If anyone thinks the Iraq people look at us as anything by occupiers, they are kidding themselves. I have given you specific examples and the opinion of the experts (CIA) and the reporters that are living these events. The election shows the people who voted want a government similar to the one in Iran. How that shows they side with our policy or want us in their country is NUTS! The type of attacks that are killing our troops could not happen without the support of the civilian population. If they supported us, thay would identify the people that are killing our troops. The fact is that the people responsible for this killing live among them and are sheltered by them.

The New York Times has an article on its site right now, called "Leading Shiite Clerics Pushing Islamic Constitution in Iraq" Link The fact that the 2/3 majority voted for these clerics, and support an Islamic state, similar to Iran, is 1) an indication of how much they have embraced our "democracy" NOT, and 2) a total slap in the face to the Dubya administration. Two thirds majority, folks. That can be called a mandate, unlike the 1-2% majority Dubya won with here in the US, which is no mandate at all.

Get real, folks. Time to wake up and smell the odor of victory. But who won? I don't think it's us. One thing that was very clear from the beginning of this fiasco invasion was the possibilty of an American defeat should Saddam's dictatorship be replaced by an Islamist regime. Apparently, that's what the Iraqis want. That's what they voted for. I sure isn't democracy. And, it sure isn't a government that will allow the US to stay and suck up Iraqi oil, which I do believe was the US agenda from the get-go.

Here is a question I would like to see answered (I know, I most likely will not get an honest answer, but stilll):

If John Kerry would have won our election in Nov, and then the elections were held in Iraq on Jan 30.....and the exact same results came up......

Would the dems (most notably, here on JU, Dabe and Col Gene), still be saying that democracy in Iraq is a failure? Or, would Kerry be the "hero" that saved the Iraq situation, by making sure that Iraqis could vote?

Just wondering.....I think I know the answer, wether I get that answer or not....but, just wondering

Uh, folks - the media are trying to spin this "OMG, they might want to be like Iran!" shit. It's Sistani's party that has the majority. Sistani is Iranian-born, but wants nothing to do with a theocracy - he' been there, done that. It's Sistani's party which has called for the Sunnis to participate and promised their involvement. It's Sistani's party which has remained calm and steadfast, even when some of it's high clerics were murdered by Sunnis. It's Sistani's party that has repeatedly said it wants a secular democracy. The only thing they have in common with Iran is Shia.

Hypervenitlation is unbecoming.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Give us the list of new enemies.

What were those 8 million Iraqis doing on January 30th?

Cheers,
Daiwa

If John Kerry would have won our election in Nov, and then the elections were held in Iraq on Jan 30.....and the exact same results came up......

This is a hypothetical that is very hard to answer. First of all, had Kerry won, he would still have the Iraq debacle to clean up that dubya got us into. I'm not so sure the election in Iraq would have been the same, mostly because I do not think that Kerry would be lying about it every step of the way. But, given the same set of elections, taking place on Jan. 30th, I'd think I would still be saying the same thing. After all, it was the dubya dickwad that got the US into this mess in the first place. And, if the Iraqis voted for an Islamist constitution, even under a Kerry presidency, it still would have been a failure, as the Islamists (Al Qaida) are the ones who attacked the US in the first place, not Iraq.

Bottom line, in my opinion, the invasion from the get-go was one of the biggest foreign policy blunders made by US in modern times. A kerry election would not have changed that.

Daiwa

The eight million were not voting for the United States. The guy we are backing is getting 18% of the vote and the most likely governmnet will be like the one Bush is blasting every day- Iran.

Mythicalmino

My answer would be the same. The Iraq war was not correctable by anyone including Kerry. It was a error in two ways. From the concept ( making us safer) and the way it was conducted. I wanted Kerry to win so our government would have a balance. The problems I see with our foreign and domestic policies is they do not benefit the majority of Americans. Many of the Republicans who voted for George W. will be harmed by his policies. All they see is Republican or Democrat. The most important issue are the policies helping the majority of Americans over the long hall. Such is not the case with the Bush/conservative agenda. That policy provides the vast majority of the benefit to the wealthy (top 5-10%) ; a little help to the middle income and NO help to the bottom 25%. Thus, his policies only benefit the wealthy Republicans; the table scraps to middle income Republicans and nothing for the poorer Republicans. Great choice!

All they see is Republican or Democrat.

What arrogance. AFO.

Cheers,
Daiwa

No Truth!

All they see is Republican or Democrat

What ignorance.

You want new enemies? Try the, in your estimate, 20,000 Iraqi insurgents. Try the opinions of the Turks (heavily against the war). Try that the entire world has turned its opinion on us (we, along with England, were the only adamant supporters of the war).

You want new enemies? Try the, in your estimate, 20,000 Iraqi insurgents. Try the opinions of the Turks (heavily against the war). Try that the entire world has turned its opinion on us (we, along with England, were the only adamant supporters of the war).

I wouldn't count the entire world as our enemies. After all, we've always done things that pissed them off and vice versa, and we didn't go to war over it. The Turks too.

So, there's 20,000 Iraqi insurgents, who were probably not originally friends of the US anyway (remember, 9/11 happened before the invasion of Iraq, so it's not as if we didn't have enemies before then).

new (nü, nyü), adj., adv., n. -adj. 1 never having been before; now first made, thought out, known or heard of, felt or discovered:...

en|e|my (en'e me), n. pl. -mies, adj. -n. 1 a person or group that hates and tries to harm another; opponent; adversary:...

Cheers,
Daiwa

Tell me how many Americans were being killed in Iraq or injured in Iraq before Bush attached them? By the death toll and injuries we are worse off now than before the war. drmiler talks about being shot at when we flew over Iraq under saddam. How many people did we lose during the fly overs? How creating another country where terrorists operate every day has improved our security? How will another country with a government like Iran improve our security? Have our actions in Iraq brought us closer to eliminating the people that caused 9/11?

Did more Americans die after we declared war on Japan, or to the attack on Pearl Harbor?

If John Kerry would have won our election in Nov, and then the elections were held in Iraq on Jan 30.....and the exact same results came up......

I think that is a loaded question. Good but loaded. It should have also asked “If the elections would have been held”. John Kerry repeatedly stated that election should have been held off. But take into account that Kerry had a six months plan on removal of troops. I think the country would have slipped so far into anarchy that no elections would have happened.

Remember Bush number one had a slow plan to build civic order in Samolia. But when Clinton changed the mission into a man hunt, then pulled out because of a Bloody nose, no chance of bringing stability to that country could have developed. With Kerry in office, IMO no elections would have ever happened at all.

That’s My Two Cents

Reply #87 By: Juxtaposition - 2/6/2005 3:33:59 PM You want new enemies? Try the, in your estimate, 20,000 Iraqi insurgents. Try the opinions of the Turks (heavily against the war). Try that the entire world has turned its opinion on us (we, along with England, were the only adamant supporters of the war). I wouldn't count the entire world as our enemies. After all, we've always done things that pissed them off and vice versa, and we didn't go to war over it. The Turks too. So, there's 20,000 Iraqi insurgents, who were probably not originally friends of the US anyway (remember, 9/11 happened before the invasion of Iraq, so it's not as if we didn't have enemies before then). Bonus Rating: Trolling Insightful Reply #88 By: Daiwa - 2/6/2005 4:00:18 PM new (nü, nyü), adj., adv., n. -adj. 1 never having been before; now first made, thought out, known or heard of, felt or discovered:... en|e|my (en'e me), n. pl. -mies, adj. -n. 1 a person or group that hates and tries to harm another; opponent; adversary:... Cheers, Daiwa

Well... using this definition, we have 20,000 new enemies since the invasion of Iraq. You will notice that 9/11 was not pulled off by the Iraqis. It was pulled off by Saudis (bin laden). We have been interfering in Saudi Arabia, and supporting a horrible leader for many years. We now have 20,000 more people like those who pulled of 9/11. What a great way to fight terrorism, by creating more terrorists.

Sandy, you are wrong. You know who they are and not one of those 20,000 (if that high a number is close) were our friends before. They are not new enemies. And we now have some 8 million new friends, maybe more. My head's getting sore from banging it on this freakin' brick wall, so I'm gonna go watch the Super Bowl.

Cheers,
Daiwa

8 million new friends?? Are you counting those that voted in Iraq? Because if you are, then I think you're sorely misinformed. Two thirds voted for the Shiite clerics, thereby affirming the creation of an Islamic constitution. Two thirds of 8 million, or upwards of 5.5 million chose the cleric Sistani, thereby rejecting a government fashioned by the US-chosen Allawi. I wouldn't be so quick to call them our friends. This is a case where I sure hope I'm wrong. Time will tell.................

You're saying, dabe, that those 8 million people are too stupid to know what nation made it possible for them to choose their own government. You are the one who is sorely misinformed here, assuming that Shiite clerics will create (and force down the throats of all others) what you call an Islamic Constitution, which you apparently equate, incorrectly, with being anti-American by definition. Hello... it's an Islamic country. Were you expecting them to elect Jews or Christians? And they're going to create an Iraqi Constitution. And your argument misses the whole point. The left never wanted us there in the first place, and now they're bitching that we didn't install a sufficiently pro-American puppet regime. Talk about wanting it both ways.

Game Time.

Cheers,
Daiwa

"Two thirds voted for the Shiite clerics, thereby affirming the creation of an Islamic constitution."

More ignorance. Only a handful of the hundreds of candidates were "clerics". The vast majority of those running on the Shiite supported party weren't clerics. Shows how oddly bigoted these folks are. If someone is a Shiite, and they voted for their own party, then they MUST want a totalitarian religious government.

That's like me saying African Americans can't be trusted because they will probably vote in a Nation of Islam candidate. Idiocy. You people need to get past your empty biases and your irrational hate for the Bush administration. In 20 years you'll be like the old hippies still bitching about Nixon when no one cares.

It's shocking how racially and religiosly demeaning you guys are willing to be when you want to make a point...

To remove this very small threat, we have given 1,400 lives, 25,000 injuries and over $300 billion and more to come. That was not a good use of our resources, especially the dead and injured!

And that's an understatement! Good for you!

What a great way to fight terrorism, by creating more terrorists.

More of Bush's fuzzy math! Bravo!

We don't create terrorists, period. That canard is getting old and is just as bogus as it always was. Sitting on our hands does not reduce the threat or increase our safety. When the publicly declared objective is the destruction of the United States of America, that is their objective. Chit-chatting with them & offering them "compromises" is not only a waste of time, but allows them to accumulate more capability over a longer time.

Cheers,
Daiwa

We have not help our security by attacking Iraq who was never a major threat to the United States. We have made Iraq part of the war on terrorism and provided another place for our enemies to operate.