The democratic revolution marches on...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

come on Ramo do you really think earlier elections would have been better - a year earlier there was far less developed press in Iraq, there was less political organization, less experience of local parties, etc. We could well have had a much less democratic election - I dont know that it makes sense to play that particular what if game.

Maybe not a year, but several months earlier, absolutely. As for political experience, the run-up to the election had no practical campaigning in large parts of the country. It was electioneering by posters. The results of which was a sectarian election pure and simple. People voted their ethno-religious group. I'm not sure how you can get much less democratic. I don't see how those extra months of possible campaigning is worth the extremizing of the population.

I wasnt thinking of the electorate so much as the politicos. Would Dawa, SCIRI etc have been the same months earlier - or the independents on the UIA slate? Heck, would the election have been the same before Sadr was neutered in Najaf in August? And once youre that far along, your well into the period when the insurgency is at its height.

You also certainly wouldnt have had as strong Iraqi security forces available on election day as happened - it would have had a much more American face.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
How do you know this? I challenge you to produce the evidence.

I don't know what you would call "evidence" that I could realistically gather, but things like that (I would have directly linked to the article, but being a Q&A, it got updated ) struck me as showing that the orange revolution was a movement behind one man, rather than behind the abstract commitment to free elections.

True, a few people in the Orange Revolution were indeed democracy-concerned people. But the driving force behind it was the candidacy of Yushchenko, and the mass of people taking part in it aimed at Yushchenko's victory.

If you want more about it, go read all articles about the Orangeists at the BBC. At the exception of one article, the BBC constantly depicts the Orangeists as the pro-Yushchenko guys. Yet the BBC is not a servant of Yanukovych

That's not a good comparison. We all would have voted again and the results would have been similar. In the case of Ukraine, the swing was sufficiently large between elections that the question is begged of whether funny business was going on in the first elections.

Except that the major political crisis, if it had lasted one month, might have significantly changed the results. Edit: yes the question is begged. I don't remember having ever thought that the elction was fair. However, I have found nothing to convince me that the second elections were any fairer.
Considering the stake of the whole thing for Russia, the EU and the US, it sure restricts the amount of institutional sources I would be willing to trust.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel
Spiffor is, as he almost always is, completely right: in his analysis, and in his insights into some of the inner workings, all of those check in with my data, and personal knowledge as well.

Well, thanks But don't get your expectations about me too high either. I say so many things that I sometimes make completely dweebish comments that are unconnected to reality. I wouldn't want your positive opinion on me to shatter when it happens

[lord of the mark]

reversing privatizations in Ukraine

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...502214,00.html

of course theyre planning to redo the sales through fair auctions, not return the companies to the state through unfair means, so I guess this wont satisfy SOME people.

[PLATO]

DanS by 34 minutes

[Dinner]

BTW DanS. HERE is a recentish article from the Washington Post which projects a record budget deficit of $427 billion for fiscal year 2005 after Bush's extra spending bills get passed. Soon your avatar will be mine. BUWHAHAHAHAHA!

[Spiffor]

LOTM

Well, that's better already.

Curiously enough, it ends up being very selective, compared to the "3,000" figure that Timochenko said. But I'm the kind of guy who prefers selective enforcement of the law than no enforcement at all so I won't whine.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Soon your avatar will be mine. BUWHAHAHAHAHA!

Teh Lenin!

[Dinner]

Back on the war cost: The invasion was launched in March of 2003 so it has been less then two years since the war started (23 months). Since you didn't like the privious link I provided here is a different estimate.

http://costofwar.com/numbers.html

The summary is ust for Iraq the total war associated costs as of January 2005 was $152 billion. Last January Bush officially asked Congress for a supplimental bill of $80 billion and this bill will be voted on next month.

Spending only includes "incremental" costs, additional funds that are expended due to the war. For example, soldiers' regular pay is not included, but combat pay is included. However, wear and tear on vehicles and other military equipment is not necessarily included. The military does not appear to be using its funding for replacement costs at the moment and there may be additional costs that are unknown at this point. (Future costs of veterans' care and other hidden costs are also not included.)

Since things like basic pay and equipment costs are not included in this estimate it is easy to see why the true figure should be in the $300 billion range. Even if we use this far more conservative number the cost comes to be about $100 billion per year or more then the annual budget of the state of California.

[The Vagabond]

I join Azazel in saying to Spiff.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM

Well, that's better already.

Curiously enough, it ends up being very selective, compared to the "3,000" figure that Timochenko said. But I'm the kind of guy who prefers selective enforcement of the law than no enforcement at all so I won't whine.

Timoshenko IS COMPROMISING, not being the extremist you SAID you feared.

[The Vagabond]

Re: The democratic revolution marches on...

Originally posted by DanS

Lebanon
Kyrgyzstan
Uzbekistan?
Moldova?
Kazakhstan?

Thanks for your optimistic view. I mean your not including Russia into that list. We'll get along well without your damn democratic revolution.

[Dinner]

http://database.nationalpriorities.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/NPP.woa/13/wo/3JILZiu1E2Frpuia2db3q0/4.0.1.3.12.1

Same web site as above but they put the total cost of the war in Iraq (counting next weeks supplimental bill) at $207.5 billion. They also show some interesting facts of what we could have done with the Iraq war money instead.

Like:

47,133,456 People Receiving Health Care, or

3,250,796 Port Container Inspectors, or

27,486,910 Head Start Places for Children, or

122,099,681 Children Receiving Health Care, or

24,422 New Elementary Schools, or

1,868,579 Affordable Housing Units, or

40,241,753 Scholarships for University Students, or

4,676,000 Public Safety Officers.

We make bad choices.

[DanS]

Hey Vagabond. Is Putin going to run for President again, as the constitution forbade?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It depends... I can only hope that the administration has the political will to keep American troops in Iraq for the long haul and not just cut and run when we think they can't handle it (unless they tell us to leave, of course). The administration was wrong on what it would take to secure the country, but hopefully we can make something out of the mess.

The BIG problem I see is that we've basically just abandoned Afghanistan and said, oh they can handle it! The warlord have taken over vast areas and the Taliban are making a come back! We needed to keep some troops there a bit longer. Maybe help train Afghans and knock off warlord taking back tracts of land. Stuff like that.