Jump to content


Spartacus

The Vote in Iraq


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 December 2005 - 04:57 AM

http://news.yahoo.co...n_re_mi_ea/iraq

Sooner or later you folks will have to acknowledge that Bush and Blair were right, WMD or not!!

Edited by Tim Gratz, 16 December 2005 - 07:07 AM.


#2 David Richardson

David Richardson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 711 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kalmar, Sweden

Posted 16 December 2005 - 08:45 AM

It all depends why they were voting … and what they were voting for.

I'm sure that the Iranians are very grateful to Bush and Blair for firstly removing their arch-enemy (you know, the guy who attacked them with the full support of people like Donald Rumsfeld), and secondly for handing power over to Shia politicians who spent their formative years in Iran.

Don't hold your breath expecting there to be any pay-off for the US or the UK, though. The Iranians work on the principle that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' too … but we're their enemy again now.

#3 Andy Walker

Andy Walker

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,989 posts

Posted 16 December 2005 - 09:55 AM

It is also facile and innacurate to describe an occupied country as a "democracy".

#4 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 December 2005 - 10:22 AM

Yes, Andy, never mind how many vote!

Unbelievable, none of you socialist/leftists have the intellectual courage to admit that, WMD or no, the regime change in Iraq may in the long run be a good thing. It certainly is for the people of Iraq.

Iraq was "occupied" by the forces of the butcher of Bagdad. The western troops are only there to ensure that the transition to democracy is a peaceful one.

Problem with you Brits is you were an imperial power that only gave up its colonies oft under force.

The US "occupied" Japan only long enough for Gen. MacArthur to bring democracy and freedom to that country. And look at how it has prospered. And changed from a culture of war to a culture of economic prosperity.

In the long run, your grandchildren and their children will live in a safer world because of the fortitude of George Bush and Tony Blair.

You guys just aren't smart enough to get it. You don't understand that the George Bush whose intelligence that you ridicule has more brains and vision than most of you put together. Sorry, but I just had to say it. I mean no offense to anyone in particular and I will applaud the first one to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe history will demonstrate that GB and TB were correct.

#5 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 December 2005 - 11:25 AM

From the December 16, 2005 New York Times:


Iraqi officials said that initial indications were that as many as 11 million people cast ballots, which, if the estimate holds, would put the overall turnout at more than 70 percent. With Iraqis still lining up to vote in front of ballot centers as the sun went down, officials ordered the polls to stay open an extra hour.

Gentlemen:

I submit there are 11,000,000 reasons you are wrong!

#6 David Richardson

David Richardson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 711 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kalmar, Sweden

Posted 16 December 2005 - 11:41 AM

Once again, it depends why they were voting and who for.

When I studied Politics in the 1970s at Warwick University one of the really interesting courses was a comparison of the political systems of the USA and the USSR.

One of the things I didn't know was that the USSR had plenty of elections … and it wasn't usually the Communists that won! In fact, something like 70% of the candidates to regional bodies weren't members of the Communist Party (although, you've guessed it, they were vetted by the Communist Party).

Do all those votes in the USSR amount to reasons why the Soviet system was good and that Soviet democracy and US democracy were the same?

In other words, the existence of voting and the existence of democracy are not necessarily the same thing.

#7 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 December 2005 - 12:49 PM

Of course I understand that.

But these were free elections, and even women (Allah forbid!) were allowed to vote, including religious minorities.

I await someone with the courage to say at least maybe things are indeed running in the correct direction.

Muslim fundamentalist terrorism has nothing to do with anything the West did. Muslims fundamentalists think Christians and Jews are infidels to be killed.

Hundreds of years ago the same blind, idiotic hate existed between Catholics and Jews. But the West developed liberal democracy with tolerance for all religions and the lack thereof. (Part of that had to do with Americans leaving England to get away from the Church of England.) Gradually the mideast will move in that direction, and I think the democracy in Iraq will help spread tolerance throughout the entire region.

So again I await someone agreeing that it appears that progress IS being made. . .

#8 Andy Walker

Andy Walker

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,989 posts

Posted 16 December 2005 - 01:05 PM

Of course I understand that.


Quite clearly you did not :lol:

#9 David Richardson

David Richardson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 711 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kalmar, Sweden

Posted 16 December 2005 - 04:04 PM

And all the evidence suggested that the elections in the Soviet Union were free and fair too … it was just that the basic conditions in which the elections were held were totally biassed towards the Communist Party. They didn't need to go round assassinating candidates (as happens in Iraq), or publishing religious fatwas telling you to vote for the religious party of your tribal group, because the social controls were so much more subtle.

#10 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,119 posts

Posted 16 December 2005 - 05:28 PM

When I studied Politics in the 1970s at Warwick University one of the really interesting courses was a comparison of the political systems of the USA and the USSR.


When I studied politics I discovered that America was not a democracy until the passing of the Civil Rights Acts in the mid 1960s. It was only achieved because John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson realized that you could not pretend to be in favour of democracy in the rest of the world if you don’t have it in your own country. As Martin Luther King pointed out, black soldiers were fighting in Vietnam for rights they did not have in their own country (the same was true of black soldiers during the Second World War).

Nor were the United States very keen on democracy in other countries when the people elected left-wing leaders in places like Chile and Nicaragua.

Ronald Reagan even had a worse record than Richard Nixon for undermining democracy. Probably Reagan worse offence was the way he propped up the white racist government in South Africa. This government would never have been brought down unless the other major powers joined forces in order to make the sanctions policy work.

The Republican Party has always been the neo-imperialist party and George Bush just reflects this tradition.

#11 Gavin Holden

Gavin Holden

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 19 December 2005 - 11:40 PM

Yes, Andy, never mind how many vote!

Unbelievable, none of you socialist/leftists have the intellectual courage to admit that, WMD or no, the regime change in Iraq may in the long run be a good thing. It certainly is for the people of Iraq.

Iraq was "occupied" by the forces of the butcher of Bagdad. The western troops are only there to ensure that the transition to democracy is a peaceful one.

Problem with you Brits is you were an imperial power that only gave up its colonies oft under force.

The US "occupied" Japan only long enough for Gen. MacArthur to bring democracy and freedom to that country. And look at how it has prospered. And changed from a culture of war to a culture of economic prosperity.

In the long run, your grandchildren and their children will live in a safer world because of the fortitude of George Bush and Tony Blair.

You guys just aren't smart enough to get it. You don't understand that the George Bush whose intelligence that you ridicule has more brains and vision than most of you put together. Sorry, but I just had to say it. I mean no offense to anyone in particular and I will applaud the first one to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe history will demonstrate that GB and TB were correct.



Will you still be as smug when Iraq becomes an islamic fundamentalist state? What if the Iraqis vote for leaders that take them in that direction - maybe even in time get rid of the democracy? What about the other wider effects of the invasion of Iraq? E.g. bringing a hardliner to power in Iran, damaging international co-operation between nations, exposing the Republican administration as the bunch of crooks they are, weakening the UN, killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, sending thousands of young gullable Americans to their death or injury. I could go on but you aren't listening - just like Bush & co......

#12 Ed Waller

Ed Waller

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southampton

Posted 21 December 2005 - 09:16 PM

Yay... democracy in Iraq.

So we can pull the troops home for christmas!

#13 Stephen Turner

Stephen Turner

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,825 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cambridge England
  • Interests:Music playing &amp; teaching guitar. Research into<br />Jack the Ripper, &amp; JFK.

Posted 26 October 2006 - 05:16 PM

Yes, Andy, never mind how many vote!

Unbelievable, none of you socialist/leftists have the intellectual courage to admit that, WMD or no, the regime change in Iraq may in the long run be a good thing. It certainly is for the people of Iraq.

Funny how events have a nasty habit of coming back to bite the ass of right wing cheerleaders is it not!!

Iraq was "occupied" by the forces of the butcher of Bagdad. The western troops are only there to ensure that the transition to democracy is a peaceful one.

CHOMP CHOMP!!

Problem with you Brits is you were an imperial power that only gave up its colonies oft under force.

The US "occupied" Japan only long enough for Gen. MacArthur to bring democracy and freedom to that country. And look at how it has prospered. And changed from a culture of war to a culture of economic prosperity.

In the long run, your grandchildren and their children will live in a safer world because of the fortitude of George Bush and Tony Blair.

If the events currently unfolding in Iraq were not so bloody tragic (mainly for the Iraqi's) this little pearl would win a perrier prize for humour.

maybe, just maybe history will demonstrate that GB and TB were correct.


Or maybe history Tim, will demonstrate the folly of "crowing before dawn" you win the horses arse award

Edited by Stephen Turner, 26 October 2006 - 05:32 PM.


#14 Stephen Turner

Stephen Turner

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,825 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cambridge England
  • Interests:Music playing &amp; teaching guitar. Research into<br />Jack the Ripper, &amp; JFK.

Posted 26 October 2006 - 05:27 PM


Yes, Andy, never mind how many vote!

Unbelievable, none of you socialist/leftists have the intellectual courage to admit that, WMD or no, the regime change in Iraq may in the long run be a good thing. It certainly is for the people of Iraq.

Funny how events have a nasty habit of comming back to bite the ass of right wing cheerleaders is it not!!

Iraq was "occupied" by the forces of the butcher of Bagdad. The western troops are only there to ensure that the transition to democracy is a peaceful one.

CHOMP CHOMP!!

Problem with you Brits is you were an imperial power that only gave up its colonies oft under force.

The US "occupied" Japan only long enough for Gen. MacArthur to bring democracy and freedom to that country. And look at how it has prospered. And changed from a culture of war to a culture of economic prosperity.

In the long run, your grandchildren and their children will live in a safer world because of the fortitude of George Bush and Tony Blair.

If the events currently unfolding in Iraq were not so bloody tragic (mainly for the Iraqi's) this little pearl would win a perrier prize for humour.

maybe, just maybe history will demonstrate that GB and TB were correct.


Or maybe history Tim, will demonstrate the folly of "crowing before dawn" you win the horses arse award


Perhaps Brendan Slattery, or Craig Lamson might like to give us the benfit of their wisdom here. I suspect Craigs reply might be that as long as Haliburton are making plenty of Money out of the illegal occupation then every things hunky dory with him.

#15 Andy Walker

Andy Walker

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,989 posts

Posted 26 October 2006 - 05:32 PM

Perhaps Brendan Slattery, or Craig Lamson might like to give us the benfit of their wisdom here. I suspect Craigs reply might be that as long as Haliburton are making plenty of Money out of the illegal occupation then every things hunky dory with him.


Both appear to have had their posting rights curtailed indefinately so you will only be able to "suspect" their replies.
I have no idea why they were banned and will be asking John about it when he comes back from holiday.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users