Good Luck Iraq!

[Spathiphyllum]

I hope they take this historic opportunity to begin the creation their new political system.

I suspect their turnout will be higher than the U.S. turnout of the '04 Presidential. If it is, I wonder how the mainstream media will document our "failure" in Iraq?

In a few days once all tallies are completed, I'd bet that they exceed 65% of eligible voters casting a ballot. That would be pretty impressive given the world in which they live.

Again, good luck Iraqis! Most of us still want you to succeed.

[Connie]

Again, good luck Iraqis! Most of us still want you to succeed

I second that.

Hi hope your right about the turnout. Since they will be putting their lives on the line to vote, that would really show the world how much they want freedom.

[mattsiegman]

They have about 200,000 troops protecting polling places and stuff over in Iraq, so one would think that things should go at least relatively better than the last few days (i keep hearing how many people insurgents have killed, but how many insurgents have we killed i wonder?)

[Jaded]

LOL....They are going to ink the thumbs of those who vote so they can't vote twice.

This will take the guess work out of who voted and who didn't...making it easier for the insurgents to figure out who needs killing.

I just can't believe anyone believes a vote is going to change anything. If all it takes is a vote, why haven't we figured out the Israeli - Palestinian thingamajig yet? (or any of the other thingamajigs out there)

Maybe if we send every household in all non-democratic nations an issue of a Harry Potter Book, a copy of the Beatles white album, and a copy of Debbie Does Dallas, they will see that "our" way is the "best" way...oh wait, 2 of those are British right...my bad.

Anywhay, it might also be less expensive. (I wonder how much longer before Congress closes the coffers.)

Our nation, collectively, has learned nothing from Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, or The first Iraq war thingamajig. It's sad.

[lokki]

What's sad is that a mentality still exists that choice is a bad thing... the 'insurgents' kill voters because they feel 1) the voter doesn't have the right; 2) any vote that's cast implies they are not the proper rulers; 3) fear being dealt with.

But Jaded, what have you personally learned from North Korea's nuclear capabilities?

[Spathiphyllum]

But Jaded, what have you personally learned from North Korea's nuclear capabilities?

I'm a bit surprised, lokki. Isn't it obvious? That democracy, even the attempt at one, is utterly foolish. In fact, change anywhere should never be attempted because it involves some risk. I figure the North Koreans, among others, are perfectly happy in their lot and love the tyranny. It's just so comforting to know that every day will be the same oppressive situation day after day... kinda like comfort food.

[Jaded]

We have a democracy in the United States. However, our foreign policy is tyrannical. When the founding fathers got together and decided to declare independance from England, it was self-liberation. The United States was outmanned, had less weapons and no army...but they didn't need someone to come over and tell them they needed liberation.

Telling another country they have to be democratic is no different than telling them they have to accept a monarch of our choosing. We liberate 'some' Iraqis by giving them authority over 'other' Iraqis.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, so is the United Kingdom...why don't we go liberate them and make them democratic? The idea that we are going to liberate any country is bull****. We can't even liberate ourselves...we put a couple of token minority-looking individuals in positions of prominence and point to them as examples of our great, liberated democracy.

Powell, Rice, Gonzales...powerless faces who think they can accomplish anything without the consent of the ruling class. How many of them were elected? Exactly...they were "allowed" to step up on the podium, say what they think, carry some messages, placate the minority groups, and stfu when the big boys make the decisions.

The Bush Administrations goal is to place a puppet government in power in Iraq, allow them to start pumping oil and trading it to the U.S. for U.S. dollars and goods. That will ease our energy worries, bolster the dollar, create jobs, and break OPEC's grip on our nuts.

[Ron]

Powell, Rice, Gonzales...powerless faces who think they can accomplish anything without the consent of the ruling class. How many of them were elected? Exactly...they were "allowed" to step up on the podium, say what they think, carry some messages, placate the minority groups, and stfu when the big boys make the decisions.

So now you argue that our government is a puppet, and unaccountable.

The people had the right after 4 years of your alleged abuses by the President's Cabinet to oust them, and chose not to oust them. The popularly elected House faces election every 2 years, and could have voted to impeach the president. They did not, and the people did not replace them. The people will have another opportunity in 2 years to replace the House again, and will definitely elect a new President in 4 years.

Our government is elected by the people and is staffed at the highest levels by appointment of the elected officials. I can't believe I have to sit and type this Civics 101 to combat such silly statements/propositions.

The Bush Administrations goal is to place a puppet government in power in Iraq, allow them to start pumping oil and trading it to the U.S. for U.S. dollars and goods. That will ease our energy worries, bolster the dollar, create jobs, and break OPEC's grip on our nuts.

So your complete argument is that our Puppet Government is installing a puppet government to buy oil from the people of Iraq, and they are doing this to the tune of $300Billion, PLUS the cost of the oil anyway? Huh?

It's not about buying Iraqi oil, or breaking OPEC. It's about preventing global annihilation.

If you're going to argue the case that the war was pre-ordained or pre-planned by the "neocons", AT LEAST be consitstent and accept their predefined reasoning for undertaking that war.

Democracies don't fight other democracies; Democracies don't generate huge numbers of terrorists; etc., etc., etc. Or at least that's the experience to date. It's only been spreading rapidly for the past 20 years. Let's see how it works.

The United States was outmanned, had less weapons and no army...but they didn't need someone to come over and tell them they needed liberation.

I don't recall if anyone had to put a bug in our ear about sovereignty, but we certainly needed someone to come over and help us win.

[Spathiphyllum]

I can't believe I have to sit and type this Civics 101 to combat such silly statements/propositions.

Sometimes, Ron, the better part of discretion is to not waste your time presenting coherent arguments to the incoherent, or in this case, to the selectively biased. The following should have given a clue to where this was headed:

Maybe if we send every household in all non-democratic nations an issue of a Harry Potter Book, a copy of the Beatles white album, and a copy of Debbie Does Dallas, they will see that "our" way is the "best" way...oh wait, 2 of those are British right...my bad.

So of the selections representing great contemporary artistic works from the Western world to present to the Eastern one, Mr. America scavenges the bottom of the barrel and ships a porno on behalf of us infidels... the singular work to encompass all that this country represents. Edit: In an interesting twist of irony, the very same people that would most assuredly not approve of the production or distribution of such "art" are the very ones that are the most conservative, hence Bushophilic. I'm guessing Mr. America is getting a bit confused reconciling the notion that the his less conservative friends would embrace the material that would so poison Eastern thought and express our unseemlier side. I just find this a little funny.

A contemptible response from an angry, tin-foil hat conspiracist. He's probably cheering at every homicide bomber's "success" just to spite the Bush administration and to hell with the independence-seeking Iraqis. Just as he misrepresents our democratic intent, he minimizes the success of people of color that move too far away from his plantation. There is not much point in debating such nonsense.

[mattsiegman]

Tread lightly.

PS: The UK's monarch has no real power...

[Spathiphyllum]

Tread lightly.

Not to worry. I self censor.

[Jaded]

I was in denial about Bush's re-election odds because I knew he had more money and therefore more influential backers.

I suspect those who think our intervention in Iraq is going to change anything in the long-run are in denial.

How many electoral democracies are there in the Arab/Islamic World? One now? The threat based by democracy to the Islamic power structure is so great that the success of Iraq's bid for democracy must be prevented at all costs. Face it, this war has gone on too long, cost too much, and lacks global support.

The negative, long-term impact of a failure in Iraq is going to pose a greater security threat to the United States than anything we have seen in the recent past. Our military readiness, our economic strength, and our moral superiority will all be questioned and perhaps even challeged.

I know Bush is not doing this. He is just a talking head like most other Presidents. But America needs a President who can stand up to the power base and say '"No, what you want to do is not good for America." Maybe we can elect such a President in another four years when things are really bad.

[Ron]

I suspect those who think our intervention in Iraq is going to change anything in the long-run are in denial.

How many electoral democracies are there in the Arab/Islamic World? One now? The threat based by democracy to the Islamic power structure is so great that the success of Iraq's bid for democracy must be prevented at all costs. Face it, this war has gone on too long, cost too much, and lacks global support.

The negative, long-term impact of a failure in Iraq is going to pose a greater security threat to the United States than anything we have seen in the recent past. Our military readiness, our economic strength, and our moral superiority will all be questioned and perhaps even challeged.

I know Bush is not doing this. He is just a talking head like most other Presidents. But America needs a President who can stand up to the power base and say '"No, what you want to do is not good for America." Maybe we can elect such a President in another four years when things are really bad.

Look, you can be an optimist or a pessimist. Just change every reference in this post to Latin America with a time frame of 50 years ago, or to the entire world with a time frame of 200 years ago. Even Africa just 20 years ago.

The change over in power structure is never an easy one. Look at just how bloody the American Revolution was, and how savage the French Revolution, or the Bolshevik, or, or, or. It is highly unusual for things to go as smoothly as they have in say, Poland, the Phillipines, or even Russia, though CLEARLY Russians are "peace loving people", they are still struggling to reform their society, and there may yet be a violent struggle in Russia. I hope not.

When an Aemrican President takes the Oath of office, I always get a shiver and get quite emotional. Peaceful transfer of power is a very rare thing in the world. It started here.

It always starts somewhere. I think you're seeing it start now in the Middle East.

I hope.

[Ron]

BTW, I am not thrilled with this President, nor am I thrilled with the current state of our "two party system". I think we need another viable party or two to re-invigorate our "two party system". Right now we have one party that is seperated by the thinnest of differences, co-opting each other's positions, becoming mainly centrist. I like the idea of a centrist party, but just one of them out of three, not two out of two. I think we need a centrist party to get the other two back to their roots. Perhaps the country is in a centrist mood right now, and that's why the main body of the parties have moved that way. Perhaps a Centrist Party would be quite successful right now (if it could get a foothold). That might cause the GOP and the DEMs to get back in their corners where they belong.

I thought Wes Clarke had a shot at it, until I actually saw that he was a sheep in Wolfowitz's clothing.

When they have policy differences over which to attack each other, they do so. When you don't, the level of vitriol goes up, and they begin attacking each other.

Another thought: Democracies move slowly, and the bigger they are, the harder it is to get them to move on anything. I think that's a good thing. We shouldn't legislate based on current events. The Patriot Act for example, while on balance is probably a good thing, may have some areas that need to be adjusted or perhaps even re-written. Now that we have something in place, we should be looking at improving it in all aspects.

"The People" usually don't want to start a war. The People want to go about their lives. Hope for a better life is the opiate of the masses. Despair causes unreast, and calls to action, i.e. war. Democracies give people hope. 4 years from now things will/may be better! they think. Dictatorships and Monarchy have the opposite effect on the masses.

Just look at how unhappy you are with just a hint of tyranny/authoritarianism in our Democracy!

[lookout]

Not commenting on the rest, but the U.S. form of government is a Republic, not a Democracy. And there is a difference.