Iraqi Election`s

[cjcj]

Its a Awesome sight to see how happy those Iraqi`s are...after getting a chance to vote. The latest reports say voter turnout is higher than expected ! and how the Iraqi`s are not afraid to show how bad they want to vote. Thanks to the brave men and women of the mighty US Military for making this happen for them... I am hoping my nephew and some other friends and relatives will be home next fall for some hunting.

 

[tnctcb]

it looks like they are trying to get iraqs government set up just like ours. i heard about voting booths all over the U.S. for iraqi-americans to go and cast votes.if they have the right to do that why cant african-americans vote in africa or just let all americans participate in this election. i think its great that they are being allowed to make there own choices but people who are U.S citizens should not be urged to participate. it happens here without the government urging them to do it, but in this case we are encouraging non-citizens to vote

 

[ELKCHSR]

I was reading the many news stations that I like to browse over every day.
For the last bunch of months, many many articles every day was devoted to how evil the U.S. empire was and how we were doing a lousy job over seas in our war.
This morning, there was only 2 negative articles and a lot of possitives on this subject. The other thing I noticed was that the overall reporting had gone down dramaticly. I suppose these left wing news people figure that they are better off keeping thier adgendas going by not saying any thing at all, rather than report on the truth of what they are seeing, or their people in the field are reporting....
One quote I do remember seeing this morning was "We will show them that they can kill us every day, but we will still come out and vote", and in higher numbers than were even expected.... LMAO!!! This is great to see....

 

[BuzzH]

Its awesome the people of Iraq have the opportunity to vote...

Too bad Americans are having to die for THEIR right to vote. Too bad every American is shouldering the astronomical costs of fighting THEIR war.

What a freaking joke.

I personally think the price being paid by the U.S. is just a wee bit steep for their rights. If they were so worried about freedom and democracy...maybe the citizens there should have over-thrown their government and stood up for themselves.

Plus, I wouldnt be getting my hopes up about any type of "fair" election or the wing-nuts they put into power...

 

[barefooter19]

i would have to agree with you that the price is high. But there are also many Iraqi have been killed as well. For this right even before we went to war. there government killed them and/or worse just because they could. Would you say that the price was to high if the rolls were reverst and they had all the right to what we do now. And we had what they had for a government. By no means i am i sticking up for the Iragi people because many of my freinds and so family are there or have been there. But one should think about the reason way we did what we did there. And WE the USA can not just leave because we would look weak in there Eyes and there would be a ravalt. And then the work we have done there would be for nothing. And Then the Price would be way to high.

 

[BuzzH]

barefooter,

I was under the impression after listening to GW that the "reason" for the war was to uncover Sadams vast stocks of weapons of mass destruction and reduce the terrorist threat, and because of "ties" to al quida. I also listened to Condi Rice say, "if we dont act now, we'll see a mushroom cloud over a major U.S. city". I listened to Collin Powell make claims of "vast WMD programs" despite the fact he and H. Norman Schwarzkopf put Iraq's WMD programs into the frickin' stone age during the first gulf war. In fact, did you hear much about a "free" Iraq in the first several months of this quaqmire?

Only after no WMD's were found was the "democracy for Iraq" cry from the Whitehouse heard. Only after the fact did you hear ANYTHING about the Kurds being gassed. Why wasnt the US worried about the Kurds WHEN they were being killed? Day late and a dollar short for how many Kurds? Why is it our business anyway? If democracy was so key to Iraq, why didnt GW's Daddy install a democracy after the first gulf war?

Ask yourself some key questions and I bet you wont like the answers.

Oh, and as far as the roles being reversed...they were, and we didnt get much help to form our own democracy.

 

[barefooter19]

Many valid points i don't have anwsers to many of them. but in fact we did get help. Evan thought it wasn't for the same reason we needed it. The french did have there own motives. but look where we are today Free. I believe it was they did not like the british. but i could be wrong. as for the WMD everone saw the same report stating that they did have them. as for the Kurds.in fact before WW2 the US was saying the same thing about Jews Just like you said about the Kurds. and i agree. it takes things like Parol Harber and the 911 attacks to get are attention To help. Ithink GW is tring to get one step ahead. So this kind of stuff don't happen again.

 

[ringer]

This country has always fought to help the downtrodden. We are just a bunch of Pollyannas that way. Yer probably right Buzz that other countries would not do the same for us. As far as WMD I never cared if they were there or not. They were definitely there before and Sadam got rid of them. The reason that it is worth fighting there is to keep the maggots focused there and give us a chance to kill as many as we can. After this one I hope they decide that the cost to their movement is too high to screw with us. Maybe they will decide to mess with the evil ones in France and Chirac can ask for our help.

 

[WH's OutdoorsChick]

I thought it was Awesome that that the Iraqi's got a chance to vote in the USA. We were watching the news last night and it was about all the Iraqi's in Washington going all the way down to San Diego to vote. I think a lot of families came over to the USA to give thier children a better life, but if we make thier life better in Iraq, most likely there will be a number of them that will return to thier country!

I know a number of ppl over there and I just want them to come home, so I really hope this gets things really moving!

 

[barefooter19]

Hope to see my freinds and family soon. It been a long time sence i saw my Brother.

 

[barefooter19]

Right On ringer

 

[MattK]

The good part is Iraqis are getting an election. The cost to the US is far too high in both lives and monetarily. I've recently heard GW say that this election will not bring our soldiers home. He said it is even more important now to not give up our resolve to the safety of the Iraqi people (ie. we need to keep our soldiers there to support the incoming government.) I have yet to hear a date or approximate date that our occupation will end.

The US did get help from France both monetarily and with soldiers during our Revolution. It was because France was also fighting the British Empire at that time.

There are major differences between France helping us during our Revolution and what we are doing in Iraq. In Iraq we put Saddam Hussein into power, gave him the mustard gas to kill the Kurds, and did a double dealing with Iran ("Iran contra"). Then we decided Saddam was dangerous because he didn't like the US for backing both sides of the Iran/Iraq war. We use the excuse had killed a whole bunch of Kurds and had mustard gas. Now we want to install a democracy in Iraq.

A little different than the American Revolution.

 

[barefooter19]

One would have to amit that if we were to just up and leave now. that the new government would fall. and the posable effects could be that they might try to attack us. Because they would think that we are not as big and tough as they are. Just My two cents. thats how my brother would tell it. being that he is over there now. so we can not just pull out.

 

[cjcj]

Matt i also heard GW bush say that if the new Iraqi government asked us to leave we would..

 

[Nemont]

Only after the fact did you hear ANYTHING about the Kurds being gassed. Why wasnt the US worried about the Kurds WHEN they were being killed? Day late and a dollar short for how many Kurds? Why is it our business anyway? If democracy was so key to Iraq, why didnt GW's Daddy install a democracy after the first gulf war?

You may want to go back and look when we knew about the Kurds being gassed. It was a big issue and even made into our news media. The action was condemned then as it should have been.

As for WMD that was a mistake but every country with an intelligence service was saying the same thing: Jordan, Egpyt, France, Germany, Israel, England, Greece, Saudi Arabia, U.S. etc. all said he had weapons or was attempting to build them.

Our history is rife with selectively choosing our causes: We all but ignored the holocaust until we came face to face with it, we knew about it but didn't "do" anything about it, the Kmer Rouge in Cambodia ie the Killing Fields, we did nothing, Rawanda etc, etc. So saying we did nothing for the Kurds that is kind of a red herring.

I think in a strategic sense: there was a lot of pressure for our forces to be out of the Kingdom, we continued to need a way to project power into the region, Saddam was in open violation of numerous U.N. resolutions, he continued to worry his neighbors and threaten stategic oil supplies. In addition: in the post 9-11 world the neocons held sway in the decision making process and they clearly wanted Saddam out of power. Were there mistakes and miscalculations made? Of course there were.

The reason George Bush sr. didn't go in and remove Saddam was that he was constrained by the U.N. resolution which in effect said: Eject Iraqi occupiers from Kuwait and then go home. This war had a totally different strategic goal.

I have yet to hear a date or approximate date that our occupation will end.

I don't think anyone knows when our forces can come home. Also to set a hard and fast date would be stupid because it will give the insurgents a sense of just waiting us out. In addition if we are in occupation of Iraq why are we not acting like occupiers?

I wonder if either of you guys have talked to anyone who has been there? I have not heard the military saying we shouldn't be there.

In Iraq we put Saddam Hussein into power, gave him the mustard gas to kill the Kurds, and did a double dealing with Iran ("Iran contra"). Then we decided Saddam was dangerous because he didn't like the US for backing both sides of the Iran/Iraq war.

MattK,
The above is an extreme over simplification of all the dealings we had with Saddam. We actually didn't "put" him in power. We simply didn't resist his rise to power. The CIA felt Saddam would be a stabilizing influence. We provided weapons and supplies to both sides of the Iran/Iraq war because the decision was made that both countries would be less of a threat to the region if they could fight each other to a stalemate. A cheap way to keep Iran a bay. We didn't "decide" Saddam was dangerous he invaded Kuwait and most likely had his eyes on the oilfields of Saudi Arabia, thus he proved he was dangerous. Then he expelled U.N. inspectors, then thumbed his nose at every U.N. sanction, played fools poker with the U.S. administration which already was convinced he had to go, stole vast sums of cash from Oil for Food, bribed nearly every European country there is and still refused to open his country to inspectors who could have verified that there were no WMD's.

Whether the costs are too great or not has not been decided. To say we have no business there is also short sighted.

Nemont

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Did we give him the gas to kill the Kurds?

 

[MattK]

Calif. Hunter- Everything that I have heard or read has stated we gave Saddam the arms to control his people and fight the war with Iran. (This was during Ronald Reagan's administration.) We openly backed Saddam while he was going against the shah of Iran (who we felt was a much greater threat). However, the US through under the table dealings got caught with its hand in the cookie jar. We were backing the Shah of Iran in a drugs for guns deal. Members of the US government were the "brokers".

 

[Nemont]

MattK,
The Shah of Iran was in exile while the Iran/Iraq war was being fought. The Shah was overthrown in 1979 by the Ayatollah Khomeni. http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
In fact the Shah was one of the biggest recipients of U.S. aid in the Middle East. http://www.irvl.net/USMI.htm

Here is more info both the good and the bad:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Nemont

 

[MattK]

I stand corrected with The Shah of Iran, it was the Ayatollah. Thank you Nemont. All the rest remains the same.

The United States supplied the Iraqis with intelligence, and committed the US Navy to safeguarding the flow of oil out of (and the flow of money and arms into) Iraq, but secretly sold arms to Iran in order to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua, and gain influence with hostage-holding Muslim militias in Lebanon.

 

[Nemont]

I stand corrected with The Shah of Iran, it was the Ayatollah. Thank you Nemont. All the rest remains the same.

The United States supplied the Iraqis with intelligence, and committed the US Navy to safeguarding the flow of oil out of (and the flow of money and arms into) Iraq, but secretly sold arms to Iran in order to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua, and gain influence with hostage-holding Muslim militias in Lebanon.

MattK,
The U.S. provided escorts through the gulf especially the straight of Hormuz in order to ensure the delivery of not just Iraqi crude but also Kuwaiti crude. We even reflagged tankers with U.S. flags so that the Iranian would not dare sink a U.S. ship or if they did they would face retaliation.

There have been alot of leaders who we dealt with and even gave massive support to who later turned out to be our worst enemy, Joseph Stalin comes to mind. You cannot say that just because we sold arms to Saddam that we forever forfeit our right to then change course. We, the U.S., have aided both sides of many conflicts.

Nemont