The Iraqi elections went well for America. I was pleasantly surprised, but I then I read the spin room and we have topic headlines like "This will infuriate Liberals". I'm happy with the results and felt good when I saw the Iraqi's dancing in the streets, but unfortunately this election was the easy part. We have many long months ahead of us and none of us know what will happen. I'll be happy when the realism of our current situation starts to settle back in with a lot of you.

Let's reverse the roles Dogger........ok, ...........would you not be doing the same thing?

Think about it. For the past 2+ years all we've been hearing is incessant bitching and complaining by liberals about how this is a quagmire, a failure, Bush is a Moron, this is a war about oil, this war is racist, we are occupiers, etc.

Damn right I'm gonna celebrate. :D

Anyone notice vindication gives off an orchid-like scent? Ah, that sweet smell.

Dogger Wrote:The Iraqi elections went well for America. I was pleasantly surprised,  but I then I read the spin room and we have topic headlines like "This will infuriate Liberals".  I'm happy with the results and felt good when I saw the Iraqi's dancing in the streets, but unfortunately this election was the easy part.  We have many long months ahead of us and none of us know what will happen.  I'll be happy when the realism of our current situation starts to settle back in with a lot of you.

Dude, you're wrong. The election was the hard part. Remember, the media, the "international community" and the Democratic establishment said it was so hard to hold the elections that it was impossible and should be postponed.

Now its the easy part? WTF? If only we could move the goalposts that much for our football teams!

Sure, challenges remain. A governing coalition needs to be put together, and the assembly has to write a constitution. Elections need to be held again in September, in a referendum on that constitution, then again in December for a new, permanant government.

Make no mistake, the election was the hard part. It accomplished the key factor which we have heretofore been struggling with in Iraq. The idea that no matter how Iraqis felt personally, we couldn't get the silent majority to buy into the process of building Iraq. The silent majority spoke on Sunday. And they basically told the insurgents...you don't speak for us, we speak for our future. Now, finally Iraqis made a statement about democracy and their future--and they are invested in protecting that future.

Sunday was a huge day for asserting an Iraqi national consciousness, one built around elections. For those that participated, their lives will not be the same. They are now motivated to protect a destiny they wrote for themselves.

If it was not such a big deal, why did Zarqawi say that stopping elections was the most important thing for "believers" in Iraq? Because he is smart enough to know...that once a majority of the Iraqi people throw their lot behind the democratic process, he cannot sustain an insurgency. An insurgency without majority support of the populace ALWAYS FAILS. Think of how much more difficult it will be to recruit foreign fighters to Iraq now...when victory appears to be hopeless?

In a letter to al-Qaeda leadership intercepted last year, Zarqawi argued that things were not looking good, particularly if elections could not be prevented...leaving them two options:

Quote:1. We fight them, and this is difficult because of the gap that will emerge between us and the people of the land. How can we fight their cousins and their sons and under what pretext after the Americans, who hold the reins of power from their rear bases, pull back? The real sons of this land will decide the matter through experience. Democracy is coming, and there will be no excuse thereafter.

2. We pack our bags and search for another land, as is the sad, recurrent story in the arenas of jihad, because our enemy is growing stronger and his intelligence data are increasing day by day.

<a href='http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/040212-al-zarqawi.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...-al-zarqawi.htm</a>

Our current situation is as good as its ever been. The head of Mosul's police authority (Mosul for God's sake!) issued an ultimatum today that insurgents who were running rampant there before the elections face a harsh crack down unless they hand over their weapons. The Iraqi security forces and people now have the initiative...and they are emboldened enough by the election experience to sieze on that.

Finally, the political process to come is easier than you think. It's all backroom politics from here on out, in classic parliamentary style. The governing coalition needs a broad based mandate for the constitution to be ratified in the referendum, so they have all the incentive to make the process inclusive of all Sunni interests. The Sunni hardliners that didn't vote but aren't militants, now see the writing on the wall...they know they have to negotiate. Self-interests are aligning here, so the process will be difficult, but the process also has a popular mandate now.

Attacks will still go on, some of them magnificent but this election has broken the back of the insurgency. Yes, just pulling off a legitimate election in this environment where 60% of Iraqis put their very lives in jeopardy to participate in, amidst unprecented threats WAS THE HARD PART. Fear is now gone...Iraqis have glimpsed their future and siezed it for themselves....now they aren't going to give up what they earned on election day without a fight. The insurgents days are numbered. Zarqawi knew this, and he's surely aware of it now.

Victory is imminent in Iraq. Its all downhill for the insurgents from here.

Just make sure you thank the troops when they come home!

OUGwave Wrote:Dude, you're wrong. The election was the hard part. Remember, the media, the "international community" and the Democratic establishment said it was so hard to hold the elections that it was impossible and should be postponed.

Now its the easy part? WTF? If only we could move the goalposts that much for our football teams!

OU!! Man!!! You just hit on something that COMPLETELY escaped my mind. You are right!!! They DID say that. Are these guys just inventing bad situations for the sake of political survival? IMO? YES!!!!! This is, in my mind, a threat to our security.


Thanks for pointing that out.

OUGwave Wrote:Just make sure you thank the troops when they come home!

I would love to thank the troops when they come home. Only problem is, they won't be coming home, they'll be going next door to Iran.

65tiger Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Just make sure you thank the troops when they come home!

I would love to thank the troops when they come home. Only problem is, they won't be coming home, they'll be going next door to Iran.

Mr. Green Wave. Right on. It's refreshing to read a point of view like that from a fellow from across the aisle.

Mr. '65 - The same could be said for Syria. Though I can appreciate your reasoning I dont believe that will be the case. I think we will use, in the same way we did with Iraq for 12 years, (hard nose) diplomacy and resolutions through the EU and UN to sway Iran's policy. This in addition to (hopefully) the people of the region, including those in Iran, to desire freedom and soveriegn democracy due to success in Iraq and Palestine. As mentioned in another thread the ball is rolling. This is the right course for the future of the world. As well, over the next few years, the countries of Europe will become more and more familiar with fantical Islam, further swaying and eventually stregnthening their resolve. This combined result will help change the world for the better.

jw

65tiger Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Just make sure you thank the troops when they come home!

I would love to thank the troops when they come home. Only problem is, they won't be coming home, they'll be going next door to Iran.

I highly doubt that will happen. There are several steps to go through before that happens, first the Europeans will have to fail (which they may not--hopefully if we get re-engaged in the process, things will succeed. Right now the problem is that nobody has a legitimate stick to offer to counteract the carrots, and the U.S. isn't standing behind the carrots anyway), then things need to be referred to the UNSC for sanctions.

After that, Sanctions need to have demonstrably failed. I doubt all this will happen by the end of Bush's term.

Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq. I think the neo-con thinking on this, in terms of the pure neo-cons like Wolfowitz (not Cheney--he's just a hawk, there's a difference), is that there is a legitimate resistance movement in Iran that just needs to be strengthened and given hope.

This is a region I happen to analyze for a living and have had extensive discussions about the internal situation in Iran with expats who travel back and forth frequently. The general feeling is that reformists need to be emboldened, but not in a way that pushes things too far too fast. The thing about Iran is that despite all the religious pretense, its basically a police state, where the primary motivations of the state and its offices are bribery, fraud, and theft. That's basically the whole problem....police state's rob their citizens of any hope for a better future. The biggest problem we face in emboldening reformers is the general degree of apathy and hopelessness among those who dislike the regime. Drug abuse among young people is at a ridiculous level, particularly in Tehran.

I think the administration does want a regime change, first and foremost, but they are looking at doing that in a way that does not involve military action, which is one of the reasons we are forced to simply remind the regime that Israel might strike them--because we're neutered as far as doing anything ourselves. And its too big a country to occupy--twice the size of Iraq in population and geography. The rhetoric you saw from the President last night is I think an attempt to grapple with this connundrum of rallying the reformers in a way that doesn't deligitimize them.

Bottom line: We aren't going to invade Iran.

With all the slander and libel that has been thrown towards both President Bush and the war in Iraq, the election results speak for themselves and cannot be downplayed. I am not gloating as there is still a long ways to go, but I am very happy for our troops who have fought and worked so incredibly hard and shed much blood on behalf of the citizens of the US and Iraq, and for that matter, the world. It not only provides some satisfaction and vindication for our troops and our nation, but it further distinquishes those brave men and women of the US armed forces who have given their lives in the name of freedom. If all the liberals and ignorant anti-war mob/movement had its way and we evacuated Iraq immediately or even too soon, than not only would Iraq become quite an unstable area of the world but then all Americans who have given their lives would have very well died in vein. Our military cannot and will not fail in their mission, we citizens and our politicians are the only ones who can fail in the mission.

SDS
I always said we can't leave. It would create a vacuum and who knows what would fill it. I was happy with the election, but worry about some of the overzealous types who think this was THE major hurdle, but it's a great start.

Dogger Wrote:SDS
I always said we can't leave. It would create a vacuum and who knows what would fill it. I was happy with the election, but worry about some of the overzealous types who think this was THE major hurdle, but it's a great start.

To be honest with you, I like Allawi. However, he's Sunni and the Shi'ite party is leading. Al Sistani is a member of this party. I am concerned, but he is on record as saying that all Iraqi's should be represented. The Sep. of Church and State is the only way that country can survive.......and be an ally to the US.

RebelKev Wrote:The Sep. of Church and State is the only way that country can survive.......and be an ally to the US.

That brings up another point/question, one that I have not heard any real answer to...what if the Iraqis, at some point down the road, choose a government that is closer to a theocracy? It would still be a government that they have chosen, but one that would likely not be a friend to the "Christian" west.

What do we do then? Do we accept their choices, or somehow try to undermine the government? It (a theocracy) is clearly not what we want there, but is it our choice? If we take steps to prevent that from happening, how could we possibly refute claims that we're trying to establish a puppet state in the Middle East?

The election was neither the easy part, nor the hard part. It is a huge step in what will likely be a long, drawn-out series of steps to truely stabilize Iraq (an area not really known for stability) and finish the job we started. Whether or not you agree with our presence there is immaterial now...the real question is whether or not we, as Americans, have the nerve to stay the course and rebuild a nation instead of just wrecking it.

That's really what the election was for....to draft a constitution that will include rights for all Iraqis. A recent poll showed that Iraqi's wanted to pattern their country after #1 United Arab Emirates and #2 the United States. I don't think the Shi'ites are going to be as uncaring to the Sunnis as the Sunnis were to them.

99Tiger Wrote:That brings up another point/question, one that I have not heard any real answer to...what if the Iraqis, at some point down the road, choose a government that is closer to a theocracy?

This doesn't seem to be an abstract question.

<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/international/middleeast/04iraq.html?hp&ex=1107579600&en=77fd864df8966f0a&ei=5094&partner=homepage' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/internat...artner=homepage</a>

tigerjoe Wrote:[Mr. '65 - The same could be said for Syria. Though I can appreciate your reasoning I dont believe that will be the case.

I agree. I read something the other day about the possibility of invading Syrian and/or Iran, but we don't have the money. It seems silly that the stability in the region comes down to something as simple as the green. Oh well, how much does it cost to invade that nutcases country in South Korea for selling nuclear secrets.

JTiger Wrote:

tigerjoe Wrote:[Mr. '65&nbsp; -&nbsp; The same could be said for Syria.&nbsp; Though I can appreciate your reasoning I dont believe that will be the case.

I agree. I read something the other day about the possibility of invading Syrian and/or Iran, but we don't have the money.

We don't have the troops either.

I suppose money could create troops. Perhaps recruiters could head to poor neighborhoods in the cities, hills and hollers, giving away Cadillacs as an enlistment bonus. That might scare up more people.

But that would take cash.

Schadenfreude Wrote:We don't have the troops either.

I suppose money could create troops. Perhaps recruiters could head to poor neighborhoods in the cities, hills and hollers, giving away Cadillacs as an enlistment bonus. That might scare up more people.

But that would take cash.

Well that was kinda racist.

Schad, regardless of what you hear from Moore, Garafalo, Franken, etc., the military is full of people that aren't straight out of the ghetto.

Once again Dogger, I'll say your wrong, the elections are a MAJOR freakin' hurdle, nobody has voted in Iraq for around half a century and about two years ago Iraq was headed by one of the most corrupt, brutal dictators on the planet, so although I'll save my ORGASIMS for the BOTD threads, I say again, the elections cannot be downplayed, anyone who does loses any credibility.

RebelKev Wrote:Schad, regardless of what you hear from Moore, Garafalo, Franken, etc., the military is full of people that aren't straight out of the ghetto.

My use of the term "hills and hollers" was kind of a nod to that.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Schad, regardless of what you hear from Moore, Garafalo, Franken, etc., the military is full of people that aren't straight out of the ghetto.

My use of the term "hills and hollers" was kind of a nod to that.

Schadenfreude, you belittle the troops that have paid the ultimate price for us by stereotyping them all as hired mercenaries who didn't believe in their cause or were so stupid they were duped into it. You strip them of their honor by doing that...though I don't expect you to care.

Its actually really sad when you think about it. Talk to any of these guys--they will tell you that they are fully prepared to give their lives to defend us--and the majority of those in Iraq with first hand knowledge will tell you they are doing exactly that.

I think they deserve your utmost respect, and not your pity or condescension.

Until you and Garofalo understand the difference between those two, the Democrats will be losing more elections.