Must reading for the War supporters

[ACPlayer]

From an Iraqi exiled by Saddam
Sami's take on the elections (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1402922,00.html)

[zaxx19]

Oh the Guardian...next thread plz.

[Il_Mostro]

yes, because if you read it you may actually encounter facts that you don't agree with, and that would be a serious threat, no doubt.

[Utah]

Oh my gosh. They found an Iraqi who doesnt agree with the U.S. presence in Iraq!!! Geez....we must get out now.

The article presents a misleading fact about how many exiles voted. The U.S. government, in its infinite wisdom, made it nearly impossible for exiles to vote. There were only 4 polling places in the U.S. and you needed several sets of offical documents to vote, according to NPR 2 days ago.

I noticed the article referred to the U.S. presence as the occupation. That is a very slanted view since Iraq is not under U.S. command.

[xadrez]

[ QUOTE ]
I noticed the article referred to the U.S. presence as the occupation. That is a very slanted view since Iraq is not under U.S. command.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the funniest thing I have read all week...LOL

[Il_Mostro]

I think he meant to say:
I noticed the article referred to the U.S. presence as the occupation. That is a very slanted view since Iraq is not under U.S. control.

[xadrez]

Elections or not, the US is still running the show in Iraq. Any 'decisions' made by the Iraqi government is presented for show, and external consumption.

If the Iraqi government told the US to leave, would they? I doubt it.

[Il_Mostro]

I meant control as in "control". The US doesn't really have the situation under control, do they.

[xadrez]

Ah, miscontrued what you meant Mostro, sorry...havent had my second cup of coffee yet this morning!

[ACPlayer]

Keep the one sided reading diet going.

[Felix_Nietsche]

More sour grapes over the Iraqi election...

[BCPVP]

Isn't it funny how I just happened to be reading two articles who's whole premise is that Iraq IS NOT another "Vietnam".
Just to balance everything here:
National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200502021105.asp)
Slate Magazine (http://slate.msn.com/id/2112895/)

How can one tell that this article was slanted?
a. It was published by the Guardian
b. The words Iraq and Vietnam appear in the same article
c. It is the opinion of one Iraqi refugee
d. all of the above

I wonder why Sami left Iraq as a political refugee if it was so wonderful there before the U.S. came?

[ACPlayer]

Sami left when Saddam was in power and has lived in exile since then.


I see you read the article. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

If you read it you will see that he is not really equating the two, just pointing out - correctly - that having an election at gun point (or even not at gun point) does not mean that democracy has arrived.

But then, I fully expected that the knee jerk cons would react without reading it. These days opinions are formed and vocalized prior to reading the link.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Sami left when Saddam was in power and has lived in exile since then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently you didn't get my joke. What could have made Sami want to leave Iraq so bad that he'd leave as a political refugee...?

[ QUOTE ]
If you read it you will see that he is not really equating the two, just pointing out - correctly - that having an election at gun point (or even not at gun point) does not mean that democracy has arrived.

But then, I fully expected that the knee jerk cons would react without reading it. These days opinions are formed and vocalized prior to reading the link.

[/ QUOTE ]
I read all I needed to read to understand what the author was implying. And if you read the National Review article, you'd notice that there have been many newspapers trying to conjure some connection between Iraq and Vietnam. The New York Times has done so 800 times this past year!
But both of my articles point out how radically different the two wars were.

[ACPlayer]

Comparing wars is like comparing two naked models -- you will find things that match and things that are different, just depends on how you look at it. If you find a parallel in one aspect you could dwell on it as long as you get pleasure (or some learning) from doing so.

Unfortunately, people ignore the lessons of history frequently. Usually accompanied by statements like "well we did that in the past but this time will be different". Bad poker.

Vietnam and Iraq have things in common and of course are very different as well.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Sami left when Saddam was in power and has lived in exile since then.


I see you read the article. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

If you read it you will see that he is not really equating the two, just pointing out - correctly - that having an election at gun point (or even not at gun point) does not mean that democracy has arrived.

But then, I fully expected that the knee jerk cons would react without reading it. These days opinions are formed and vocalized prior to reading the link.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC,

I read this whole thread just now and read the article. I was disappointed in the article frankly. I that Sami is trying to make a more critical point than just election at gunpoint isnt a democracy. First off, this is an inaccurate characterization of the election. Election at gunpoint is what you call it when the great leader Saddam get 99% of the vote. The only ones at gunpoint were the terrorists.

I dont disagree with the point that democracy does not equal elections. But it is a very important step in the process and I see nothing to make suspect the legitimacy of this election.

[ACPlayer]

The election was a positive step for Iraq, but perhaps only because the last two years have been pretty miserable.

However, the article (and others like Another left leaning, critical of war, worth reading blog (http://www.juancole.com) ) make the valid point that no one can really predict what exactly this means for Iraq's future or for that matter the future role of US in Iraq. At this point for the people and money sacrificed the US must see gains in its interest. Having a Shia-ocracy tied to Iran is not in our interest or having total Civil War in Iraq with US troops still there is not in our interest. Both of these are still the top two contenders for future developments and a stable capitalist, friendly and prosperous country is not.

So, even if we look at it from our narrow interest, the election is welcome relief from two years of bad policy, strategy and happenings and is a good thing only with that backdrop.

For the Iraqi there is no end in sight from the misery of the past 13 years. If economic misery of the common man continues then election or no election the insurgency will become more popular and may well grow into the Shia regions.

But then I am a pessimist when it comes to the actions of people with good intentions as more often then not the innocent end up in hell.

[mojorisin24]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh the Guardian...next thread plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't agree more. I mean, the Guardian?

And I love how you believe a source like "Sami," a London-based Iraqi exile. These are the same people the anti-war crowd have mocked the Bush administration for listening to. If there's one thing we have learned from the Iraq enterprise, it's definitely to NOT believe these people.

Hypocrite.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The election was a positive step for Iraq, but perhaps only because the last two years have been pretty miserable.

[/ QUOTE ]
As opposed to what? Since Saddam took over, Iraq has been miserable. Can't get much worse than gassing your own people, or burying 400,000+ in the sand. While the lives of Iraqis today are very far from perfect, I wish we'd look at what they came from and compare that with where they are know.

[ QUOTE ]
However, the article (and others like Another left leaning, critical of war, worth reading blog ) make the valid point that no one can really predict what exactly this means for Iraq's future or for that matter the future role of US in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do agree with this statement, but I wish the Democrats would stop automatically assuming the worse will happen.
I think optimists create far more than pessimists.

[ QUOTE ]
For the Iraqi there is no end in sight from the misery of the past 13 years. If economic misery of the common man continues then election or no election the insurgency will become more popular and may well grow into the Shia regions.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) I disagree that the Iraqis don't see an end in sight. I don't think you should be assuming things about people you probably haven't met.
2) Iraq's economy can only go up. Having the sanctions lifted and (hopefully) a government that won't spend outrageous amounts on the leader should give the Iraq economy a huge boost.

[Chris Alger]

Agree with what? That because some historical fact (nearly identical MSM hoopla about prior staged elections) was alleged in the Guardian, it therefore didn't happen? Or that it was alleged by an Iraqi it didn't happen?

Are all you guys morons?

[ACPlayer]

Regarding Iraq post and pre Saddam I will offer you something to very carefully think about. Consider the following hypothetical situation:

It is 1990 and the US ambassador meeting with Saddam unequivocally says that the US would oppose a Kuwaiti invasion and hence 1991 never happens. Life in Iraq goes on under Saddam. What are the chances that USA would have invaded Iraq in 2003? My answer - none. No one in politics cares what Saddam did to his people except now when they need an excuse for no WMD, no AQ etc. The whining about how we rescued the Iraqi makes me sick -- it is pathetic, dishonest and unreal. It could be a reason, but was not the reason.

Yes, Iraqi's are worse off now then they were in 1991 for sure and perhaps in 2003 (though that is debatable thanks to the immoral sanctions).

I am not assuming anything about Iraqi but commenting on human nature. If the Shia population's lot does not improve they will turn more fundamentalist and their dislike of the US will increase. If the Kurds feel they are not getting their share they will revolt and they are well organized. The Sunni will get support from Saudi etc. The election is a first step but the end is not in sight for the Iraqi - who now by an overwhelming majority have a negative view of the US.

[tolbiny]

I wsa very disappointe dwith the article fromt he "National Review". For an author who claimws that there are no parrelels to vietnam to use these paragraph as his main argument
"Such worries might have made sense when the Soviet Union was still around. But — and this is important news for many liberals — there is no Soviet Union anymore searching for proxy wars. There is no superpower funneling tons of military equipment to the "insurgents" in Iraq.

Nor is the "insurgency" another Vietcong. True, the Islamists we're fighting have an ideology, but the Saddam loyalists do not. We aren't fighting international communism; we're fighting thugs who are peeved their racket was taken away. The insurgents don't have a territory to defend anything like North Vietnam. They don't have a regular army either. They don't have jungles to hide in."

My issues are as follows.

No- there is no Soviet union funnelling money- But there is Iran, Sauidi Arabia and a large amount of support from the surrounding arab world. The insurgents are not alone in this fight.

"True, the Islamists we're fighting have an ideology, but the Saddam loyalists do not"
More and more of these fighters are not "Saddam Loyalists", but mostly those driven by ideology and hatred of the US. Questioning the convictions of an enemy who has already shown its wilingness to sacrifice dozens of its own fighters to kill just a few americans at a time seems a poor anaylysis of the situation to me.

"They don't have a regular army either. They don't have jungles to hide in."

The difficulty of facing the VC in Vietnam came from three factors- the inability of the US to wipe out large numbers of them with conventional weapons, Their willingness to trade off large numbers of their own for reletivley small numbers of Americans and the difficultie in seperating them from the "civilian" population.
We face problems of a similar nature in Iraq- with buildings replacing the Jungle- we can't simply level city after city, and we can't break their spirit (it doesn't seem to me that we can), and the civilian population isn't particularly friendly to us, and the insurgents appear to be recieving more aid form the general population than current leaderdship would like us to believe.

As for this
"The insurgents don't have a territory to defend anything like North Vietnam"
We are in Iraq- does he not think that the IRaqi's who are members of this insurgency don't think they should defend their homeland?

I know it comes across as if i would strongly link Iraq to Vietnam- i am not attempting to do this, just to point out what i think is a poor assesment of the situation,a dn a ppor article on the whole.

[BCPVP]

First, are you having keyboard troubles? Try to work on spelling if English is your first language.

[ QUOTE ]
No- there is no Soviet union funnelling money- But there is Iran, Sauidi Arabia and a large amount of support from the surrounding arab world. The insurgents are not alone in this fight.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nonetheless, the situation is not the same. The U.S.S.R. was no doubt behind the funding and supplies for the VC. The terrorists, however, are not in as cohesive an organization. The attacks seem to be very loosy coordinated, if coordinated at all. The terrorists may have some behind the scenes verbal support, but in terms of being supplied, they are far from where the VC were.

[ QUOTE ]
More and more of these fighters are not "Saddam Loyalists", but mostly those driven by ideology and hatred of the US. Questioning the convictions of an enemy who has already shown its wilingness to sacrifice dozens of its own fighters to kill just a few americans at a time seems a poor anaylysis of the situation to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you're questioning about this. He mentioned both groups. And I challenge you to tell me how many of each there are. You'd be guessing.

[ QUOTE ]
The difficulty of facing the VC in Vietnam came from three factors- the inability of the US to wipe out large numbers of them with conventional weapons, Their willingness to trade off large numbers of their own for reletivley small numbers of Americans and the difficultie in seperating them from the "civilian" population.
We face problems of a similar nature in Iraq- with buildings replacing the Jungle- we can't simply level city after city, and we can't break their spirit (it doesn't seem to me that we can), and the civilian population isn't particularly friendly to us, and the insurgents appear to be recieving more aid form the general population than current leaderdship would like us to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
So...they don't have standing armies. And urban warfare is nothing new. Urban warfare and jungle warfare are not the same thing. Hence, Vietnam and Iraq are different in that respect.

[ QUOTE ]
We are in Iraq- does he not think that the IRaqi's who are members of this insurgency don't think they should defend their homeland?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the former Baathists fighting would be fighting to put their country back into the jail cell so they can be back in power. And those that are motivated by simply wanting to inflict terror are not fighting for the same reasons as the VC were.

I don't have a problem with comparing and contrasting two situations. But that's not the goal of those hardcore libs trying to paint this as Vietnam. They're trying to turn public opinion (just as the terrorists are, mind you) because they want their power back as well. But when it all comes down to it, Iraq is not another Vietnam. It never will be. And trying to paint it as such is treasonous in my mind.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a problem with comparing and contrasting two situations. But that's not the goal of those hardcore libs trying to paint this as Vietnam.

[/ QUOTE ]
It will be if we (America) fail (leave with insurgency in power) in Iraq.

But, you've got to look at the situation right now. I think a very, very small number of people in the world have the info and the intelligence to make a good prediction of what's happening, and I doubt any of those people are on this forum.