PDA

View Full Version : Iraq is "voting" so they can be "free"



Leo_ARG
01-29-2005, 10:51 PM
Haha what'a'joke.You americans have a good sense of humor, I have to admit.

Yeah, give all the countries your freedom, keep invading them, and give them freedom all at the same time.You sure archieved a lot!

Note: I know all americans aren't that stupid to believe this but this goes for those that still keep fooling themselves.

Mr. Noodles
01-29-2005, 10:54 PM
Haha what'a'joke.
Agreed!
Governments suck, and always will!
Ixnay on the Hombre!!!!
Ixnay on the Hombre!!!!
You know what I meant by "Ixnay on the Hombre", right?
Our government shouldn't change countries like this! :mad:

Leo_ARG
01-29-2005, 10:56 PM
You know what I meant by "Ixnay on the Hombre", right?


I know, I know :)

Good luck to the iraquis I hope they "choose" the "right one" :D

Mr. Noodles
01-29-2005, 10:57 PM
The Iraqi's should've been left alone!

Moose
01-29-2005, 10:59 PM
my head hurts.

Leo_ARG
01-29-2005, 11:00 PM
The Iraqi's should've been left alone!

Yeah, this whole "democracy" thing is too new and fresh for them, they wouldn't use it the right way, would they?

Mr. Noodles
01-29-2005, 11:03 PM
What "right way"?
There's no right way!

Moose
01-29-2005, 11:03 PM
now my head is bleeding.

Leo_ARG
01-29-2005, 11:07 PM
What "right way"?
There's no right way!

I ment the RIGHT (georgie's) way...and I was being sarcastic.

RXP
01-30-2005, 12:49 AM
Let me guess you're a hippie?

summer guy
01-30-2005, 12:52 AM
I lost mi shiirt todaay lasst wekk ago.

wheelchairman
01-30-2005, 04:41 AM
Well anyone can see that an election in Iraq will have to be illegitimate.

Allawi bragged about how only 4 out of the 18 counties were too violent to have safe elections, except these 4 counties are home to 50% of the population.

The violence will be a playing factor, that and there is a huge foreign army presence there, that alone should make it about as legitimate as voting under Saddam's Republican Guard.

Most of the major groups are boycotting the election, because obviously it won't be legitimate and because it's just the American government trying to legitimate their regime.

It will probably be worse than in Afghanistan, where our Praetor there declared himself the winner of the election despite the fact that it was proven people could vote much more than only once.

lost_nvrfound
01-30-2005, 09:37 AM
once our soldiers r out of the country (only god knos when that'll happen) some1 else is just gonna take ovr where sadaam left off... evn my outrageously pro-bush friend understands this... evry1 who believes a democracy will work there, or newhere 4 the matter, is just kidding themselves...

wheelchairman
01-30-2005, 11:30 AM
once our soldiers r out of the country (only god knos when that'll happen) some1 else is just gonna take ovr where sadaam left off... evn my outrageously pro-bush friend understands this... evry1 who believes a democracy will work there, or newhere 4 the matter, is just kidding themselves...
w0rd. 1337.

Vera
01-30-2005, 11:31 AM
There isn't a society system or a political system that works flawlessly but I don't see why democracy could never work in Iraq. Or anywhere, for that matter.

Betty
01-30-2005, 11:42 AM
Oh my god...

You need to start somewhere.

Regardless of whether you agreed with the war, it happened, and now a vote is a first step towards "democracy". It's true it won't happen all of a sudden. But fuck, how pumped would you be to finally be able to vote and feel free.

Cheers to Iraq, I say.

Vera
01-30-2005, 11:57 AM
Democracy is a questionable term, anyway. Like, was some country less democratic it is now, or perhaps more so? It's hard to say.

But like Betty said, you have to start somewhere. Democracy takes time to happen, but as long as both the people and the government strive for it, it will.

wheelchairman
01-30-2005, 01:41 PM
Oh my god...

You need to start somewhere.

Regardless of whether you agreed with the war, it happened, and now a vote is a first step towards "democracy". It's true it won't happen all of a sudden. But fuck, how pumped would you be to finally be able to vote and feel free.

Cheers to Iraq, I say.
The vote is illegitimate. I full-heartedly support the resistance movement as the only popular force in Iraq. An election put forth by former-ba'athist hardliner turned CIA agent, at the gunpoint of American GI's on a people who despise the brutal totalitarian American method of "stabilization" simply will not work.

Mota Boy
01-30-2005, 03:13 PM
The vote is illegitimate. I full-heartedly support the resistance movement as the only popular force in Iraq.
You realize that 72% of the electorate is estimated to have voted in the current election, while the resistant movement, estimated around 20,000 people, is largely composed of, funded and run by foreigners?

Most of the time I let things you say slide, because I've come to understand that we have completely different biases, but that has to be the most completely backwards-ass thing you could possibly say.

Iraq is far from a utopia, but the most legitimate movement in the country, and the best hope for a good future of the country, lies in the elections working. Ultimately I don't think that democracy there can work [Vera - I've never been able to find it, but an article I read a couple years ago in the New York Times Magazine mentioned that most democracies under a certain GDP per person (something in the neighborhood of $6,000 I believe) ultimately fail, whereas most democracies above that line succeed. Iraq's average GDP per person was about half of that minimum.], but I think that it's by far the best shot the country has at a legitimate government.

Do you honestly see the Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi to be a more legitimate Iraqi ruler than the Iraqis running in the election?

wheelchairman
01-30-2005, 04:52 PM
The idea that Islamic leaders among the resistance (or that they are the resistance) is flawed, the resistance consists of far more than Zarqawi, who has been blown out of proportion by the American media.

Your numbers on the expected turn-out rate are exagerrated, as I said up above the majority live in violent areas that either will not have high turn-out rates.

Not to mention that the major opposition parties are already boycotting the elections on the grounds that they are nothing but an "approve" stamp on the American election.

An election, with a foreign army (and a population that is hostile to this army) will not work.

The resistance is not a bunch of fundamentalists, it is a group of patriots, nationalists, progressives, radicals, and the religious, it is quite broad, and is fighting for democracy (yes, even the muslims, there won't be another Tehran '79 here.)

Any elections happening under the American occupation, will just fail. I don't like to say that, but it's true.

Mota Boy
01-30-2005, 08:40 PM
According to Reuters, the number is "up to eight million", obviously far more than the insurgency. No matter how exagerrated, they do not come close to sinking below the estimated 20,000 insurgents.

Perhaps Zarqawi's role has been enlarged by a media looking to simplify a complex issue, but he's still the only "celebrity" to emerge out of the attacks, and this is telling. Don't believe for a second that if there was a member of the insurgents who came out and stated that his group was carrying out attacking in the name of an Iraqi homeland that the media wouldn't pick up on it. For young Arabs, Iraq is their Afghanistan (when, ironically, Afghanistan could be their Afghanistan). Hell, even European Muslims have been killed over there. The CIA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html) seems to think the main problem is international terrorists. To describe them as "thugs", as Fox News likes to, is to simplify and stereotype them, but to describe them as a disparate band of patriots (and others) fighting for democracy is to unduly romanticize them.

You seriously believe that they're fighting for democracy? Or that it's even possible for a rebel group to fight for democracy? I'm trying and failing to think of a time in recent memory when a band of rebels has successfully overthrown the establishment to create a peaceful democratic coalition. Perhaps you could take up the examples of the collapsed USSR, but towards the end that was much more of a diplomatic struggle than a martial one.

wheelchairman
01-31-2005, 07:37 AM
The rebels in Columbia are fighting for democratic rights. The rebels in Nepal are doing an outstanding job against the oppressive and last Hindu Kingdom in the world. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela has been able to maintain democracy (with Jimmy Carter's approval) despite the fact that right-wing forces have attempted to kill him, several failed coups, and also that he himself declared a national referendum to see if he had popular approval (the opposition claimed he didn't.)

There will be no democracy from the American occupation. It's simply impossible with the military presence there, I highly recommend Machiavelli's "The Discourses" I think you would love it if you haven't already read it.

The skewed vision you have of the rebels makes them seem like 'islamists' (a word I have distaste for.) But even most 'Islamists' fight for democracy, Al-Sadr's biggest demand was for a free and open election back in the day. The reason the Shi'ites in Iran won the revolution, was upon promises of democracy. The rebellion in Iraq, is led by Communists, Socialists, Nationalists, and Patriots, also Ba'athists and just ordinary people, their demands several times, have been a withdrawal of the American military, and an immediate direct election.

Also, Iraq was a state of Arab-nationalist-socialism (Ba'athism) that's why it is so important to the Arabs.

Mota Boy
01-31-2005, 09:16 AM
The rebels in Columbia are fighting for democratic rights. The rebels in Nepal are doing an outstanding job against the oppressive and last Hindu Kingdom in the world.
So your two biggest examples are of people who claim that they are fighting for democracy instead of rebel groups that have actually accomplished it? Also, Chavez's revolution, unless I'm wrong, was a democratic one along the lines of Vicinte Fox, working within the establishment instead of overthrowing it. Castro is perhaps one of the more famous examples, but damn near every successful internal rebellion leads to an oppressive regime.

And I've read "The Discourses", but not for some time. I'd have to brush up on it a bit.


The skewed vision you have of the rebels makes them seem like 'islamists' (a word I have distaste for.) But even most 'Islamists' fight for democracy, Al-Sadr's biggest demand was for a free and open election back in the day. The reason the Shi'ites in Iran won the revolution, was upon promises of democracy.

Also, Iraq was a state of Arab-nationalist-socialism (Ba'athism) that's why it is so important to the Arabs.
So important to the former Ba'athists, who were in the minority under Saddam's regime.

And the Iranians sure delivered on their promise... with the addition that everything would continue to be overseen by the leaders of the revolution.

Also, your argument for the plurality of the insurgency undermines your point. Assuming that they are a varied group of rebels, they are all united only in opposition to a U.S. presence. If they ever did succeed in driving us out, they'd fall apart quickly, each fighting for his own cause. To believe that any disparate group of rebels would lay down their arms and choose the system of democracy over their own ideology is naive.

wheelchairman
02-01-2005, 02:42 PM
Whoa sorry for the late reply, terrible memory.

Nepal and Colombia, the rebels both administrate large parts of the territories they control. The rebels in Nepal control over 80% last time I checked.

Chavez is a democratic revolution. But like Allende, it wasn't necessarily nonviolent. The same with the ideals of Ho Chi Minh, who would've most definitely had a majority had he been alive.

Lower level ba'athists are idealists, it was a party based on ideals.

As for the Ayatollan promises, you do realize that the Shi'ites are the ones who participated in the elections right? Hence why Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani issued a Fatwa to vote.

The rebels have two common causes, getting rid of the US and establishing an immediate direct election. Even the ba'athists, who were a democratic party in the beginning.

listen2reason
02-01-2005, 11:16 PM
don't get me started on this iraq issue.......bush is retarded, track number 11 on the self titled album. :)

Ken Jennings
02-01-2005, 11:19 PM
look! It's uncle Mullah!

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/01/29/sprj.nirq.prison/long.sadr.jpg

Mr. Noodles
02-02-2005, 07:50 PM
I've been thinking about what Iraq used to be, and voting maybe a good thing for a country that used to suck 'cause of Saddam!
Voting could lead to a better future for Iraq, I've just thought more deeply about it and I've made my decision.
Voting is a good thing for this country!
Better than fucking "shittatorship" (dictatorship)!

Ken Jennings
02-04-2005, 10:24 PM
I've been thinking about what Iraq used to be, and voting maybe a good thing for a country that used to suck 'cause of Saddam!
Voting could lead to a better future for Iraq, I've just thought more deeply about it and I've made my decision.
Voting is a good thing for this country!
Better than fucking "shittatorship" (dictatorship)!

True, almost anything's better than dictatorship.

!!!MOTA!!!
02-07-2005, 09:50 PM
Yeah, i'm agree with leo, the freedomin irak is gonna be when you get out of there