Open Iraqi election thread

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Who is responsible for the entirety of the Iraq invasion, "the left" or the Bush administration?

Jaako, I have never been accussed of being a "Bu****e" or anyone else but even I must admite the true situation, both morally and materially, is more complicated then you are portraying it as.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Jaako, I have never been accussed of being a "Bu****e" or anyone else but even I must admite the true situation, both morally and materially, is more complicated then you are portraying it as.

I'm just trying to make Giancarlo to commit himself to something he can't weasel himself out of.

[Ramo]

For starts Mr Cole seems to believe that voting for parties instead of individual candidates is some how totally undemocratic. I prefer the other way but Canada and several western European countries hold elections where you vote for Political Parties based upon that party's platform and I do believe Canada is a democratic country dispite that.

When the party lists are dictated top-down, announced a couple weeks before the election, it is undemocratic. That's not how European proportional representation systems work. Incidentally, Canada isn't PR, rather is FPTP (first past the post) like us.

I also take exception to the second paragraph of Mr Cole's article because he doesn't get the time line right at all. Several ideas were floated by policy hacks but those were never from the Administration; the only one the US ever officially endorsed was Bremer followed by the creation of the IGC followed by elections. There were individuals backing different ideas in the administration and Powell had a very public disagreement with Rumsfield about Cholobi but none of Rumsfield's more wide eyed anti-democratic ideas ever was endorsed as official policy so to claim other wise is disingenious.

And it was Rumsfeld, not Powell, who had the near-exclusive power in Iraq in the initial months. That's reflected in the trust Dear Leader placed in Chalabi's claims (about WMD, about ties to al-Qaeda, etc.) his prominent position (in the IGC; physically, look at where he is in the SOTU), and the policy choices made in Iraq (i.e. the extreme de-Ba'athification, dissolution of the army). Cooincidentally I'm sure, this was reversed with the fall of Chalabi, and thus Defense (so Negroponte becomes Ambassador, Allawi becomes PM, etc.). Anyways, claiming this is ignoring basic facts is absurd, the Admin (which, again, means Rummy at the time) gave Chalabi a huge amount of power in running Iraq.

Lastly I take exception to Mr Cole's claim that the election was "deeply troubling and flawed"

Yawn. You have problems with his conclusion, not his supposed neglect of "basic facts."

turn out on a national level was much higher then in the US or Europe. I stand by my previous estimates (made days ago) that turn out will be in the 60% to 70% range. I base that on how likely each ethnic group is to vote and what percentage of the population they make up.

Except in the US, more than 10% of blacks or hispanics voted. There was also a good bit of public campaigning, and voters generally knew who they were voting for.

Edit (was gonna ignore this, but what the hell...):

Mr Cole seems to be ideologically driven in nearly everything he does and I dispise ideologically driving"reporters" because I cannot trust what they are reporting. I have never been a fan of the Bush Administration, however, that doesn't mean I would support people like Mr. Cole who are simply the left wing version of the administration in terms of partisan zeal.

Actually, Cole supported the invasion of Iraq initially. But go ahead and ignore that, I wouldn't want you to stop calling people you disagree with left-wing partisan zealots.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Why are you avoiding? Please answer my question.

Is the Bush administration responsible for everything the Iraq invasion brings or has brought forth?

The Bush adminstration is responsible for helping make the election possible.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


The Bush adminstration is responsible for helping make the election possible.

Is that a "no"?

I'm really confused. Just answer my question with a "yes" or a "no".

Is the Bush administration responsible for everything the Iraq invasion brings or has brought forth?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Is that a "no"?

I'm really confused. Just answer my question with a "yes" or a "no".

Is the Bush administration responsible for everything the Iraq invasion brings or has brought forth?

I've already answered your question. Now if you keep pushing it I may swear at you.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


I've already answered your question. Now if you keep pushing it I may swear at you.

So your reply is "no", am I correct?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Jaakko


So your reply is "no", am I correct?

You are not listening to my answers. Some questions cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". But you are a simple minded person.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


You are not listening to my answers. Some questions cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". But you are a simple minded person.

On the contrary, my question is very simple.

However, if you're unable or unwilling to answer, there's not much I can do.

I just hope you'll find this "nuance" of yours whenever you feel like bashing the left.

[Giancarlo]

No it is not very simple. It is very complicated. I cannot answer a simple minded, unrealistic question. You just can't understand the reality because your perception limits it.

[GePap]

First, SUF.

On the Cole piece- the Chalabi stuff is a bit dated, but I agree with Cole on 3 things:

Democratic elections were hoisted upon the administration, not something they willingly went into form the beginning. But it is a common admin. strategy to claim victory for actions they innitially opposed )like the 9/11 commission).

These elections could have occured months ago, but the time table was dictated by US politicvs, whihc is just simply bad administration, but this is normal for the imbecile bunch in washington.

This is just a start, and the really tough questions are comming up when the Constitution will be writen. Lets see just how much the Shia Arabs are willing to grant the Sunni Kurds, and the role Islam will be given.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
No it is not very simple. It is very complicated. I cannot answer a simple minded, unrealistic question. You just can't understand the reality because your perception limits it.

But it is simple. The question was,

Is the Bush administration responsible for everything the Iraq invasion brings or has brought forth?

There are precisely two answers to this question. If you think they are indeed responsible for everything, you answer "yes". If you think they aren't responsible for everything, you answer "no".

What's so hard about that?

[Giancarlo]

First, SUG.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Jaakko


But it is simple. The question was,

Is the Bush administration responsible for everything the Iraq invasion brings or has brought forth?

There are precisely two answers to this question. If you think they are indeed responsible for everything, you answer "yes". If you think they aren't responsible for everything, you answer "no".

What's so hard about that?

No it is not simple. You just don't get it do you? Some questions require more analysis and statement to them. You can't just answer "yes" or "no" because the answer can be both. It depends on the complexity of the subject and what is brought into question. You need to develop your relatively immature, reactionary thoughts into something that is more understanding the reality. Some questions can't just be answered "yes" or "no"... they need analysis and can be both.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
First, SUG.

I guess immitation is the sincerest form of flattery