yes yes. We're all aware of the so-called "reasons" your beloved spin doctors gave for keeping the candidates names secret. All that utter drivel doesn't alter the fact that the simple act of keeping them secret ALONE, foils ANY chance that the election would be truly democratic. :rolleyes:

Individual faction members were excluded from the list for various reasonsAh, so your government gets to decide who can vote and who can't in iraq, and you're okay with that? And there's me thinking that the principle of our lovely western "democracy" was that EVERYONE of legal age could vote, whatever their political persuasion. And even you have to admit that iraqi people were excluded from voting in their own supposed election, simply for desiring that the yanks get out of their damn country. I can't imagine anything less democratic, and more occupational. Can you?

Frankly I can't believe you're sitting there, giving ANY credence at all to the neo-con rhetoric you're reguritating.

In a way (with the exception of the funny 'Guh' part), this is how it is playing out in Iraq.Yeah mate, my point was that this is NOT OKAY. It is not a good idea, it is not a moral position to hold. Understand?

And even you have to admit that iraqi people were excluded from voting in their own supposed election, simply for desiring that the yanks get out of their damn country. I can't imagine anything less democratic, and more occupational. Can you?
I would like a source of proof that Iraqi voters were prevented from voting. With little effort, you'll realize that the Saddam Hussein regime, which tolerated no elections, is a less democratic and occupational situation than what we saw 30 January.

Yeah mate, my point was that this is NOT OKAY. It is not a good idea, it is not a moral position to hold.
So presumably you'd prefer terrorists to conduct operations, say, in your neighborhood, rather than in Iraq?

I would like a source of proof that Iraqi voters were prevented from voting. Try your own words:

Individual faction members were excluded from the list for various reasons, including their open calls for withdrawal of the Coaltion from Iraq, open religious intolerance, and in the case of Muktada Al-Sadr, terrorist activity.Silly fellow. We've both read the same news reports. Many of these people had every right to be voters and were prevented from voting, as you yourself have admitted.

you'll realize that the Saddam Hussein regime, which tolerated no elections, is a less democratic and occupational situation than what we saw 30 JanuaryHeh, reduced to splitting hairs eh. They're BOTH undemocratic. You're just happy because the people in charge of the undemocratic situation on 30/1 currently reside in Washington. ;)

So presumably you'd prefer terrorists to conduct operations, say, in your neighborhood, rather than in Iraq?I don't want Americans in my neighborhood.

:)

Seriously though, your ideas are extremely wierd at times. Do you really believe that being afraid that the bad men might anthrax you to death is justification enough to go to an UNRELATED COUNTRY and decimate it? That IS wierd.

Try your own words
I said that candidates were excluded from running for elected office. I never said Iraqis were prohibited from voting. (Although I'm sure a certain percentage of Iraqis were prohibited from voting because of criminal activity, as one normally finds in all modern democracies.)

My question was serious. I haven't seen reports that Iraqis were prevented from voting by the coalition or interim Iraqi Government and I'd like to see proof of that.

My bad, you were refering to Iraqis being unjustly disenfranchised. Since that is the case, my response is 'no they weren't, not by the coalition.' I know that candidates were blocked, but I haven't seen proof that Iraqis were systematically denied voting rights. Denial of voting rights was in the form of anticoalition terrorist edicts promising 'death' to people who voted in an election that was an 'affont to allah.'

Again, please provide evidence that the interim Iraqi Government and or the coalition systematically prevented iraqis from voting. Oh and yes I know about the Kurdish unofficial vote to separate from Iraq. That is unacceptable if Iraq is to remain whole, obviously. Of course it does beg the question, should Iraq even remain whole?

It's okay, I forgive you.

My question was serious. I haven't seen reports that Iraqis were prevented from voting by the coalition or interim Iraqi Government and I'd like to see proof of thatYou want to see a news report in the form of the Guardian's editorial on the subject, go here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,13031,1434298,00.html) just for starters.

You want proof, as in... eyewitness proof, go to Iraq and find out for yourself. Send me a postcard. Though I'd like to see you "prove" anything YOU'VE mentioned in a comparable fashion. Just to pre-empt your response. ;)

I do appreciate your effort, but your source doesn't actually say that either the coalition or Iraqi Interim Government excluded voters. It said millions were unable or unwilling to vote.

There are many reasons this happened. For a minority, it was their unwillingness to participate in an election they believed to be rigged. For many many more, it was the threats of decapitation, threats against family members, and outright intimidation by Al-Qa'ida and other Iraqi terrorist groups that kept Iraqi voters away from the polling station, not any 'imperialist' US scheme.

Mate, I never stated that each American Soldier grabbed a Sunni voter and held a gun to their head until the election was over, did I? I think that might be a little obvious, even for a yank GI. ;)

I stated that thousands were prevented from voting and this constitutes merely another undemocratic pillar in the huge pantheon of undemocratic aspects to the plainly undemocratic "elections" of 30/1.

(edit)
And I note you use the term "Al-Qaeda" again. You just love the sound of that, don't you.
(/edit)

You're just happy because the people in charge of the undemocratic situation on 30/1 currently reside in Washington.
The election was democratic, despite terrorist efforts to derail the event through violence and intimidation. And yes, I am happy that the people in Washington, all parts of the US really, coaltion partners, and the Iraqi people took it upon themselves to make the election happen.

No it was not democratic, and I've listed several points to back that statement up, none of which you've been able to refute.

I declare my case proven beyond your capacity to rebut.

Still, if you come up with anything new, feel free to post it and I shall respond.

Since you're making proclamations, I declare the election results beyond your capacity to comprehend. You haven't provided evidence that the Iraq election was undemocratic. The majority of Iraqis participated in the election. This simply could not have happened without coalition intervention.

You were unable to provide an example of a democracy that was created without resort to force.

You have forwarded no evidence that anything other than terrorist activity was responsible for the areas where turnout was below average.

As an aside, I wish you didn't have to give me a reason to say this, but I also declare some of your statements about Americans as blatantly prejudiced, and destructive to your 'case' and objectivity.

Innocent men, women, and children who would have been spared by Saddam risk getting bombed or shot by Insurgent forces.
But Eagle, the insurgency is composed of former Hussen regime members and others. The responsibility for this destruction lies squarely on the shoulders of Hussein and his ilk, not the coalition. The vast majority of deaths and property destruction in Iraq are caused by insurgent operations, not the coalition.

Am I the only one that is beginning to not like Peter Cushing?

LOL. Poor governor tarkin.

You haven't provided evidence that the Iraq election was undemocratic.You're typing sheer nonsense mate. We've both agreed on these salient points:

[list=1]
The candidates names were kept secret until the last minute (Undemocratic)
"Undesirable" candidates were vetted by the coalition (EXTREMELY undemocratic)
An entire community was prevented from voting, namely the Sunni arab contingent. Without representative voters from this community, how can the result reflect the will of the majority?
There was no place on the ballot for the voters to express their desire to be rid of yank interference.
[/list=1]All these things are the DEFINITION of undemocratic, because they stifle the will of the people. They're the epitome of injustice, and there are others besides. I've quoted reputable news sources, you've quoted George Bush's spin doctors and used the term "Al-Qaeda" a lot. I'll be frank, your case was a house of cards, and now it's merely... cards.

You have forwarded no evidence that anything other than terrorist activity was responsible for the areas where turnout was below average. WHAT? The fact that the whole election was a US-sponsored sham might have been a contributing factor in the populace's desire to boycott it, as well as the fact that they didn't know who they were voting for, had no option to vote for any anti-american-occupation candidate, as WELL as the threat of being blown to smithereens. What more do you want?

As an aside, I wish you didn't have to give me a reason to say this, but I also declare some of your statements about Americans as blatantly prejudiced, and destructive to your 'case' and objectivity.Prejudice isn't a dirty word. As previously mentioned, I'm prejudiced against axe murderers, rapists, and neoconservatives (nazis). So of course I'm prejudiced against Bush supporters, and JUSTIFIABLY so, entirely due to their ACTIONS in voting for such a moronic menace.

You've been incredibly childish during this debate, playing the hitler card at LEAST once, and trying to get people's backs up with supposedly emotive terms like "prejudice". The fact that I am not ignorant of the etymology of the word means that I do not take offence. Far from it. ;)

The responsibility for this destruction lies squarely on the shoulders of Hussein and his ilk, not the coalitionYou people invaded their country for purely self-interested and petty reasons. :rolleyes: It's ALL your fault. And Hussein's ilk includes Bush and all neoconservatives, frankly.


Skin:
Am I the only one that is beginning to not like Peter Cushing?Watch "Horror Express" and tell me you dislike Peter Cushing. I dare you.

What more do you want?
Specific reporting that low turnout (in areas were turnout was low, many areas had high turnout) was caused by direct coalition action. Show me an article documenting cases where Iraqi officials, or coalition officials actually turned away Iraqi voters. You've got nothing.

Without coalition action, Iraqis would have had no pluralist voice at all in the future direction of their country. Hopefully the upcoming parliamentary elections and future elections that will replace the interim government with a permanant one will enjoy even better active engagement by the Iraqi people.

There are numerous documented cases of anti-Iraqi insurgents conducting kidnappings, hostage takings, suicide bombings, assassinations, extortion and intimidation, to prevent Iraqis from voting. Those actions are the source of weakness in the election.

playing the hitler card at LEAST once
Don't be childish. I never even used the word 'hitler' (sic). What I did was illustrate that the US historically has intervened to defend foreign democracies.

It's ALL your fault. And Hussein's ilk includes Bush and all neoconservatives
Presumably by 'your,' you mean 'The United States'.' At minimum I would expect you to include Australia and the United Kingdom in your blanket condemnation. And your statements are prejudiced. I would be embarassed to make such statements about an entire nationality I don't even know.

Neocons aren't really related to Baathists. They're pretty much opposites.

There was no place on the ballot for the voters to express their desire to be rid of yank interference.
Or Australian or British, Ukrainian, Polish, Korean, Pakistani, etc. Be advised that the coalition presence is at the request of the Interim Iraqi Government.

Show me an article documenting cases where Iraqi officials, or coalition officials actually turned away Iraqi voters.What, the fact that they were a hated invading force installing a puppet regime ENTIRELY of their own selection isn't enough to discourage voters from turning out? :D

Never mind that the coalition was actively waging an armed offensive against a huge slice of the population of Iraq that THEY deemed to be "undesirable". How were they supposed to cast their ballot when under American fire?

And still you dodge the point. You say categorically that the election was "Democratic". Yet you fail to answer these points:

1.The candidates names were kept secret until the last minute (Undemocratic)

2."Undesirable" candidates were vetted by the coalition (EXTREMELY undemocratic)

3. An entire community was prevented from voting, namely the Sunni arab contingent. Without representative voters from this community, how can the result reflect the will of the majority?

4. There was no place on the ballot for the voters to express their desire to be rid of yank interference.

Answer these points. Oh, you can't. Therefore the election was undemocratic, therefore your case is disproven.

Don't be childish. I never even used the word 'hitler' You might want to add a capital "H" there sonny. OH WAIT, YOU WERE TRYING TO BE FUNNEH. Sorry I didn't realise. ;) As for WHEN you played the hitler card, it was here:

That puts your mindset down a notch in the eyes of many people. It is chillingly similar to neonazi thought.Implying that your opponent is a nazi when you yourself are plainly a neoconservative is amusing to me. :p

Presumably by 'your,' you mean 'The United States'.'Why, I mean the US and all its stooges, together in one basket of rotten eggs.

Be advised that the coalition presence is at the request of the Interim Iraqi Government.Which is a US puppet regime. So the US is in Iraq... at the request of the US? Makes perfect sense.

Neocons aren't really related to Baathists. They're pretty much opposites.Actually you're right, they ARE different. Baathists aren't all bad once you get to know them... :o

In all seriousness, I compared Saddam to Bush and his henchmen, the word Baathist is your contribution to the medley, not mine. Saddam was a brutal fiend who believed that he had the sole right to crush anyone who fell outside his ideology.

Sound like anyone we know? Someone beginning with "B", perhaps?

How were they supposed to cast their ballot when under American fire?
Show me a record documenting US military elements firing on Iraqi voters. Show me a case of Iraqi voters being turned away from polling stations by coalition or Iraqi government officials. You've got nothin'! :lol:

you yourself are plainly a neoconservative
I'm nothing of the sort. I voted for Kerry (god help me). But only because I disagree with the majority of Bush's domestic agenda. It was very difficult for me to vote Kerry, however, because of his flip-floppy stand on Iraq. I tried very hard to identify what Kerry's specific strategy for Iraq was, but he really didn't say anything other than 'I'll do it better than Bush.' But he never said how. Very annoying.


1.The candidates names were kept secret until the last minute (Undemocratic)
I've already explained this. Review my statements on the need to protect the identity of candidates so that they wouldn't be killed by terrorists.

2."Undesirable" candidates were vetted by the coalition (EXTREMELY undemocratic).
I've already explained this as well. Always read posts! There were candidates whose criminal and terrorist activity prevented them from running for election. This is common practice in modern democracies.

3. An entire community was prevented from voting, namely the Sunni arab contingent. Without representative voters from this community, how can the result reflect the will of the majority? I've already addressed this issue!! The majority of the population did participate! Many Sunni neighborhoods had 60% or better turnout, depsite the efforts of terrorists to kill the voters.

4. There was no place on the ballot for the voters to express their desire to be rid of yank interference. But there were no US citizens on the ballot. Moreover, the election was for members of an interim government, not a referendum on foreign security provision.

So to re-phrase: Certain elements led to Coalition/Iraqi action preventing the election from being "democratic".

Spider Al didn't say the reasons for the things he listed were not good, Wilhuf. He said that the things he listed made the election un-democratic. To which I may add: As it were.

It's like a car running off the road and onto a grassy field. The reasons for the driver throwing it onto the field might be good (for example, he might otherwise have hit a deer or dog on the road), but that doesn't change the fact that the car did drive off of the road.

Show me a record documenting US military elements firing on Iraqi voters.
Metaphore, friend. Metaphore (if that's a word in English, too;)). They weren't litteraly shooting at the voters. They were interfering with the election.

They were interfering with the election.
Administrative sponsorship and political interference are two entirely different actions. The coalition were protecting the election, and spilling blood to make it happen, for the benefit of Iraqi citizens.

The point is, all of the undemocratic flavor in the election can be attributed to terrorist activity, not US action. The election wasn't a 'sham.' The election was actually a tremendous success, considering the dangers the anticoalition posed.

Are you saying the US was 'metaphorically shooting at Iraqi voters.' What does that mean and does it have any practical significance? :nut:

Administrative sponsorship and political interference are two entirely different actions. The coalition were protecting the election, and spilling blood to make it happen, for the benefit of Iraqi citizens.
Once again: When I and Spider Al say they were "interfering", we are referring to removal of condidates, etc.

As for "it was justified": Let me quote what I put in my last post:
Certain elements led to Coalition/Iraqi action preventing the election from being "democratic".

Spider Al didn't say the reasons for the things he listed were not good, Wilhuf. He said that the things he listed made the election un-democratic. To which I may add: As it were.
Where does it say that I disagree that the reasons for what the USA did (keeping names secret, etc.) were not good? I'm agreeing with you, Wilhuf.

Are you saying the US was 'metaphorically shooting at Iraqi voters.' What does that mean and does it have any practical significance?
I repeat: The election was being interfered with, and thus you can say it was under fire. Figure of speech. Have you really never heard that term before? I doubt it.

Let me remind you Wilhuf, an occupying force has no right to decide which Iraqi citizens of legal age can or can not vote. Yes, people who hate American invaders have the right to vote in their own country too. Shooting at them is distinctly undemocratic.

It was very difficult for me to vote Kerry, however, because of his flip-floppy stand on Iraq.Ohhh yeah. You're a neocon alright. :rolleyes: Only a neocon could deny that he was a neocon and then proceed to come out with some stock neocon line from the election. :D

"flip floppy"... Give me strength.

Review my statements on the need to protect the identity of candidates so that they wouldn't be killed by terrorists.More buffoonery... that doesn't address the point that it was undemocratic.

I don't care if the names were witheld to protect the last colony of pregnant Chinese pandas! It doesn't matter. Undemocratic. You haven't even TRIED to deny it. Your case is disproven. Live with it.

There were candidates whose criminal and terrorist activity prevented them from running for election. Buffoonery. America doesn't GET to decide who criminals are in Iraq. That's for an official Iraqi government and judiciary to decide, not some mock puppet neocon regime.

They vetted those candidates because they were ANTI AMERICAN. THAT is both undemocratic, and amoral to boot.

Many Sunni neighborhoods had 60% or better turnoutThat's a meaningless statement. It's like saying that the turnout in Hicksville USA was 100%!!!111

When the population of Hicksville is two people. And a lame ferret.

But there were no US citizens on the ballot.Buffoonery. How does this lacklustre retort address the point that:

4. There was no place on the ballot for the voters to express their desire to be rid of yank interference.

They vetted those candidates because they were ANTI AMERICAN. THAT is both undemocratic, and amoral to boot.
Noone had any 'moral problems' when NAZIs were banned from politics in Germany (and continue to be). I don't know AL, maybe you should defend NAZI 'rights' to participate in elections.

America doesn't GET to decide who criminals are in Iraq. Correct. The Iraqis vetted the list, in coordination with the US.

n occupying force has no right to decide which Iraqi citizens of legal age can or can not vote.
And you haven't provided the smallest shred of evidence that voters were turned away at the ballot box.

Many Sunni neighborhoods had 60% or better turnout
So? If, say, 172 neighbourhoods has a voter turnout of 60%, who's to say the remaining 100 000 neighbourhoods in Iraq didn't have a turnout of 0-17%?

Noone had any 'moral problems' when NAZIs were banned from politics in Germany (and continue to be). I don't know AL, maybe you should defend NAZI 'rights' to participate in elections.
We're talking about an occupational force denying candidates the right to run. The current German government hardly "occupies" Germany.

If, on the other hand, the Germans wanted to allow nazi candidates (heck, it's not like more than <1% of Germans vote for them anyhow, to my knowledge:p) and the USA stepped in and disallowed it, I'd feel that was out of line, even if it was the USA who brought democracy to Germany months earlier.

Besides, are you finally admitting that the candidates were booted due to American politics, not their safety? For your post seems to imply that. Good.

It was very difficult for me to vote Kerry, however, because of his flip-floppy stand on Iraq.
Read: Because he did what a democratic leader is supposed to do: Listen to the people.

I realize you'd, for some reason, have Bush, who keeps doing what he's doing regardless of what the nation and world says, but in a democratic nation (cough, US, cough), a leader is supposed to follow the will of the people.

More buffoonery... that doesn't address the point that it was undemocratic.
Why was concealing the identities of candidates until the last moment possible a democratic action? Because the action kept them safe from terrorist attack, and alive long enough to run for office. To reveal the identitites too early would be fundamentally undemocratic because it would expose them to unnecessary risk of kidnapping, torture, extortion, intimidation, or assassination.

Which is more democratic, 1. exposing a candidate's name and therefore exposing them to certain intimidation and possibly assassination, thereby eliminating the possibility of even voting for the candidate or 2. concealing a candidate's name until before the election, protecting them from terrorist influence and attack, and allowing them to represent the Iraqi elctorate? The Iraqis chose option 2.

In the final analysis, the candidate names were available for inspection, to all Iraqi voters.

Where is the evidence that coalition units shot at voters? Where is the evidence that the coalition or the interim Iraqi government turned away voters? There is about as much evidence of that as there is for WMDs! You've got nothing!

You're a neocon alright.
Skin, tell AL to stop with the insulting labels. Tell him to stop making the discussion about the poster, and about the topic.

It certainly SEEMS very democratic to not know the names of the people you're going to vote for in an election. That certainly makes it easy to come to an informed decision.

Skin, tell AL to stop with the insulting labels. Tell him to stop making the discussion about the poster, and about the topic.
With all due respect, Al, I agree with Wilhuf here. First you say Wilhuf is using the Hitler card, then you go off and repeatedly call him a nazi?

I think this thread can do without anti-Americanism and nazi accusations:p.

I must say that I've got some agreement and disagreement with both sides of the issue that this thread has taken a turn for.

But I also have to say that Wilhuf's point about the ad hominem remarks is valid, Spider_Al. Try to tone down a little, please. I'm not saying agree with him, just attack the issue rather than the person with whom you're debating.

But, Wilhuf, you're pressing some buttons with Spider, too. I like having both of you guys here because you each are good debaters and often present facts rather than just rhetoric. But let's keep it clean guys.

I'm actually thinking of splitting out the Iraq election posts into a separate thread unless either of you are opposed.

On topic

I have to agree with Wilhuf's point about the coalition forces not being overtly obstructive. There's certainly no indication that they've shot, or threatened to shoot, voters or potential voters. It might be possible that some of the security measures by their very nature were obstructive, but I've not seen evidence of this either.

I would, however, have to agree with Spider that there's a lot to improve when it comes to the democratic experience in the country. I find it absurd that voters went to the polls not knowing who the candidates were, much less their positions. It seems clear that the polls reflected the demographics of the nation (Sunni, Shiites, Kurds, etc.) rather than the democratic process of voting for the most qualified candidate lead.

But the reason for this secrecy is clear: the candidates were immediate targets of opposition forces (insurgents, terrorists, anarchists, other candidates, etc.).

As long as such conditions exist in the nation, can it truly be called "democratic?"

brain... melting... out... of... ears... :eek:

I've kind of lost track of all that, but i agree with skin that there is some truth on both sides, but (as tends to happen) you've both been pushed out to the extremes of your argument and the more extreme you get in either direction the further from the truth you get.

I did spot: Don't be childish. I never even used the word 'hitler' (sic). What I did was illustrate that the US historically has intervened to defend foreign democracies.
and choke on my diet coke and big mac though! :eek:

The US has a record of intervening when it is in their commerical/political interests to do so, the political system they support has nothing to do with it.

They have overthrown as many democracies (and installed friendly (for a while) dictators) as they have defended, if not more.
.
Still, personally i was impressed by the elections in iraq. They wer far from perfect, but considering the mess the country is now in they were remarkably successful.

A number of the rights and freedoms freshly inscribed in the iraqi constitution are ones that the UK and US have either never had, or recently given up. :confused: :(

As for so-called Al-Quaida, i'm beginning to firmly believe that it has been entirely cooked up in the minds of US republicans.
Its very convienient to label every nutter who is anti US ( or any of its allies ) as being from big bad Al Quaida, but i've yet to see ANY evidence of such an internations SUPER TERRORIST network. (And if there is one, shouldn't it be called SPECTRE or something cool? :D )

There are hundreds of groups out there who are disgruntled at the US (or the regimes it supports), but to suggest they are all part of some co-ordinated network that works together under a fixed leadership is just illogical. They may indeed have contact with each other, but that doesn't make them all part of the same organisation. (as the IRA does when it buys training or weapons from other terrorist groups, but that doesn't make them linked )

Many intelligence experts think this whole Al Quaida is a big smokescreen, and i have to say i agree.

Even IF you happen to believe in this unproven theory... there is no evidence that more than a handful of the insurgents in iraq are Al Quaida. Many are religious leaders, or local warlords, or diverse groups vying for power. Others are ex baathists, or just people from surrounding countries who happen to hate the US (there are quite a few of those you know).

In the same way that Saddam Hussien conned the world into thinking he was more tooled up than he was (though he ultimately pushed his bluff to far), a few Al Quaida people just have to pop up every so often and release a video taking responsibility for recent things in iraq and it makes them look like they organised it all.

Of course, bush NEEDS an Al Quaida threat to keep power and keep the population pliable... and bin laden needs a US military threat to keep up his support... so they are feeding off each other.

Why was concealing the identities of candidates until the last moment possible a democratic action?Um... IT WASN'T. Once again you appear confused. Concealing the names of candidates TOTALLY foils the democratic process. Without knowing whom you're voting for, you can't know WHY you're voting for them, what their policies are, you can't go and see them at rallies, can't get to know their party or entourage, in short, can't make an informed decision.

Concealing the identities of candidates is firmly undemocratic. It doesn't matter WHY you think it was done, the fact remains, it was done. It was undemocratic.

Noone had any 'moral problems' when NAZIs were banned from politics in Germany (and continue to be). I don't know AL, maybe you should defend NAZI 'rights' to participate in elections.I think that in a textbook democracy, EVERYONE has the right to cast his or her vote. In the UK, we have a fascist party called the BNP. I think they're nazis and highly ignorant to boot, but I certainly wouldn't stop them from running for office, nor from casting their vote. The second you stop people from participating in a democratic process, it becomes UNDEMOCRATIC. That's why the elections in Iraq were undemocratic, and you haven't come up with ANYTHING to challenge these purely logical points.

The Iraqis vetted the list, in coordination with the US.Mmkay. EVEN IF the Iraqi interim government wasn't headed by American stooges, which IT WAS, the very fact that you ADMIT American involvement in vetting the list, proves that the election was undemocratic.


Eagle:
I agree with Wilhuf here. First you say Wilhuf is using the Hitler card, then you go off and repeatedly call him a nazi? Wilhuf implied that I was a neo-nazi. That was when he played the Hitler card. I then called him a neoconservative, because he comes out with all the same, flawed, fascist rhetoric as neoconservatives do. Since Skinwalker deems that calling someone a neoconservative is illegal on these forums, I will naturally have to abide by that decision in order to continue the debate. But I don't have to agree with his decision. And to be honest I AM anti-America, due to America's actions on the world stage. America should clean up it's damn act.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Concealing the identities of candidates is firmly undemocratic. It doesn't matter WHY you think it was done, the fact remains, it was done. It was undemocratic.

Not sure I agree with that. It depends whether the voters know the POSITIONS of the candidates before hand in order to help them make up their mind... knowing the actual identities of the candidates is only really important in personality politics (of the type we have in the UK or US) which is the worst form of democracy. Or, of course, if the candidate has something to hide.

You could argue that systems such as proportional representation are actually MORE democratic, but in such systems it becomes less important to know WHO exactly you are voting for, as you are voting for a party/set of policies rather than the individual themselves.

It isn't perfect to have to hide identities in advance, but neither would it be perfect to (a) delay the elections too far, or (b) have people not represented cos candidates that held their views were to scared to stand.

knowing the actual identities of the candidates is only really important in personality politicsKnowing someone's position before the election is important, but it's less important than getting to know them, so that you can make an informed choice as to their character,.. as to whether they'll STICK to their pre-election position.

The Iraqi people simply weren't given an opportunity to get to know the candidates. Such a thing is totally counter to the democratic ideal.

It isn't perfect to have to hide identities in advance, but neither would it be perfect to (a) delay the elections too far, or (b) have people not represented cos candidates that held their views were to scared to stand.As it was, candidates didn't eschew standing because they were afraid, the reason they didn't stand was because America and its hangers-on prevented them from standing. Many Iraqis held and still hold the view that America should leave Iraq the heck alone. Where were their views represented in a list of candidates from which America had excised anti-coalition sentiment?

As for delaying the elections, I think they should have been delayed at LEAST until the whole country was able to vote without the risk of being shot.

Sorry, are you saying that an election in which the voters didn't know who the candidates were until the last minute, and in which an occupying foreign force vetted the list of candidates for those they found undesirable, in which voters eschewed voting for fear of violence... was democratic?

:confused:

re you saying that an election in which the voters didn't know who the candidates were until the last minute, and in which an occupying foreign force vetted the list of candidates for those they found undesirable, in which voters eschewed voting for fear of violence... was democratic?
Yes, because in the final analysis, it was an election in which the majority of eligible voters participated. Brought to you by the US and her allies.

As to delaying the election, no that is a very poor policy choice. The election undermines the insurgency by establishing that the Iraqi people have a choice in their future, rather than letting their fate be decided by militant foreign religious extremists (such as Al-Qa'ida). To delay the election would be akin to failing to use one of the best weapons available against all forms of extremism: self-determination.

And now I see in today's New York Times that even Iraqi civillians are now taking up arms against the insurgents.

Yes, because in the final analysis, it was an election in which the majority of eligible voters participated. Brought to you by the US and her allies.You're still in denial, seemingly. You can't seem to find any response to the point that the election was undemocratic. Your only response so far has been: "It was an election!"

It was an election. An undemocratic one. Even more undemocratic than the elections in our own countries, which are hardly the ideal.

As to delaying the election, no that is a very poor policy choice. The election undermines the insurgency by establishing that the Iraqi people have a choice in their future,I should think that it showed them that AMERICA has a choice when it comes to Iraq's future. America and its stooges invade the country, blatantly rig the election in their favour and squelch all the opposition they can. How is that good for the Iraqi people? How does it preserve their identity, their culture and their free will?

And now I see in today's New York Times that even Iraqi civillians are now taking up arms against the insurgents.Does that prove any of your points? Does it in fact, mean anything?

Originally posted by Wilhuf
The election undermines the insurgency by establishing that the Iraqi people have a choice in their future,

If you can tell me that MCDonald's and WalMart have no project for Iraqi in the near future, I'll believe that they can control their future.
If the only contracts given are by American contractors, the only investors they have are American, I'm sorry, they have zero control over their future.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
one of the best weapons available against all forms of extremism: self-determination.

Yes, America, a democratic nation, is not under the control of the extremists. Of course not...

one of the best weapons available against all forms of extremism: self-determination.
I don't get you. Are you saying that if you're very determined, you can't be an extremist?

In that case, I have to tell you that you are about as wrong as you can be. Extremists are determined - that's part of what makes them extremists.:rolleyes:

Self-determination means that the people of a territorial unit decide of their own political status, social and cultural developpment, economical policies, etc. without coercion from an outside power.

That's a very succinct and accurate definition coupes, and pertinently, it proves that the recent undemocratic election in Iraq does NOT qualify as a self-determinatory event for the Iraqi people. Coersion? They vetted the candidate list. Now that's what I call interference.