"We will talk to each other, and we will connect with each other, and we will weave the country together like a piece of cloth." December 15, 2005 11:22 AM Subscribe
"This election is the one we've been waiting for - it's going to determine our destiny," said Ali al-Nuaimy, 49, a physical fitness trainer, who voted in Baghdad. "It's a day of victory, a day of independence and freedom," said 60-year-old Shia Muslim Mohammed Ahmed al-Bayati as he voted in Baghdad.
Not the end of the road by any means, but another step on the long road to recovery. Whatever has gone wrong aside, it is remarkable again to watch Iraqis elect their leaders after the nightmare that was Saddam Hussein. posted by loquax at 11:24 AM on December 15, 2005
Dictatorship replaced with theocracy! Freedom is on teh march!!1! posted by moonbird at 11:25 AM on December 15, 2005
This is a good day for Iraq. Relatively little violence, it lok
15m eligible voters... is that registered voters? Or age-eligible voters? posted by ibmcginty at 11:28 AM on December 15, 2005
This is good superb news.
Too bad the responses will be nothing but attempts to shout it down and spin it negatively.
The historic nature of this day, and the potential for being a hinge moment in the life of 15 million people seems to be something that is entitled to some degree of optimism. But then again, this is Metafilter. posted by dios at 11:29 AM on December 15, 2005
ugh to my typo, not to you, dios. posted by ibmcginty at 11:30 AM on December 15, 2005
I would guess age-eligible:
15-64 years: 57% (male 7,530,619/female 7,338,109)
65 years and over: 3% (male 367,832/female 413,811) posted by loquax at 11:30 AM on December 15, 2005
"We want freedom ... to drink alcohol, dance and go to nightclubs," said Allawi supporter Jasim Faisal, 34, in the southern Shi'ite city of Samawa.
I honestly can't think of a single person on MeFi who doesn't wish for it to turn out good dios. We might hate the way that events have been decided and acted upon but I sincerely doubt a single person wouldn't wish them the best of luck.
I genuinely do hope it turns out to be the start of some seriously positive changes for the people of Iraq. Let's see how it goes shall we? posted by longbaugh at 11:37 AM on December 15, 2005
Oh, no longbaugh. I for one am evil and hope for nothing but the worst. posted by brundlefly at 11:41 AM on December 15, 2005
It's not that I hope for any kind of failure, dios, I just dread the inevitable back-slapping that will come from the Administration after success. After all, they'll say, it was worth it. posted by NationalKato at 11:41 AM on December 15, 2005
I just dread the inevitable back-slapping that will come from the Administration after success. After all, they'll say, it was worth it.
Odd. Surely the long term success of rebuilding Iraq and a positive future for the country would be worth enduring Bush administration backslapping, however misguided? posted by loquax at 11:44 AM on December 15, 2005
Heh... lets not do this again, shall we? posted by prostyle at 11:46 AM on December 15, 2005
My bad brundlefly, I forgot that you were pure distilled evil ;)
on preview loquax - the problem is that barring a resounding military success (despite the obstacles of piss-poor planning and logistics) the administration has been resonsible for fuck all. The Iraqi people deserve the praise, not the bumblefucks who will claim it. posted by longbaugh at 11:46 AM on December 15, 2005
I have to agree with the other posters, dios. If things turn out well in Iraq I will be the first to say that I'm thrilled beyond words. Electing a government is one very important part of building a stable Iraq.
My worry is just that people tend to forget that successful elections to not ensure all the OTHER building blocks will fit into place. Nation-building in the most volatile region in the world is not a task for the easily distracted or the smug. We'll see. posted by verb at 11:49 AM on December 15, 2005
The unfortunate part is that as noted Bushies will shout about their Right Move but what is ahead is how theings will sork out after a time. Those opposed to the elections because they were a minority now see their mistake and have asked that insurgency be stopped for the election: to see how things go. That seems to suggest that when forging a coalition, there may well be a return to insurgency.
Yes. It is good that elections being held.Yes; it is good that Saddam no longer in power. But I do not see myself and my country as the defender of every nation that has bad people in charge. Will we leave Iraq and its oil ? Will we now ignore Syria and Iran?
Our president got us into a war that has cost us zillions. He has caused us to lose 2 thousand troops, plus the wounded. And the country is hardly in any decent shape at this point. For what reason? He admits intel wrong. But he would do it again! To bring democracy to the region? ILt ils not going to happen in surrounding nations. Witness the "democracy" in recent Egytpian elections, and now the slow but sure religious takeover, brought about via "free elections." posted by Postroad at 11:50 AM on December 15, 2005
loquax
so a woman in a long abusive relationship with a man who beats her leaves him, goes back to school, and turns her life around. Surely the long term success of rebuilding her life and a positive future for her would be worth enduring hearing how "he taught her right", however misguided?
Long story short, ends don't justify the means, but great for the Iraqi people.
And Dios
When and if this turns out great for the Iraqi people, that will still not change my opinion that it was orchestrated by a craven bunch of cowards who lied to the american people and used other peoples sacrifices to enrich themselves. There is nothing noble about the way this war was run posted by slapshot57 at 11:52 AM on December 15, 2005
The true test will be whether violence decreases in the wake of elections, if (heretofore rising) attacks on coalition and Iraqi security forces decrease.
As after "major combat operations are over", as after "we got him" as after the October elections...each time we were told by the Bush administration that "Iraq has turned a corner", and each time people who suggested otherwise were ridiculed and dismissed as cranks -- but the cranks were right, violence increased, and the Bush supporters were wrong. And clapping louder didn't and doesn't change a damn thing.
I continue to hope I'm completely wrong, and the optimistic people are correct. I'll even say that if what we're hearing about a large turnout and decreased violence are true, that I'm guardedly optimistic myself. I'll be the first to clap louder if it means that a measure of stability is brought to the situation, because it means we can begin to bring our troops home, and hopefully a brighter future for Iraqis, both of which are good things.
But after being deceived so many times, and so many platitudes, and so much undeserved ridicule for turning our to be right all along -- I say to Dios and Loquax -- you shouldn't expect anything better than guarded optimism, because that's all that's warranted.
The measure of violence in post-election Iraq will be the yardstick. We will see. posted by edverb at 11:53 AM on December 15, 2005
This is GREAT news, and fuck you Dios. posted by Balisong at 11:54 AM on December 15, 2005
I just dread the inevitable back-slapping that will come from the Administration after success. After all, they'll say, it was worth it.
posted by NationalKato at 1:41 PM CST on December 15
I appreciate the honesty. Too many people here try to hide their fear of a positive outcome. posted by dios at 11:58 AM on December 15, 2005
The reason we're pessimistic is pretty simple: The people in charge are the people who started this whole mess. Badly, I might add. posted by fungible at 12:02 PM on December 15, 2005
It is my best hope that the election makes a major difference,
because it is certain that nothing else this Administration has
done has helped the situation. posted by the Real Dan at 12:03 PM on December 15, 2005
Shut the fuck up, dios posted by prostyle at 12:03 PM on December 15, 2005
Who fears a positive outcome? I think everyone hopes for the best for the Iraqi people...disagreement with the justifications for war or its prosecution doesn't equal hope for failure. posted by blefr at 12:06 PM on December 15, 2005
Too many people here try to hide their fear of a positive outcome.
Wait, dios, NationalKato said he didn't hope for anything negative, but he did dislike what he saw as unwarranted self-congratulations after anything positive. And you omitted from his quote the part where he said, "It's not that I hope for any kind of failure, dios". So he does not express any fear of a positive outcome.
I wish we had more conservatives here-- and set me straight if I'm misreading you-- but it's hard to take you seriously if you're selectively quoting people and mischaracterizing what they said. posted by ibmcginty at 12:09 PM on December 15, 2005
I honestly can't think of a single person on MeFi who doesn't wish for it to turn out good dios.
Actually, someone said this in the most recent Iraq thread--he hopes the US will fail, badly, because the original invasion of Iraq was unjust.
Myself, I'd say that what I want to happen and what I think is actually likely to happen are two different things. I hope that an elected Iraqi government will have sufficient legitimacy with Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds to be able to provide security and return Iraq to normality. But I think it's unlikely, for reasons we've discussed at length earlier. I doubt the minorities--the Sunnis and Kurds--will disarm themselves and put themselves at the mercy of the central government, considering the past experience of the Shiites and Kurds under Saddam. So I would expect the violence to continue.
By the way, I disagree with people on this thread who say that if things turn out well, the Bush administration won't deserve any credit. Hardly; it was the Bush administration that decided to go to war, as opposed to continuing containment and inspections. If things turn out well, Bush will deserve credit. Personally, I think Bush has been a terrible president (possibly the worst ever), but I don't see anything wrong with saying that. posted by russilwvong at 12:10 PM on December 15, 2005
it was the Bush administration that decided to go to war, as opposed to continuing containment and inspections.
Well, russilwvong, he might deserve some amount of credit if it all ends well. But as there are sound reasons to criticize the manner in which the administration convinced the public, timed of the start of the war, conducted the war, and failed to acknowledge and address errors in the conduct of the war... it's not too far-fetched to think the bad far outweighs the good.
Also if the result is a democratic Iraq that hates us. That might be the worst possible thing. posted by ibmcginty at 12:16 PM on December 15, 2005
Hopefully the third time will be the charm!
Maybe they should just hold a national election every day. It seems to do wonders for keeping down the level of violence. posted by mr_roboto at 12:18 PM on December 15, 2005
Heh... lets not do this again, shall we?
Agreed!
The Iraqi people deserve the praise, not the bumblefucks who will claim it.
Agreed! (Somewhat. Partially)
Surely the long term success of rebuilding her life and a positive future for her would be worth enduring hearing how "he taught her right", however misguided?
Absolutely! Far better than her not putting her life back together and putting the husband in jail and putting yourself on the back for that. If I follow the analogy. Feel free to ignore whatever claims to success that Bush et al put forward if you disagree with them, and to continue to campaign against them. There are certainly more weapons in the arsenal against Bush than Iraq alone.
So I would expect the violence to continue.
I'm very agreeable today. However, I do think that as the Iraqi government gains more and more legitimacy (and this election is certainly a major step on that specific path), it becomes harder and harder for the insurgents and foreign elements to muster local support, or justify their attacks. With every day that passes, attacks are less and less on imperialistic Americans, and more on a nascent sovereign Iraq. Of course, sectarian and regional tensions are a totally different story, and it will be interesting to see how the newly elected parliament organizes itself into a government. I share both your optimism and your fears, but tend to lean more towards the former. posted by loquax at 12:18 PM on December 15, 2005
Consider the following two scenarios.
Scenario One: The Sunnis win big, gaining up to a quarter of the assembly. The Shiite bloc fragments. The religious Shiite parties suffer significant defections by urban, educated, and more secular Shiites, who opt instead for the party led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and other, smaller parties. After the election, the Shiite bloc falls apart, as the radical faction of rebel cleric Muqtada Al Sadr goes its own way, further weakening Al Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. A two-thirds majority in parliament emerges among religious Sunnis, secular Sunnis, Allawi and the Kurds--enough to force the SCIRI-Dawa forces to come to the table and talk about a brand new constitution with a strengthened, more centralized state, a smaller role for Islamic Sharia law, and a fairer distribution of oil revenues. And finally, the parties agree to peace talks with the armed resistance, including a ceasefire and amnesty for fighters and for prisoners. Central to the deal, the new Iraqi government demands a six-month timetable for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq. The new government takes office in late January, and, as planned, in February the Arab League convenes Phase II of the peace process that began in Cairo in mid-November, this time in Baghdad, giving international and Arab approval to the new Iraqi concord. Together, Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish police hunt down the remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq throughout 2006.
Scenario Two: For whatever reason, Sunni candidates fail to win a fair share of seats in the new parliament. The religious Shiite coalition--SCIRI, Al Dawa and the Sadrists--not only win big, but through ballot-stuffing, vote fraud, and help from Iran’s intelligence service, gain enough power to continue their grip on power. The Kurds opt to ally once again with the Shiites. The U.S. military begins to draw down its forces in Iraq, so that President Bush can win political points at home, and the Shiite militias fill the vacuum left over by the slowly dwindling U.S. force. Sunnis, marginalized politically, fail to muster enough votes to make any changed in the constitution imposed in October by the dominant Shiite-Kurd alliance; frustrated and outraged, the Sunnis support the insurgency with renewed vigor. The Kurds retreat into their northern enclave, the Shiite militia launch a brutal and bloody offensive against the Sunnis, with ethnic cleansing of southern Iraq, and Iraq slides into open civil war. Not only is the Phase II Arab League meeting never held, but the Arab world mobilizes in defense of Iraq’s Sunnis, and both Iran and Turkey are drawn into the conflict.
Which of these scenarios is most likely? Frighteningly, the second one. In fact, it would be amazing if Scenario One wins out...
If Scenario Two begins to unfold, what then?
...It’s hard to see a light at the end of this tunnel, as much as optimists and rosy-scenario mongers might search for options. As Chas Freeman, the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, once told me about Iraq: 'Sometimes, when you’ve driven your car off a cliff, there are just no good options on the way down.'
Else they'll be subjected to endless ridicule as sore losers.
Is the UN monitoring these elections?
Will this election stem the civil war in Iraq?
As for crediting the Bushistas, I would borrow a phrase, "They never fail to miss an opportunity."
Also, when Bush says "I was wrong and I'm sorry" and takes some responsibility, then we can start talking about assigning credit. After all, the grownups ARE in charge, correct? posted by nofundy at 12:24 PM on December 15, 2005
y2karlwrites"The religious Shiite coalition--SCIRI, Al Dawa and the Sadrists--not only win big, but through ballot-stuffing, vote fraud, and help from Iran’s intelligence service, gain enough power to continue their grip on power. The Kurds opt to ally once again with the Shiites. "
Why would this scenario even require vote fraud? Isn't a Shiite-Kurdish coalition the most likely parliamentary majority, regardless of how well the Sunni Arabs make out? posted by mr_roboto at 12:24 PM on December 15, 2005
Cool.
I do, however, agree with the abusive relationship metaphor above. Nothing justifies deception when it comes to spending lives.
I’m also unclear on some of the intangibles. Much as I love speading democracy as many idealists here, I want to see value for my hard earned dollar. Call me a crass materialist, but we spent a sha-hitload of dollars on this, what’s our end? I grant that democracy is it’s own reward, and so is middle east stability. But when we come down to the brass tacks the reason we want middle east stability so much - as opposed to stability in certain parts of Africa say, is because of the oil. Wide fluctuations in oil prices bad. Monopoly on oil bad. Leveraging our foreign and domestic policy b/c of an oil monopoly bad. So all that is part of our dividends here.
I suppose what I’m saying is, we’ve avoided the negative, where’s the positive payback?
Will it be in treaty form? Will the new Iraqi govt. owe us? I mean we have bonds to pay off, right? We took out loans to fund this war. Gotta feed the bulldog.
One step at a time I suppose. But we saw a lot of private profit here, I just want to see the public good we get out of it. We paid for it after all. How do I know we’re not going be stuck with the check? The deception on the front end kinda queers my desire to trust the folks in charge.
But again, free elections are good. This is a good thing. posted by Smedleyman at 12:29 PM on December 15, 2005
Which of these scenarios is most likely? Frighteningly, the second one. In fact, it would be amazing if Scenario One wins out...
There are no reliable opinion polls; but observers expect the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), a grouping of conservative Shia Muslim parties within the current coalition government, to win the most votes.
Its share is expected to fall, however, from the 48% it won in January to perhaps about 40%.
The Kurds, the second-biggest bloc in parliament, are predicted to win about 25% of the vote, and will be pushed hard for second place by Iyad Allawi, a former interim prime minister, whose broad coalition took 14% in January but is expected to make ground.
My best estimate for the Sunni Arab (non-Kurdish) percentage of the population is about 20%. Assuming half of them have voted (which would be remarkable), a fair share of the seats would be 10%, assuming they all vote for Sunni parties.
Is the UN monitoring these elections?
On the eve of Iraq’s elections, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today urged the country’s people to go to the polls in a peaceful manner and pledged the world body’s support.
Addressing Iraqis directly, Mr. Annan encouraged them “to turn out and exercise your democratic right to vote as a first step towards building together a stable, united and prosperous Iraq.”
He also issued an appeal to all to refrain from violence or any other action which might undermine the democratic process.
“Ultimately, only you as a people can move Iraq forward,” Mr. Annan said, voicing satisfaction that the UN has been able to support every step of this process, including assistance to the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq. “Irrespective of the outcome of the election, the United Nations will continue to do all it can to help all Iraqis succeed in building a new Iraq,” he pledged.
For what it's worth. posted by loquax at 12:33 PM on December 15, 2005
Whoops, that first sentence in my last comment was a quote from y2karl. posted by loquax at 12:33 PM on December 15, 2005
Absolutely! Far better than her not putting her life back together and putting the husband in jail and putting yourself on the back for that. If I follow the analogy.
If you're following the analogy, the best possible outcome (given that you can't change the past) is for her to put her life back together *and* for the abusive husband to go jail, yes? posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:39 PM on December 15, 2005
Thank you loquax.
I'll take that as a no.
Too dangerous I would assume.
I wish for Iraq stability and basic services established. I'm thinking Iraqis would agree that food, water, electricity, schools and safe neighborhoods are probably more important priorities right now.
The elections being done at this time are for the political benefit of Bush, not at the hurried request of Iraqis. posted by nofundy at 12:39 PM on December 15, 2005
Why is everyone so fucking mad at dios? Maybe you could all relax a little bit. posted by The Jesse Helms at 12:44 PM on December 15, 2005
If you're following the analogy, the best possible outcome (given that you can't change the past) is for her to put her life back together *and* for the abusive husband to go jail, yes?
Sure. Like I said above, nothing about this election precludes anyone from continuing to campaign against Bush for a variety of reason. Just like the rebuilding of the woman's life doesn't preclude sending the man to jail.
Thank you loquax.
I'll take that as a no.
Too dangerous I would assume.
The UN claims an awful lot of credit for goings on in Iraq. I don't know how much they actually do, but I've seen many print ads highlighting their contribution to the democratic process, complete with purple fingers.
The elections being done at this time are for the political benefit of Bush, not at the hurried request of Iraqis.
These elections were part of the timeline established two years ago, and despite many doubts about the ability to stick to that timeline, the unfolding of the constitution and the formation of government have proceeded according to schedule. Many Iraqis would appear to disagree with you that these elections are not for their benefit. posted by loquax at 12:46 PM on December 15, 2005
Too many people here try to hide their fear of a positive outcome.
Is that what's known in lawyerly circles as 'poisoning the well'?
What a load of crap. Why is it that every time something goes right, dios, your first comment absolutely has to contain the veiled implication that all the lib'ruls are secretly hoping for disaster? posted by spiderwire at 12:51 PM on December 15, 2005
Many Iraqis would appear to disagree with you that these elections are not for their benefit.
posted by loquax at 3:46 PM EST
Don't try to twist what I said. I was talking about the timing and you damn well knew it. I made it VERY clear. posted by nofundy at 12:57 PM on December 15, 2005
Why is everyone so fucking mad at dios? Maybe you could all relax a little bit.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 12:44 PM PST on December 15 [!]
Post-deception fatigue. posted by Balisong at 1:00 PM on December 15, 2005
Don't try to twist what I said. I was talking about the timing and you damn well knew it. I made it VERY clear.
I wasn't, but I apologize if it seems that I was. Let me try to be clearer - many Iraqis would appear to disagree with you that the timing of these elections are not for their benefit. Here are 14 who seemed to have no trouble with making their opinions known as soon as possible. posted by loquax at 1:02 PM on December 15, 2005
Also, as per badger_flammable's link, Iraqi leaders themselves were pushing for free open elections as soon as possible, over the misgivings of the old CPA. posted by loquax at 1:03 PM on December 15, 2005
I don't expect any backslapping from this administration. They wouldn't be stupid enough to go through the whole "Mission Accomplished" fiasco again, would they?
Not in the middle of continued deaths of our troops and a low-grade civil war. They wouldn't pretend this somehow turns the corner.
No, they'll be wise and accept a cautious wait-and-see attitude. They'll continue to try to improve their approach. They'll hold hearings on how to improve international investment in Iraq to increase international interest in stability there -- even if it means surrendering US control of the oil rights.
Won't they? posted by surplus at 1:07 PM on December 15, 2005
russilwvongwrites"Actually, someone said this in the most recent Iraq thread--he hopes the US will fail, badly, because the original invasion of Iraq was unjust."
This is incidental and a bit off-topic, but since I have been quoted, let me just point out that my hopes for the Americans do not extend in any way to the Iraq people. Hoping for the US to fail does not equate hoping for Iraq to fail in any way. Actually, quite the contrary - I hope the Iraqis win, expel the invader forces and rebuild their country as they see fit. posted by nkyad at 1:10 PM on December 15, 2005
Why is everyone so fucking mad at dios? Maybe you could all relax a little bit.
Um... because he implied that anyone opposing the war secretly wants Iraqis to fail and die, for purely political reasons? posted by spiderwire at 1:12 PM on December 15, 2005
I don't expect any backslapping from this administration. They wouldn't be stupid enough to go through the whole "Mission Accomplished" fiasco again, would they?
President Bush hailed Thursday's voting in Iraq as 'a major milestone' in establishing a democratic ally for the United States in the Middle East and moving toward the day when American troops can come home.
'We're certain that the turnout was significant and that the violence was down,' Bush said,
Sen. Lindsey Graham, in Baghdad for the voting, said he was encouraged by what he saw but it was only a step toward building a stable democracy in Iraq, and more help is needed from the international community.
'Let's don't take this election to mean the problems in Iraq are solved -- really in many ways they're just beginning,' Graham, R-S.C., said Thursday in an interview with NBC's 'Today' show.
'We've got a second chance on life here after this election,' he said. 'Look at this election as a chance to re-engage and learn from our mistakes.'
'This is a major step forward in achieving our objective, which is ... having a democratic Iraq, a country able to sustain itself and defend itself, a country that will be an ally in the war on terror and a country that will set such a powerful example to others in the region, whether they live in Iran or Syria, for example,' he said.
A day earlier, Bush warned that the elections would be 'followed by days of uncertainty,' with final results perhaps not to be available until early January and violence not expected to wane.
Also, it looks like estimates of the turnout are closer to 11 million.
leaders, loquax?
As I recall, the IGC was in favour of free elections as soon as possible in addition to Sistani, if that's what you mean. posted by loquax at 1:18 PM on December 15, 2005
This is a bad day for Metafilter. Any day that makes the US look good, and the US effort to liberate and fix Iraq look good, is a bad day for Metafilter... posted by ParisParamus at 1:20 PM on December 15, 2005
This is a bad day for Metafilter. Any day that makes the US look good, and the US effort to liberate and fix Iraq look good, is a bad day for Metafilter...
Or at least, a bad day for Paris' persecution complex. After all, the liberal Bush-hating media is serving up an awful lot of purple-finger-waving stories about the election. Even that bastion of evil NPR was interviewing teary Iraqi exiles here in Chicago about how much it means to everyone. posted by verb at 1:26 PM on December 15, 2005
I don't have a persecution complex. It's those who hate President Bush who do. posted by ParisParamus at 1:28 PM on December 15, 2005
ParisParamus, can you please shut the fuck up too and let us celebrate this? posted by spiderwire at 1:28 PM on December 15, 2005
What a sad sad day for that sad sad man ParisParimus, most of the Metafilter posts have failed to sling arrows at the United States so he has to resort to trying to incite a riot. Slink away ParisParimus, it's what you're best at. posted by substrate at 1:28 PM on December 15, 2005
spiderwire: yes. And yet no! The only people upset by my comments, supra are those oppose(d) the war, and those who think it's doomed to failure.
But in any case, IU've said my piece. Peace? posted by ParisParamus at 1:32 PM on December 15, 2005
And why did we want to fix Iraq? posted by Smedleyman at 1:41 PM on December 15, 2005
I'm having a prety good day myself. posted by ozomatli at 1:41 PM on December 15, 2005
The snarks by dios, pp, et al are just a recycling of the old right wing fantasy meme, that people who disagree with them "hate America" or "hope for failure" or "live in rage." Then they sit back and laugh as people fight against the slurs, while they style themselves as reasonable, decisive, decent people.
Since the right wingers have so few legitimate arguments to make that favor their positions, they just have found that it's easier to watch liberals and lefties tie themselves up in knots responding to the lies and slander.
Nothing new there. posted by jasper411 at 1:42 PM on December 15, 2005
And why did we want to fix Iraq?
Because we were concerned Iran didn't have enough influence in the Middle East.
But seriously, Saddam was a bad, bad man. No disagreements there. posted by verb at 1:42 PM on December 15, 2005
I guess it'll also be a sad day for me when the next occupant of the White House isn't some Leftist, pacifist weasel like John Kerry or Howard Dean. Here's to more "bad days"! posted by ParisParamus at 1:43 PM on December 15, 2005
User Blacklisted. . posted by prostyle at 1:45 PM on December 15, 2005
What made this war a beautiful play was that there was always a kernel of good in the shitlog of bad.
Kill 100,000 Iraqis, but they've got purple fingers today.
Spend $400B we don't have, but they've got purple fingers today.
Shiite theocrats strengthened in the region, but they've got purple fingers today.
Freeze out pre-existing French and Russian commercial interests in Iraq, but they've got purple fingers today.
Get ~20,000 US soldiers killed and maimed, but they've got purple fingers today.
The WMD rationale proven to be a deceptive marketing campaign, but they've got purple fingers today. posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:46 PM on December 15, 2005
It was a bad day when I sprained my ankle and somebody stole a bunch of favorite cd's out of my car. Man that sucked... posted by ozomatli at 1:46 PM on December 15, 2005
Dear ParisParamus: Until you call for the indictment of president Bush, as you earlier said you would if WMD were not found in Iraq then do us all a favor and STFU you stinking hypocrite. Thanks. posted by sotonohito at 1:48 PM on December 15, 2005
soton, that's because there clearly ARE WMD's. They're just very, very stealthy and we haven't found them yet. We may never find them, but that doesn't mean they're not there. posted by verb at 1:52 PM on December 15, 2005
Iraq the Model has many first hand accounts and photos of the election today, along with reported attempted attacks. posted by loquax at 1:54 PM on December 15, 2005
"Saddam was a bad, bad man. No disagreements there."
the [a
href="http://pbskids.org/lions/printables/stories/story_help.html"
title=""Hen"]Little Red Hen[/a} posted by Smedleyman at 2:03 PM on December 15, 2005
/got the html off the ground...man this machine is ass.
"Saddam was a bad, bad man. No disagreements there."
And that justified the invasion?
I?m just trying to cut through some of the b.s. here. (Not directed at anyone, just a general statement).
What would ?failure? be?
What would a ?success? be?
You see, part of the problem with assholes like PP saying: ?...it'll also be a sad day for me when I can?t abort children every day...? is not just the derail, or sheer stupidity, but we lose focus delving into this partisan b.s. and other idealistic crap that has no bearing on the real world.
Blood was spilled. Hard American cash was spent. And we get what? A ?win? for Bush because Saddam is out of power? Because why? He might have at some point threatened us?
Even granting that - now what? Do we allow a democratic Iraq to have nukes or other WMDs?
How hard do we press to get at least some of that money back or is this all somehow worth it?
Again, I’m all for stopping carnage, but now I feel like we’re the little red hen posted by Smedleyman at 2:08 PM on December 15, 2005
I appreciate the honesty. Too many people here try to hide their fear of a positive outcome.
No, we welcome a (potential) positive outcome for the Iraqi people. It's too bad that we had to kill over 30,000 of them to achieve that, though, isn't it? posted by chuq at 2:12 PM on December 15, 2005
I wonder if the new Iraqi government will pick up on some of the more positive developments that occured under the Ba'ath regime:
At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On June 1, 1972, Saddam Hussein led the process of expropriating Western oil companies, which had had a monopoly on the country's oil. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 world oil shock, and Saddam was able to pursue an all-the-more ambitious agenda through skyrocketing oil revenues.
Within a period of just a few years, the state provided some social services to Iraqi people unprecedented in other Middle Eastern countries. Saddam initiated and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
In order to diversify the oil-dependent economy, Saddam oversaw and advocated a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and development of other industries. The campaign effected a comprehensive revolution in energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, including many communities in the countryside and far outlying areas.
Before the early 1970s, the majority of the population resided in the countryside, where Saddam himself was born and raised; and peasants accounted for roughly two thirds of the populace. This number would decrease dramatically, though, during the rapid industrialization and urbanization of Iraq in the 1970s, which was propelled by Saddam's channeling of oil revenues into the rapidly growing Iraqi industrial sector and the new Ba'athist welfare programs.
Nevertheless, Saddam focused intensely on fostering loyalty to the Ba'athist government in the rural areas. After nationalizing foreign oil interests, Saddam supervised the modernization of the Iraqi countryside, the mechanization of agriculture on a large scale, and the distribution of land to farmers.6 He broke up the large holdings of the landowners and gave land to peasant farmers. The Ba'athists established farm co-operatives, in which profits were distributed in accordance with the labors of the individual peasant and the unskilled were trained. The government's commitment to agrarian reform was demonstrated by the doubling of expenditures for agriculture development in 1974–1975, a policy that Saddam largely spearheaded. Moreover, agrarian reform in Iraq improved the living standards of the broad strata of the peasantry and increased production, though not to the levels for which Saddam had hoped.
Saddam became personally associated with Ba'athist welfare and economic development programs in the eyes of many Iraqis, thus widening his original popular base of support while co-opting new sectors of the Iraqi population. Part of a combination of "carrot and stick" tactics, expanding government services forged patron–client ties between Saddam and his support base among the working class and the peasantry and within the party and the government bureaucracy.
Saddam's ruthless organizational prowess was credited with Iraq's rapid pace of development in the 1970s; development went forward at such a fevered pitch that two million persons from other Arab countries and Yugoslavia worked in Iraq to meet the growing demand for labor. posted by Neologian at 2:13 PM on December 15, 2005
It really will be a long time before enough data will be available to enable us to determine if this really was worth it or not, in all its human, financial and political costs. In the meantime, these right wing triumphalists show themselves (again) to be shallow morons by pointing to it as unqualified success. posted by psmealey at 2:14 PM on December 15, 2005
Is that what's known in lawyerly circles as 'poisoning the well'?
posted by spiderwire at 12:51 PM PST on December 15 [!]
The term that comes to my mind is 'fruit of a poisoned tree'. I don't think the Bush administration can ever claim responsibility for anything good that happens in Iraq because they are responsible for so much that went wrong in the first place.
I don't see what there is to celebrate anyway. This election just takes the south of Iraq closer to theocracy, the north closer to war with Turkey and the middle closer to open conflict with everybody. posted by Mr T at 2:16 PM on December 15, 2005
Smedleyman - Your questions are fair, but from a non-American perspective, most are invalid. I couldn't care less about the money spent or the fate of the Bush administration (in so far as it doesn't have other consequences, but that aside). That's perhaps why I focus far more on the ends than the means. If Iraq ends up being a successful, safe, prosperous and peaceful country, it's worth the US (and allied) investment to me, though it costs me very little to say that, quite admittedly. posted by loquax at 2:18 PM on December 15, 2005
dios and ParisParamus make valid points that people should be happy that something good might be happening for the Iraqis. What concerns me is the idea that if the Iraqi people wind up better off in the long run, then we should consider the invasion to be a success.
Black people in the US right now probably live in better conditions than they would be living in if their ancestors had not been captured and sold into slavery. Would we say that slavery was worth it and was a good idea because it wound up improving the lives of the descendants of Africans?
I do not feel that the US has a right to invade a sovereign nation and kill tens of thousands of their citizens to make way for a change in government form.
The Europeans ultimately brought democracy to the Native Americans a couple hundred years ago. It ended hundreds of years of tribal conflict and wars. I am still awaiting my thank you notes. posted by flarbuse at 2:19 PM on December 15, 2005
Thankfully, a good chunk of a Americans can see the connection between attacking terrorism in Iraq, and reducing it everywhere. Even if people here are either too slow, or pretend they are to grasp the concept. posted by ParisParamus at 2:21 PM on December 15, 2005
Well, looks like we had him...and let him go. Not too competent there. posted by NationalKato at 2:26 PM on December 15, 2005
Thankfully, a good chunk of a Americans can see the connection between attacking terrorism in Iraq, and reducing it everywhere. Even if people here are either too slow, or pretend they are to grasp the concept.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:21 PM CST on December 15 [!]
Paris I would never wish you banned or even for you to leave, but if you depise this website so much why do you keep tolerating it? I mean its one thing to dislike the way things are run or maybe even disagree with many of the post or comments, but it seems to me as if you genuinely can't stand us.
I may disagree with dios a lot and he takes a lot of shit from people around here, probably more than he deserves, but I never get the sense of contempt from him towards the rest of the metafilter user base. posted by ozomatli at 2:31 PM on December 15, 2005
If Iraq ends up being a successful, safe, prosperous and peaceful country, it's worth the US (and allied) investment to me, though it costs me very little to say that, quite admittedly.
LOL. Your thoughts on this are indeed literally worthless. I'd be all for the intervention too if it were totally costless.
Well, the part about killing 30-100k Iraqis isn't too hot. Killing people tends to produce blowback down the line. posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:31 PM on December 15, 2005
ozo: PP is just reduced to being a snivelling jerk. It's what he does. posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:32 PM on December 15, 2005
Heywood - I was referring to smedleyman's post, particularly the last part. I wasn't referring to what you mentioned. posted by loquax at 2:34 PM on December 15, 2005
Sadly, at least one person on thjis forum can't see the connection between attacking Iraq and spreading terrorism everywhere. Even when everyone else in the world has been swift enough to recognize that reality. posted by Neologian at 2:34 PM on December 15, 2005
hey gang. just wanted to drop in and remind you not to talk to paris. thanks! posted by mcsweetie at 2:36 PM on December 15, 2005
ozo: PP is just reduced to being a snivelling jerk. It's what he does.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 4:32 PM CST on December 15 [!]
To be frank I am not trying to turn this into a piss on Paris contest, so your post really doesn't help much. I want to know from him. I have been reading metafilter for a looooooong time now and I am giving him the benifit of the doubt. posted by ozomatli at 2:38 PM on December 15, 2005
"Well, the part about killing 30-100k Iraqis isn't too hot. Killing people tends to produce blowback down the line.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:31 PM EST on December 15 [!]"
Just how does "blowback (which I think is a subjective, rather than objective term)" compare with weakness and naive diplomacy? Which one got us Arafat, Assad, Saddam, Osama and 9/11 in the first place? Did blowback get us Iran, led by a soon-to-be nuclear holocaust denier? Just where is the periphery of your blame-us-for-existing model of reality? posted by ParisParamus at 2:42 PM on December 15, 2005
As honest and accurate as our own elections have been the last few elections, it's only appropriate that we're setting the example for other nations as to "how democracy is done..."
The elections are unlikely to change much in the long term, as anyone remotely familiar with the last 100 years of Arab history should have figured out by quite a while ago, if not from the start of this debacle.
Though I'm glad to hear that this round of elections resulted in a somewhat more peaceful day, *if* anything positive comes of this for Iraq, it will be in spite of the neoconservatives' best efforts.
Elections and potential "Democracy" are a sideshow for Cheney and company - a distraction intended to justify our prolonged presence in the region.
We're there for one primary reason. Oil.
China's emerging middle class combined with the prescience of Hubbert's Peak mean lean times for the western powers in the years to come.
All the geopolitical maeuvering we've seen take place since approximately 1996 (the year of the dissapointing Caspian Oil fields survey) has to do with which world players will have control over enough energy resources to survive transitioning into a post-oil economy and energy infrastructure, while keeping this information as quite as possible to avoid panic, crisis, and overt militarized conflict.
And from the American perspective, if we have to kill off a few thousand of our own, here in NY and DC, or there in Iraq, in order to preserve the "non-negotiable" American way of life for the majority, so be it. posted by stenseng at 2:44 PM on December 15, 2005
while keeping this information as quiet rather posted by stenseng at 2:46 PM on December 15, 2005
stenseng: just how many murals of NOAM do you have on your walls? Ceilings, too? posted by ParisParamus at 2:50 PM on December 15, 2005
prosperouswrites"Which one got us Arafat, Assad, Saddam, Osama and 9/11 in the first place? Did blowback get us Iran, led by a soon-to-be nuclear holocaust denier?"
I don't know about Arafat or Assad, but Saddam and Osama are definitely blowback. We propped up Saddam in a proxy war against Iran in the 80s, and supported Osama's jihad with the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the same decade.
There's also a strong argument that the anti-American aspect of the Iranian revolution was fueled by the United States' support for the repressive government of the Shah.
These are pretty standard criticisms of the way things were handled by the US during the Cold War. Even the current President has repudiated this way of doing things, claiming to prefer free democracies to friendly tyrants. posted by mr_roboto at 2:56 PM on December 15, 2005
Whoops; that should be quoting ParisParamus. I accidentally spell-checked it. posted by mr_roboto at 2:57 PM on December 15, 2005
Iran is also in large part blowback - remember the Shah? posted by kyrademon at 2:58 PM on December 15, 2005
Mr T:The term that comes to my mind is 'fruit of a poisoned tree'.
We propped up Saddam in a proxy war against Iran in the 80s, and supported Osama's jihad with the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the same decade.
But what were the alternatives? Would not supporting Iraq in the 80's led to Khomeni conquering it? Would allowing the USSR to take Afghanistan unopposed (assuming they could) have been better than the alternative? I'm not saying you're wrong, only that those decisions were not binary, but part of a broad spectrum of options, many of which may have carried worse outcomes. Maybe the Soviet Union doesn't collapse? Maybe Iran destroys Israel in 1991? Of course, there were also likely better options in hindsight, that being what it is. posted by loquax at 3:01 PM on December 15, 2005
loquaxwrites"Would not supporting Iraq in the 80's led to Khomeni conquering it?"
Iraq was the aggressor in that war. I don't think Khomeni was particularly interested in "conquering" Iraq.
"Would allowing the USSR to take Afghanistan unopposed (assuming they could) have been better than the alternative?"
I'm thinking something that didn't involve setting up an international financing network for insurgent warfare by radical Islamists would have been preferable.
Yeah, hindsight is 20/20. That's why hindsight rules!!! posted by mr_roboto at 3:08 PM on December 15, 2005
“That's perhaps why I focus far more on the ends than the means. If Iraq ends up being a successful, safe, prosperous and peaceful country, it's worth the US (and allied) investment to me.” - posted by loquax
Fair comments. I don’t care for the Bush administration. I do care for America. They are not synonymous.
But - why? What’s the payback for having Iraq successful, safe, etc?
You see, as much as I enjoy charity work, I also realize I’m not going to put a 2nd mortgage on my house to help one guy get on his feet. There are a lot of other guys out there and if I sink myself helping him, I’m not only not going to be able to help them, I might not be able to help myself.
I’d like to see some tangible benefits - admittedly as a taxpayer I have kicked in, so my perception of events are skewed that way.
“Thankfully, a good chunk of a Americans can see the connection between attacking terrorism in Iraq, and loving Hitler. Even if people here are either too slow, or pretend they are to grasp how great Hitler was.” - posted by ParisParamus
Yeah. I’ve actually fought terrorists. Before it was, y’know, cool. While I admit there is some reasoning for attacking Iraq on that basis, it’s more than a bit of a stretch. And I don’t see the ancillary indications that we’re doing that...But hey, you’re the smart one. Please explain to us all the geopolitical strategy there. How exactly have we attacked terrorism in Iraq? How has this lessened terrorism elsewhere? Does stability in the region mandate a lessening of terrorism in the region or does it limit our ability to remain mobilized ?
“I want to know from him. I have been reading metafilter for a looooooong time now and I am giving him the benifit of the doubt.” - posted by ozomatli
I envy your patience. But I can have no respect for someone who’s admitted goal is to disrupt the communication of others.
“Did blowback get us Iran, led by a soon-to-be nuclear holocaust denier? I’d love to suck Hitler’s dick.” - posted by ParisParamus
Yes, we had mountains of blowback from installing the Shah.
What’s with the fixation on Hitler? posted by Smedleyman at 3:11 PM on December 15, 2005
Hey, Member #1. How about a ban on anyone who fakes quotations by someone.
Hitler is the Gold standard of evil. So, are you now arguing the Iran having a little Hitler is out fault too? posted by ParisParamus at 3:17 PM on December 15, 2005
Blood was spilled. Hard American cash was spent. And we get what?
Good point, Smedleyman. The US government isn't responsible for everyone in the world; it's responsible for protecting the security of the US and its citizens. Even assuming that Iraq gets back to normality (again, I'm pessimistic), was going to war in Iraq in the interest of the US?
It did have some benefits (the sanctions against Iraq were a major grievance in the Arab world), but I think they were far outweighed by the costs; think of the long-term damage to US prestige done by the practically unilateral decision to go to war, or Abu Ghraib, or the effect on the US military of trying to fight a war with too few troops. Not to mention the opportunity costs of not concentrating on al-Qaeda.
Again, I’m all for stopping carnage, but now I feel like we’re the little red hen.
So far the US has spent close to half a trillion dollars on the war. Economist William Nordhaus, writing in November 2002:
This discussion, however, vastly oversimplifies the analysis by constructing only two cases, whereas reality presents a dizzying variety of outcomes. Returning to the metaphor of war as a giant roll of the dice, we might say that the US could end up paying the "low" costs of around $120 billion if the dice come up favorably. If some dice come up unfavorably, the costs would lie between the low and the high cases. However, if the US has a string of bad luck or misjudgments during or after the war, the outcome, while less likely, could reach the $1.6 trillion of the upper estimate.
loquax: Your questions are fair, but from a non-American perspective, most are invalid.
As a Canadian (like yourself), I strongly disagree. Canada has a strong interest in the preservation of the international status quo, and the US is the most important backer of the status quo. If the Iraq war proves to have significantly weakened US power, that's very bad news for Canada. posted by russilwvong at 3:23 PM on December 15, 2005
"Hey, Member #1. How about a ban on anyone who fakes quotations by someone." - posted by ParisParamus
Keep talking there free speech lover.
"Hitler is the Gold standard. So, are you now arguing the Iran having a little Hitler is out fault too?"
-posted by ParisParamus
Hey, Member #1. How about a ban on anyone who fakes concepts by someone?
Look Paris, It looks like Bush is going to say? Ummm...Oh yes, I was looking for. I'm so glad I remembered it. Yeah, what I have wondered if I had committed a crime. Don't eat with your assessment of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. Up your nose with a guy from a firm that specifically researches the teen-age market. As a friend of mine would say, "It really doesn't matter". It looks like Bush is holding back the arms of the American eating public have changed dramatically, and it got pretty boring after about 300 games. People, having a much larger number of varieties, and are very different from what one can find in Chinatowns across the country (things like pork buns, steamed dumplings, etc.) They can be cheap,being sold for around 30 to 75 cents apiece (depending on size), are generally not greasy, can be adequately explained by stupidity. Singles have felt insecure since we came down from the Conservative world at large. But Chuqui is the way it happened and the prices are VERY reasonable. Can anyone think of myself as a third sex. Yes, I am expected to have. People often get used to me knowing these things and then a cover is placed over all of them. Along the side of the $$ are spent by (or at least for ) the girls. You can't settle the issue. It seems I've forgotten what it is, but I don't. I know about violence against women, and I really doubt they will ever join together into a large number of jokes. It showed Adam, just after being created. So I will conclude by saying that I can well understand that she might soon have the time, it makes sense, again, to get the gist of my argument, I was in that (though it's a Republican administration) posted by Smedleyman at 3:26 PM on December 15, 2005
Smedleyman, I dub thee Trollsbane, Furious Smiter of Sycophants, White Langued, Contemptous Absurdism Jessant, Reguardant on Field Azure.
Carry on. posted by Haruspex at 3:45 PM on December 15, 2005
Actually, I think that was the world's first ever reverse Godwin. posted by spiderwire at 3:47 PM on December 15, 2005
Mine fingers misspoke: ...Contemptuous. posted by Haruspex at 3:49 PM on December 15, 2005
And, ParisParamus, you haven’t answered my questions. How did we fight terrorists by invading Iraq? How has this lessened terrorism elsewhere? Does stability in the region mandate a lessening of terrorism in the region or does it limit our ability to remain mobilized ?
As for Iran I couldn’t care less what Iran does with itself. I’m not a weepy idealist or an internet tough guy shouting “bomb ‘em”. Now that we have a strategic hold on the middle east’s testicles they can blow themselves to wherever. They have a dictator? Fuck him (the dictator that is).
Unfortunately they have a big beef Israel. If it’s my call for a war I let Mossad diddy mao into their territory and agitate a war. Maybe by firing a missle at Israel from Iran if they can. Doesn’t really matter though, it isn’t like they (Iran) haven’t been sponsoring terrorism anyway.
But it’s just a matter of time. No war is needed. The Iranian people like us. They don’t like what they’re going through and if we start pulling some of the stuff we pulled with Poland under Reagan the Iranian government is on it’s way out with no bombing and no war. posted by Smedleyman at 3:52 PM on December 15, 2005
I can’t take the credit. I stole that bit from Mark V. Shaney ( I understand he was promoted to Lt. in Iraq). ...although can one steal nonsense? posted by Smedleyman at 3:56 PM on December 15, 2005
Any day that [ParisParamus posts] is a bad day for Metafilter...
I am happy to see that the election went well. Every cloud has a silver lining, they say, and given the size of the turd-laden cumulonimbus that's been raining a shitstorm over the world for the last five years, this should be one hell of a silver lining. Let's just hope Team Bush manages to avoid ripping the lining right out of the cloud. posted by mkhall at 3:58 PM on December 15, 2005
It has raised the stakes. It has told all present and potential terrorists and those the sponsor them and pay for them that the free ride is over. THE FREE RIDE IS OVER, FUCKS; CLINTON ISN'T IN OFFICE ANY MORE. WE GOT SADDAM; ASSAD, YOU'RE NEXT.
And then, hopefully, we won't have to take out Iran (because that will be messy). posted by ParisParamus at 3:59 PM on December 15, 2005
It has raised the stakes. It has told all present and potential terrorists and those the sponsor them and pay for them that the free ride is over. THE FREE RIDE IS OVER, FUCKS; CLINTON ISN'T IN OFFICE ANY MORE. WE GOT SADDAM; ASSAD, YOU'RE NEXT.
I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please. posted by 235w103 at 4:06 PM on December 15, 2005
Chinaman? Huh? Is that some cinematic reference? posted by ParisParamus at 4:08 PM on December 15, 2005
Metafilter: Heh... lets not do this again, shall we? posted by Football Bat at 4:17 PM on December 15, 2005
I hear Bill Clinton is hiding in a cave on the Afghani-Pakistan border. posted by bardic at 4:21 PM on December 15, 2005
Chinaman? Huh? Is that some cinematic reference?
Obviously you're not a golfer. posted by trondant at 4:23 PM on December 15, 2005
“Chinaman? Huh? I hate minorities. Clinton was sexually attractive to me. I don’t blame Monica, I know I’d blow him ” -posted by ParisParamus
I’m really getting tired of your weird racist sexual comments paris. posted by Smedleyman at 4:26 PM on December 15, 2005
If I was an Iraqi, I would vote for Smedleyman, Teh Man posted by jaronson at 4:30 PM on December 15, 2005
"THE FREE RIDE IS OVER, FUCKS; CLINTON ISN'T IN OFFICE ANY MORE. WE GOT SADDAM; ASSAD, YOU'RE NEXT."
Osama who? posted by stenseng at 4:40 PM on December 15, 2005
And "cinématic" sounds awfully French to me. posted by Haruspex at 4:41 PM on December 15, 2005
trondant, is that some sorta eastern thing?
parisparamus, you're out of your element! You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie...
OVER THE LINE! posted by anomie at 4:48 PM on December 15, 2005
There was an article in today's NYSun, again speaking of Saddam having shipped WMDs to Syria. Not the most far-fetched of possibilities.
ASSAD, YOU'RE GOING DOWN. SOON. posted by ParisParamus at 5:14 PM on December 15, 2005
ASSAD, YOU ASS.
No wait, that's too kind... posted by ParisParamus at 5:14 PM on December 15, 2005
If the Iraq war proves to have significantly weakened US power, that's very bad news for Canada.
Agreed - when I made my comment I was speaking very very narrowly in response to a previous comment referring to actual American costs an investments, and whether or not the effort will have been worth it from that perspective for the US. Obviously the broader ramifications of a weakened or changed US have a great impact on the rest of the world, and failure/defeat/exhaustion in Iraq can certainly contribute to that. posted by loquax at 5:22 PM on December 15, 2005
No way. No way that exchange was real. posted by spiderwire at 5:25 PM on December 15, 2005
Parisparamus - the rug pisser of metafilter.
Although to be fair to your hero Bill Clinton, paris, the bombing of the WTC was stopped on his watch.
Does raising the stakes for terrorists legitimize the invasion?
We lost what, $1.2 trillion or so related to 9/11, about 3,000 dead. We haven’t caught OBL, much less dismantled al-Qaeda, but those are red herrings anyway. Because we haven’t traced the source of the $400,000 to $500,000 the plotters spent on the attack (according to the 9/11 commission reports - “specific origin of the funds used to execute the attacks remained unknown”)
Meanwhile the massive mobilization of all those troops has cost us, what, about $200,000,000,000 so far? Which is costing me personally about two grand or more.
Ok. To do what? According to Rumsfeld some of our military objectives were to: search for capture and drive out terrorists from Iraq and collect intelligence related to terrorist networks.
We pretty much made the fedayeen and the Sunnis into guerillas, which could be mitigated by this vote. But collecting intel? We had a perfectly good base in Saudi with which to do ops.
You see, I’m concerned not so much about the fighting or “victory” I’m concerned about the efficiency. It’s an old saw: good generals study tactics; great generals study logistics.
We keep focusing on the Clausewitizian strategy, winning “decisive battles” and looking at the war as a set piece rather than overall strategy. We keep doing that and we’ll be worn down over time.
Again - half a million investment by our enemies cost us over $1.6 trillion on the front end and $200 billion so far.
Now, the point I alluded to earlier which was missed (because I’m so f’ing smart? Not likely) is that - yes - seizing control of that chunk of the middle east oil supply does limit the leverage terrorists could have on us. We are indeed fighting them over there - but not because we want to avoid fighting them here.
It’s because over there is the infrastructure that we need to protect. Whether that’s done by a stable Iraqi government or our guys on the ground is not that important in the context of the war.
You see, it’s not our “homeland” we’re protecting from terrorism. It’s the oil flow. Which I’ve admitted is a necessity for myriad reasons. (And I’ve conceded we need to get the hell off oil dependence ASAP).
What is important however is that the Iraq war could have been avoided by employing small mobile groups doing nasty things in other people’s back yards.
Granted it’s more sinister, and granted it’s got less oversight (it’s not like the Iraq war has much oversight anyway), but it’s cost effective, we had the bases in place in the region anyway. Our “Whaddya going to do about it?” response is deflecting interference from the Iraq war.
It would have worked with a more efficient response as well.
Hell, the CIA secret prison stuff proves that.
Not that I like it.
But the point is: Cost effectiveness.
I would rather clip a few guys in some alley in Nok Kundi than bomb some nerf herder and 500 of his friends in Mosul who have jack to do with shit. Obviously because of the human concerns, but also because it costs me more money and it pisses off the nerf herder’s families which means they might want to do something to hurt us. Which means more money.
Rumsfeld statement that we need to “secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people” I also have a problem with. We’re doing this for free?
It’s two thousand dollars out of my pocket already and I haven’t seen an upside for me.
We haven’t nailed the bastards who slammed the planes into the WTCs. And I have yet to see, for my two grand, any evidence that we’re on their trail except for some trotting out of al-Qaeda suspect.
I can spend a three day weekend in Vegas for two grand. I can live half the year in my house for two grand. For two grand I get police and fire protection, my kids get to go to school for almost 1/2 a year, I can use my local library...etc.
It’s great they’re voting and all.
But I want to see a line - “with your money, we did ‘X’ which lead us to ‘Y’ and now ‘Z’ which means you get ‘A.’”
“A” being either they found the money trail and nailed the guys who were involved in 9/11 (since that cost me money too) or have found some tangible way to prevent it from happening again (anything happening with that reinforced door for the cockpits or giving pilots guns with soft-nosed bullets - anyone?).
I want my government trim and lean and working smart with my money. That’s all. Spending $200 billion that freaking quickly so people somewhere else can vote freely and a kiss and a promise that no terrorists will hit us again aint it. I want to see the bottom line and I want to see it clearly. I don’t. And I’ve been looking.
There’s a long conservative tradition against this kind of thing (nation building). I really wonder where the hell my old skool conservative homies is at. posted by Smedleyman at 5:33 PM on December 15, 2005
“...failure/defeat/exhaustion in Iraq can certainly contribute to that.’ - posted by loquax
You read my mind. Wish I caught your concise version earlier I wouldn’t have had to ramble. posted by Smedleyman at 5:36 PM on December 15, 2005
There was an article in today's NYSun, again speaking of Saddam having shipped WMDs to Syria. Not the most far-fetched of possibilities.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:14 PM PST on December 15
Why the fuck would someone build WMDs only to not use them when attacked by the most powerful conventional forces in world history? What was Hussein planning on doing once Iraq was overthrown, hitch a ride to Syria and smuggle tons of weapons back home in his backpack? posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:39 PM on December 15, 2005
Optimus, at every moment until it happened, Hussein didn't think the US would have the balls to flout the Euro-weasels, etc., and take him out. He envisioned remaining in power. He thought his Oil-For-Food dealings were sufficient bribery.
As it is, the whole Muslim word goes orgasmic about destroying Israel; now the WMDs are even closer!
The article speaks of the WMDs being moved six weeks before the war actuallly started.
In any case, I don't think Hussein ever though he could defeat the US with them; just intimidate his "neighbors."
In any case, while it remains unproven, it doesn't seem an idea of the lunatic fringe. We shall see, I suspect during the Bush administration. posted by ParisParamus at 5:51 PM on December 15, 2005
What was Hussein planning on doing once Iraq was overthrown, hitch a ride to Syria and smuggle tons of weapons back home in his backpack?
Well, there are reasons that this could happen. Perhaps Hussein lost control of the country in the last days and the Baathist apparatus moved the weapons to Syria so that Syria could have them. Perhaps they weren't weapons, but evidence of weapons programs. Perhaps their presence was an embarrassment to one or another power and were removed in exchange for other considerations. Perhaps it was a calculated move to embarrass the US, in the hopes of a quick pullout and a return to power for Hussein. Maybe they're being saved for future use, considering that nothing would have stopped the US in 2003 anyways. While I haven't seen anything close to conclusive evidence, I wouldn't totally preclude the idea that this could have happened. Considering the machinations of an organization like the Baathists (who learned everything they knew from the masters of subterfuge and deviousness, the USSR), I wouldn't be surprised by much. posted by loquax at 5:52 PM on December 15, 2005
Yeah, or perhaps it's a load of crap.
pretty convenient too that Paris doesn't have to call for Dear Leader's indictment posted by spiderwire at 6:09 PM on December 15, 2005
Why would it not have been done as soon as troops started building up region? Again, these weapons were/are oriented towards terrorism, domestic and otherwise. Syria LOVES terrorism, and the relationship between Syria and terrorists in Iraq is now evident.
Nor would it be surprising if the R&D and manufacture of WMDs was always cross-border: Baathists on both sides; Syria in need of funds; Syria relatively less of a target than Iraq. posted by ParisParamus at 6:12 PM on December 15, 2005
Hey spiderwire, could you make tha font a little smaller?
Well, it could be a load...as you say, but it wouldn't surprise anyone. Except people on Metafilter, perhaps. posted by ParisParamus at 6:14 PM on December 15, 2005
ParisParamus, take this for what you will, but after the Chinaman flub, demanding that Matt ban someone for making fun of you, posting retarded conspiracy theories, a couple of all-caps comments demanding the immediate elimination of Assad and that Mossad fire missiles covertly at Israel to start a war, your seeming inability to finish a single post without some sort of typographical error, and the indictment comment that you keep getting called out on and conveniently ignore, what little credibility you had on this thread -- or on the site, for that matter -- is precisely zero. I honestly couldn
Subscribe
"This election is the one we've been waiting for - it's going to determine our destiny," said Ali al-Nuaimy, 49, a physical fitness trainer, who voted in Baghdad. "It's a day of victory, a day of independence and freedom," said 60-year-old Shia Muslim Mohammed Ahmed al-Bayati as he voted in Baghdad.
Not the end of the road by any means, but another step on the long road to recovery. Whatever has gone wrong aside, it is remarkable again to watch Iraqis elect their leaders after the nightmare that was Saddam Hussein.
posted by loquax at 11:24 AM on December 15, 2005