Liberal confessional here.

[portisizzle]

ahhh, I hate Dean and all, but how do you turn that off??

[Art]

Originally posted by Liberty

While we are on the subject of Rawanda, most of the country was made of Hutu's if the majority elected a government that was in favor of wiping out the Tutsis then it would still be a democracy wouldn't it? I am not saying there will be a genocide or a civil war in Iraq, but if you have one group of people who have been oppressed for many years and they suddenly have all of the power then that could lead to disasterous results.

Psst, Liberty, I guess I have to break it to you, but, that can't happen in Iraq. There are protections against that in a constitutional democracy. There are in Iraq too. Specific rules governing minority protection ALREADY in place that can't be violated. The Sunni people, themselves, have to approve the new constitution. My guess is they won't accept the pledge of, "Kill all Sunnis" snuck in there by Al Sadr.

[Renegade7]

Originally posted by Art

Sanctions against Iraq forbid the country from having WMDs. You are suggesting that they had them, then kicked out the inspectors. Then, stored and began DESTROYING them, without telling anyone so they could show the international community they were in compliance with the resolutions against them for possible lessening of the sanctions?

Again, does this seem reasonable? That they'd destroy them on their own, tell no one, have no documentation explaining where they were destroyed, or when that anyone has ever found? I doubt you find this credible, yet, you are supporting it as the way.

As for the threat the WMDs were made out to be, can you describe what that was? What was the threat made out to be? Wasn't the threat described as a batch of terrorists augmenting an attack WITH those weapons?

Prior to 9/11 there was a suggestion that terrorists would use planes as weapons. Was that, too, a greater threat than made out to be?

The threat was that they'd use them on us. I don't believe they'd be dumb enough to do it, because we'd trace it back to Iraq and destroy them. Whatever happened to those WMD's? I'm sure Saddam made sure that whatever happened to 'em it wouldn't cost him his hold on power in his country.

[Art]

Originally posted by Renegade7

The threat was that they'd use them on us. I don't believe they'd be dumb enough to do it, because we'd trace it back to Iraq and destroy them. Whatever happened to those WMD's? I'm sure Saddam made sure that whatever happened to 'em it wouldn't cost him his hold on power in his country.

No, Renegade.

The threat was NEVER that Iraq would use those weapons on us. It was that Iraq would foster terrorists getting such weapons and terrorists would use them on us. No one ever hinted or suggested IRAQ itself, would use those weapons on us. The threat was that they had relationships with terrorists and that they might be willing to supply terrorists with such weapons and then they'd be used against us.

This is a false premise you've based your thoughts on. Now you have the actual premise. Does it alter your view?

[Renegade7]

Originally posted by Art

No, Renegade.

The threat was NEVER that Iraq would use those weapons on us. It was that Iraq would foster terrorists getting such weapons and terrorists would use them on us. No one ever hinted or suggested IRAQ itself, would use those weapons on us. The threat was that they had relationships with terrorists and that they might be willing to supply terrorists with such weapons and then they'd be used against us.

This is a false premise you've based your thoughts on. Now you have the actual premise. Does it alter your view?

Barely. We'd still find out Iraq had something to do with it. Is it worth it?

[Ignatius J.]

I supported our entrance into this war, and I'm a liberal (I voted for KErry so that makes me a liberal) Does that mean I have to apologize too?

[Art]

Originally posted by Renegade7

Barely. We'd still find out Iraq had something to do with it. Is it worth it?

I guess here's the question I'd respond to you with.

Would it be worth waiting for tens of thousands to die utilizing such weapons before we took action to assure that threat could not harm us?

When 9/11 happened, this is how the world changed, yet you keep asking pre-9/11 questions. You are essentially saying, "Do nothing. Wait. They have to know we will destroy them if they hurt us. So would they really hurt us?"

And I ask you what the Taliban was thinking? I mean, we found out who did 9/11 and destroyed the government fostering that group. Was it worth it? Why wouldn't it be worth it when we have examples of it having already been?

After 9/11 the shift was we no longer felt it was necessary to wait for people to die to prevent people from dying. Is that really all that radical?

[Art]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

I supported our entrance into this war, and I'm a liberal (I voted for KErry so that makes me a liberal) Does that mean I have to apologize too?

If you voted for Kerry, yeah .

[Mad Mike]

It's amazing to me that any american could argue against having the elections now when a) the Iraqi people wanted it to happen and showed it with a huge voter turnout. It legitimizes Iraq's government in it's own peoples eyes and reinforces the fact that they have a stake in their own future. and c) It's the next most important step to bringing our troops home in victory.

This just in... in the face of this huge victory for the American and Iraqi people, John Kerry says the "the real test is coming in the days and weeks ahead." Of course in the days and weeks ahead he will claim that the real test will come in the next year, then the next decade... I guess that's one way to keep your hope for failure alive, set a moving target. Thank god he lost OUR election. Hey Kerry; you see those people dancing in Iraqs streets? They are dancing on your political grave. :laugh:

[Renegade7]

Originally posted by Art

I guess here's the question I'd respond to you with.

Would it be worth waiting for tens of thousands to die utilizing such weapons before we took action to assure that threat could not harm us?

When 9/11 happened, this is how the world changed, yet you keep asking pre-9/11 questions. You are essentially saying, "Do nothing. Wait. They have to know we will destroy them if they hurt us. So would they really hurt us?"

And I ask you what the Taliban was thinking? I mean, we found out who did 9/11 and destroyed the government fostering that group. Was it worth it? Why wouldn't it be worth it when we have examples of it having already been?

After 9/11 the shift was we no longer felt it was necessary to wait for people to die to prevent people from dying. Is that really all that radical?

Do nothing? No. Keep the war over there against Al Quida. But were do we stop to make sure no one gets there hands on WMD's? Do we take out Iran next? Syria? North Korea? We should've finished Afghanistan.

[Renegade7]

I'll be back.

[KDawg]

Originally posted by Renegade7

In the 90's they had 'em. No disputing that. I don't believe they were the threat they were made out to be. I believe that they started storing or destroying there WMDs. They couldn't use them on anyone, basicly because we would've found out and kicked the snot out of them.

Oh, I get it... So you're suggesting that we should have waited for them to actually use the weapons on someone before going in and kicking the snot out of them...

If they had them, they had an intent to use them. And I do believe they had them.

What's a few thousand extra casualties, right?

[Art]

Originally posted by Renegade7

Do nothing? No. Keep the war over there against Al Quida. But were do we stop to make sure no one gets there hands on WMD's? Do we take out Iran next? Syria? North Korea? We should've finished Afghanistan.

Yes. That's precisely what we do. If a government with friendly ties to terrorists has such weapons, you're absolutely right, we'd have to take those countries out next. Iran has an advancing nuke program but hasn't arrived there with full success. Syria has ties to terrorists, but no known WMDs. North Korea is a liberal boondoggle as they are a xenophobic country with no ties to terrorism so the threat is different than the one we're fighting.

My guess is Israel will take out Iran's nuclear capacity before it is finalized. And democracy may well take out the threats in Iran or Syria before either country develops those threats more completely.

We did finish in Afghanistan. We toppled the government, removed the open base of operations for the terrorist group, enabled free elections for the first time in 5,000 years of existence and WE'RE still there helping out.

We're not shooting at one target here, Renegade. The United States had stood and destroyed the greatest threats to humanity from Communism to fascism to imperialism. Now we're fighting muslim fundamentalism. It's a grave threat. And it is a fight that will take generations to win.

We're not done by a long shot. You do a disservice to think the battle we're waging is a one-stop shopping place. Though terrorists have made Iraq the key area in the war on terror, it won't stop there either. It can't. And you shouldn't wish that it would.

[Ignatius J.]

Mike,

One of the reasons for delaying the election that I can understand is that no international election monitoring is really going to be going on. In many elections of this sort, there are election groups which consist of numerous volunteers who watch the ballot boxes and investigate the process to make sure everything is on the up and up.

These institutions grant a considerable amount of legitimacy to the election.

In iraq, these guys aren't coming because it is simply too dangerous.

This is definatley a good day. I hope the ball keeps rolling this way.

[DUSTINMFOX]

In the northeastern town of Baquba, CNN's Jane Arraf found a polling station where a long line of Iraqi voters chanted and clapped their hands in front of the camera.

One voter told Arraf that Sunday's vote was a "bullet in the heart of the enemy

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Art

If you voted for Kerry, yeah .

Didn't Kerry also support having the elections now? I'm actually not completely sure about this, but I thought Kerry's general Iraq rebuilding plan was the same as Bush's except with more money, more troops, and more Europeans.

In any case, I remain firmly against the decision to go into Iraq at the time we did and in the manner that we did it. Even if Iraq turns into a flourishing democracy and unites the middle east under a United States of Arabia, I will still say that the U.S. handled the pre-invasion diplomacy and publicity very badly.

That being said, I think myself and most rational liberals have been pretty supportive about the rebuilding efforts in Iraq. Sure, we complain from time to time, but if you complain about your wife, does that mean you don't love her? I think it just shows that we're paying attention.

[Ignatius J.]

I too think that bush messed up many things going into iraq, and have been very vocal about it.

But DjTj, did you actually oppose the idea of going into iraq at the time it was done? I think that there are legitimate complaints about the manner in which the attack proceded, but at the time, it seems hard for me to argue against it.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

I too think that bush messed up many things going into iraq, and have been very vocal about it.

But DjTj, did you actually oppose the idea of going into iraq at the time it was done? I think that there are legitimate complaints about the manner in which the attack proceded, but at the time, it seems hard for me to argue against it.

Well, to be honest, I remember my feelings at the time, and I was strongly opposed to anything Iraq. Of course, I had just spent 7 weeks in the office of a Democratic senator, and back in Pasadena, I had sat down with Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, for a roundtable discussion.

My general feeling at the time was that everything was being pushed into a short timetable to provide maximum benefit for the Republicans in the 2002 midterm elections. There did not seem to be any evidence that waiting a few months would do irreparable harm to the situation on the ground. We could have secured more access around the Iraqi border, we could have spent a little more time building a coalition, and maybe we could have caught Saddam in the act of doing something that would have made the war so much less controversial than it is now.

Everything at the time looked like a political move, especially on Capitol Hill. I was on the other side, so I strongly opposed it for political reasons. There was almost nothing rational about the way resolutions were being bandied about on the Senate floor. It was really a game of political chicken, and the Democrats blinked. I'm pretty sure that was the wrong political move also. Imagine if Kerry had never voted for the war and was never labeled a flip-flopper...

[Ignatius J.]

Ted,

I think Kerry's record on the war was why he won the nomination. As hard a time as he had trying to explain his position, that he supported the idea of the war but not the manner in which it was executed, imagine if he had voted against it. He would have been labeled too weak to lead the country and would have lost by more.

I don't think the flip flop argument took nearly the hold you think.

[Thiebear]

What is it: more % of the population voted than the US and they dont get to just walk across the street and walk back .. They walk miles in some cases and worry for their lives...

Lets hope the 2 sides Shiit and Suni work together with the Kurds and all those Assemblies thier putting forth.....

But as long as the Butcher camps and buses of people to the mass graves go away, thats good enought for me.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

Ted,

I think Kerry's record on the war was why he won the nomination. As hard a time as he had trying to explain his position, that he supported the idea of the war but not the manner in which it was executed, imagine if he had voted against it. He would have been labeled too weak to lead the country and would have lost by more.

I don't think the flip flop argument took nearly the hold you think.

I think your idea of the primary process is a little idealistic. Watching the debates and caucuses and going to phone calls and rallies, it didn't seem like pro-war/anti-war was really a big deal in the primaries at all. It drew all the anti-war people into the Dean camp, but that wasn't enough to win anything. The rest of the primary voters were pretty much up for grabs for whoever they thought had the best chance to win. There were a lot more tactics at play than ideals.

You may be right though, in that Kerry may have overplayed the anti-war card in the primaries and cornered himself for the general election. However, my general feeling is that "I supported the war in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq" is a simple message that could have resonated with a lot of Americans. He could have more credibly pointed at Syria or Iran or North Korea.

Kerry was always going to look a little weaker than Bush; his only chance was to appear to have better judgment. A little differentiation on Iraq would have helped - anything to stay on the topic of Iraq rather than gay marriage.

In any case, we'll never know. Just as we'll never know if we could have been better off if we never went to Iraq. There are just way too many variables involved in decisions like these.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

Mike,

One of the reasons for delaying the election that I can understand is that no international election monitoring is really going to be going on. In many elections of this sort, there are election groups which consist of numerous volunteers who watch the ballot boxes and investigate the process to make sure everything is on the up and up.

These institutions grant a considerable amount of legitimacy to the election.

In iraq, these guys aren't coming because it is simply too dangerous.

This is definatley a good day. I hope the ball keeps rolling this way.

I think that their were large scale UN election monotors. Where did you see that they werent?

[SnyderShrugged]

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-01-26-voa62.cfm

UN: Arrangements for Iraq Election in Place By Peter Heinlein

United Nations

26 January 2005

Heinlein report - Download 416k

Listen to Heinlein report

An Iraqi man atempts to fix a damaged poster of the late Shiite cleric Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr on a wall covered with elections posters of Interim Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawer, reading 'dignity, security justice'

United Nations elections officers say all arrangements are in place for Iraq's national assembly elections. Officials are cautiously optimistic that Iraqi voters will brave the danger and cast their ballots.

U.N. electoral assistance division chief Carina Perelli says she is amazed at how far Iraq's election commission has come.

Eight months ago, the commission did not exist. Sunday, it is staging an election with more than 18,000 candidates and 14 million registered voters. More than 200,000 Iraqis have signed up to be poll workers or monitors for the vote.

Now, Ms. Perelli says it is up to Iraqis to decide whether it is worth risking their lives to support the democratic process.

"The Iraqi citizens are faced with a very tough decision of basically having to confront their fears and confront their hopes and decide by themselves whether they consider that this election is important enough, is valid enough, legitimate enough in order to risk their lives to go and vote," she said.

Ms. Perelli, who has previously helped to organize elections in places like El Salvador, East Timor and Afghanistan, says she is hopeful of a good turnout in Iraq.

"I would say that participation might be higher than expected. But I'm not betting my salary on that," she added.

Ms. Perelli said she is concerned about threats of violence, but declined to characterize Sunday's election as the most dangerous she has seen.

"Is this the first time we see an election under bullets? No,” she noted. “And if it's not under bullets, in East Timor it was under the machete…. Is this the first time electoral workers have been targeted? Unfortunately not… So unfortunately there is no immunity for electoral workers in other parts of the world, either."

U.N. Undersecretary-General Kieran Prendergast admitted conditions are not ideal, but said "the election is going to happen January 30, that is a fact". At the same time, he cautioned reporters not to see Sunday's vote as the culmination of Iraq's transition to democracy, but as a step along the way.

"These elections shouldn't be seen as a be-all and end-all event. I think we should rather see the 30 of January as an important staging post but only one along an evolving transition," he said.

During the briefing, Mr. Prendergast repeatedly condemned those attempting to disrupt the vote. "Intimidating or murdering voters", he said, "is wrong, and cannot be justified under any circumstances".

The United Nations withdrew all international staff in 2003 after a bomb attack on its Baghdad headquarters that killed 22 people. Citing continuing security concerns, Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been reluctant to redeploy staff.

There will be a total of 40 U.N. electoral assistance officers on hand Sunday when the polls open. When asked whether 40 are enough, elections unit chief Perelli said in a ideal world, she would have liked more. But, she said, "we estimated we would need 40, and we have 40.”

This last paragraph sats it all.

Plent of UN oversight folks!

[redman]

Originally posted by Liberty

While we are on the subject of Rawanda, most of the country was made of Hutu's if the majority elected a government that was in favor of wiping out the Tutsis then it would still be a democracy wouldn't it? I am not saying there will be a genocide or a civil war in Iraq, but if you have one group of people who have been oppressed for many years and they suddenly have all of the power then that could lead to disasterous results.

Liberty, it's a funny thing about democracies, but the democratic processes themselves never lead to that type of tyranny. The Nazi's were voted into a majority position, but it's not like they had a national vote on persecuting the Jews and moved forward on that basis. Instead, they simply acted once they'd gained power, and eventually left any appearance of democracy behind (e.g. by burning the Reichstag and dissolving the assembly).

Democracy doesn't lead to tyranny. Ruthless use of force does. As long as the democratic institutions are in place, there is a natural disinclination to gravitate towards tyranny.

[Chopper Dave]

I think it's as arrogant and pointless as the administration itself to go out of your way and demand an apology from liberals. Just because people voted doesn't change the fact that the war was misguided and unsuccessful in its stated goal. It doesn't change the fact that Iraqis and Americans are STILL dying every day.

Little has changed. Instead of fearing death by insidious tyrant, they fear death by pissed off rebels. Regardless of how many people voted, that country is so divided on such a basic level that it would take a miracle and a ridiculously extended American military presence to stop it from descending into civil war.

Meanwhile, North Korea has nukes, and Iran will probably have them soon. Funny thing is, Iraq never had them to begin with.

So rejoice. Rub the 72% turnout in our faces. Fine. Your holier-than-thou invitation to apologize (thanks for that, by the way, because honestly, before you asked us to apologize, I was sitting in a corner scratching my head as to what to do) is declined. As I said before, just because people voted doesn't mean anything is different.

Seriously, in your mind, I hope such a high voter turnout justifies the 1400+ American dead, not to mention the 10000+ American injured, along with the 15000+ Iraqi casualties. Because in mine, it doesn't. And it shouldn't.