I honestly don't know how anyone could be upset by this successful first vote.

I'm certainly glad the Iraqis got to vote.

But, I'm sorry, we were there to remove WMDs, NOT free a people under a dictatorship. There are LOTS of dictatorships out there, will we be freeing all of them now?

"Freeing" the Iraqi people became the buzz phrase once no WMDs were found. American soldiers were still killed for a false cause.

And Iraq is a protectorate now. They have no military, no defense, no nothing. The second we leave, they're toast. The new government will never ask us to leave. We still have no exit strategy.

But, I'm sorry, we were there to remove WMDs, NOT free a people under a dictatorship. There are LOTS of dictatorships out there, will we be freeing all of them now?

So had we found WMD, we would have destroyed them then left the country without a government?

No my friend. Freeing the Iraqi people was part of the deal. And that deal is working.

I would feel happier about if it meant troops were not going to continue to die on a daily basis.

Unfortunately thats not the case and never will be.

You kill one, 3 more go in their place.

You're missing the point friend, our original reason for going was for the EMERGENCY situation of a rogue government possessing TONS of biological, chemical, and possible nuclear weapons. A country with strong allied ties to Al-Queda. A country desperate to use any weapons it could to bring genocide unto the United States.

Our PROTECTION was in jeopardy. Our LIVES were in jeopardy. Well, at least that's what we were told.

The fact that we would have assisted with a new government afterwards has nothing to do with the original reason we were going, and it was NOT to free the Iraqi people from a dictator.

jqfarker is right.

I'm just asking Midnight, how many Americans dead is worth it to you? Just a simple question. Not an attack, just, how many dead Americans is worth the "freedom" of Iraqi citizens. Keep in mind, they won't actually be free, because once we leave, they'll be ruled by insurgents.

So, I guess we should say, how many Americans killed daily for the next few decades is worth it? 1? 5? 10? 100?

For a lie?

The fact that we would have assisted with a new government afterwards has nothing to do with the original reason we were going, and it was NOT to free the Iraqi people from a dictator.

I heard the selling points before the war. WMD was not the only reason given for us going into Iraq.

Buckshot:

Our PROTECTION was in jeopardy. Our LIVES were in jeopardy. Well, at least that's what we were told.

Good one. Tell me another tall tale, Mr. Bush. ;-)

A Midnight Bout of Frenzied Concupiscence:

I heard the selling points before the war. WMD was not the only reason given for us going into Iraq.

Do we really need to cover the bullshiat party line again. The major reason we went into Iraq was because of alleged WMDs. It was the main selling point and the one that the administration propagandized the American people with.

The election is only a success from the perspective that it was a relatively violence free event.

There were a number of reasons for going to war, but WMDs made for the best sound bite, and therefore the easiest to understand. Both sides of the aisle thought there were WMDs prior to the war, Kerry and Bush both, both received poor intelligence. To blame that part on Bush alone is stupid, because in spite of revisionist claims BOTH sides voted for war in Congress which Bush has no part in.

Midnight, WMDs were the ONLY reason. I don't know what you were watching, but WMDs were IT. You were officially sold by the propaganda machine.

It was never to "free" the Iraqis, it was to safeguard the lives of Americans and other world governments from a rogue leader with, again, tons of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. That was it.

Weapons that did not ever exist. You don't understand, Bush relies on his rule by fear to stay in control. He got us into Iraq through fear, and once we were there, it was too late, and you were sold on the "new" reasons.

They sound noble, but they're not true.

I'm still asking the simple question of how many daily American dead allow your conscience to rest easy? Just give me a number. Here, I'll start.

For me, it's 0. We shouldn't be there.

So again, for you, how many dead Americans per day make your conscience rest easy? How many Americans are expendable per day for the Iraqi freedom and no WMDs found? This is a simple question.

Do we really need to cover the bullshiat party line again.

No, not really. I've heard the line from the left and it can be proven wrong with a simple fact check.

WMD was the main reason, but far from the only one.

AMBoFC

Do yourself a favor and don't waste time arguing with people who keep throwing up the same tired "Bush lied, people died" canard.

British and Russian intelligence assessments agreed with ours at the time that Iraq either possessed or was seeking to possess WMD.

Secondly, if Al Gore had presided over the successful removal of a dictator and restored free elections to a people denied that right after nearly half a century, he'd be hailed world wide as a hero.

Buckshot: So again, for you, how many dead Americans per day make your conscience rest easy?

Wow, so those Iraqis who would die in the ensuing chaos aren't worth anything? Perhaps we should pull out as we did in somalia and watch the charity case grow, then we coudl sit back and watch the UN take car of everything just like in Darfur. What is wrong with you short sighted people?

Do yourself a favor and don't waste time arguing with people who keep throwing up the same tired "Bush lied, people died" canard.

I think I'll take your advice.

Saddam and his Sons were WMD Bucky.

A Midnight Bout of Frenzied Concupiscence: WMD was the main reason, but far from the only one.

The other one was ties to Al Qaeda, which were proven nonexistant (just because an alleged terrorist was in the nation at some point in time does not mean the country harbored terrorists, otherwise we'd be a huge harbor), and the last (and only truly harped on once the administration realized they weren't going to find any WMD) was to take Hussein out.

He didn't have the intent nor capabilities to reach us, the UN told us that, our own inspections told us that, and the administration refused to listen. The furthest he'd be able to reach with his missiles was, at the most, Israel, if that far.

haws83:

Both sides of the aisle thought there were WMDs prior to the war, Kerry and Bush both, both received poor intelligence.

Get a clue: not everyone blindly follows "leaders" from either side!

The major reason we went into Iraq was because of alleged WMDs. It was the main selling point and the one that the administration propagandized the American people with.

I agree. They were wrong. Colin Powell has admitted it on several occasions. So what?

Here are some facts:

1. We went to Iraq.
2. We went to Afghanistan.
3. There is nothing you can do about that without the use of a time machine.
4. Our original reasons turned out to be invalid.
5. The Iraqi people are freer now than they were before the war.
6. A fair number of Iraqis and Americans are deader than they were before the war.
7. A higher percentage Iraqis turned out to vote today than Americans have EVER turned out to vote for President.

Disputing whether the war is/was justified is an exercise in futility. The war already is taking place. There is nothing you can do about that. We can try to make the best of a bad situation (by finding something good that came out of the conflict, despite the failure of its original goals) or we can make ourselves angry and depressed fighting over the potential justification of something that happened almost two years ago.

It's a question of optimism or pessimism. Which are you?

Matrix Flavored Wasabi: Get a clue: not everyone blindly follows "leaders" from either side!

Like who?

Biggles



WMD Bucky

Yeah, this war had nothing to do with Saddam violating the cease fire agreements he made or the agreement to full, unrestricted inspections. Nothing at all.

damitjim:

Yeah, this war had nothing to do with Saddam violating the cease fire agreements he made or the agreement to full, unrestricted inspections. Nothing at all.

If that was the case, it would've been Clinton executing the war and not Bush. Saddam did those things a long time before Bush ever came to office. Either that, or those were reasons and Clinton's just a wimp.

Clinton was just a wimp.

kinda hard to bring up inspections as reasoning for war when you realize that we had to tell the inspectors to leave, lest they get some unintended shock'n'awe upside their heads.

Ted Kennedy

I think you need to look at the bigger picture. Why are we the world police? Is it that catchy line: "With great power comes great responsibility."? We're not the only superpower around folks. I agree that Iraq may have needed help, but there are different ways to diffuse a situation. You must get the full military support of other nations. This way you have more than sufficient man-power and fire-power. You can cover all bases of the country at once and move in to make a clean sweep. Once you hit the center of the country it's time to leave. What did we do? It's my understanding that we went straight to their resources and gaurded those, set up military bases, and stocked the Embassy with several thousand people. That doesn't give me the impression we are planning on leaving any time soon.

We took almost all the burdern , all the bloodshed, and did it all the wrong way. Sure.. these democratic elections today were a "sucess"; even though over a hundred people that we were supposed to be protecting were hurt or killed. And sure.. we've lost over a thousand troops.. some of which could not understand what they were fighting for and were full of regret for stepping foot off our shores. But either way Mr. Bush will get brownie points from those who just tend to forget or ignore just how badly this whole thing was handled.

This is just the excuse he needed to impose himself and his beliefs on any country of his choosing. At the cost of our peoples' lives, our tax dollars that we need to re-build our own country, and all this because a couple of douche-bags in office have their own greedy agendas. This is your "axis of evil" my fellow farkers..

ThatDevGuy: Either that, or those were reasons and Clinton's just a wimp.

Come on... we both know Clinton was trying... maybe not as much as the next administration but the inspectors were still there.

The burden of proof was on Sadam - not Bush #1, not Clinton, not Bush #2 and not Carrot Top. Sadam alone was responsible to show he was dismantling weapon systems after the cease fire was called in Gulf War 1.

If he broke the contract then like any conquered nation he was responsible for the repercussions.

The burden of proof was on Sadam - not Bush #1, not Clinton, not Bush #2 and not Carrot Top.

Why? WHY did I not know about the First Carrot Top Expeditionary Force!?!

I'm always the last to know!

It's pretty pathetic that, percentage-wise, more Iraqis turned out to vote under the spectre of violence today than Americans do on a routine basis. Maybe the Iraqis should try spreading democracy to the US.

Frankly I do not get why the US would want to overthrow dictators just because they are dictators. When has foreign policy ever been to thrwo over dictators? We supported them in Latin and South America all the time since the 1970s so why would we change now? It is better for us to have a dictator who is cordial to us then have a hostile dictator (think the Carter administration and Iran).

/pulls up chair
//puts on sunglasses
///watches flame war ensue

I'm glad that people made the effort to get out and vote. However, the cynic in me doesn't believe that this will in any way bring stability to the land

Election in Iraq: Good

Cost: Higher than it should have been.

We took Milosovic down and got elections going in Yugoslavia for a lot less. Let's hope the final outcome is similar.

I miss the days when there was a daily flamewar. And it's threads like these that remind why I love you guys...You're all stupid!

This is a way of giving them a taste of democracy without real democracy, but as such is still an important step. The real test will be the first or maybe second elections after the Americans leave, when Iraq is really standing on its own two feet (okay, I'm sure Iraq has more feet than that).

To me this seems a lot like the Fallujah thing. The insurgents aren't going to fight when it's expected; they'll just lay low and continue to pick off our soldiers a few casualties at a time. My $.02

/There's no point in flaming, you'll get no reply

"Resounding success" = "Not a total farking bloodbath"

For someone who has been over there, I'm estatic to see that the elections turned out as great as it did.

57%... what was the percentage of these past elections... or in 2000?

And when I went over there, it took me about 45 seconds to realize that these people needed more than just removal of WMD. I'm grateful that I was able to do my part in helping them. Yes, I was under fire while I was there, and yes, I lost brothers and sisters in arms. But we knew that when we went down there, that we may not return. But we get paid well, and we get full insurance and houses because we put our lives on the line.

It sucks to see someone you serve with killed. I pray for the safety of my comrads everyday. I was in the streets of Baghdad or Mosul everyday. I never had an in-face protest about me being there.

The only time I was directly under fire was the al rasheed hotel attack on oct 26th 2003. we lost a Lt. Col, and several people were injured. But we ended up catching the bad guys in the end.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

I want a peaceful vote as much as the next guy. But, I know it won't bring our troops home any faster. The war in Iraq was fought at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. However, now, we can't go back and change it. So, now, I'm hoping that at least we are doing the best we can to solve the problem.

How bout we all just pray that things will be fixed as soon as possible and as few of our brothern die in combat?

Sound good? cool...

So, who's winning?

(Wants the Iraqi communist party to win, because it would be amusing.)

AHA! here's the thread!!

/this ought to be good

Of course, this is all academic once they elect a government the dominant western powers don't particularly like: see Pinochet, the Shah, etc.

Turns out that the Iraqis realized that being free is more important than being alive. A lesson Americans have forgotten.

It's simply undeniable at this point that many liberals want to see Democracy in Iraq fail rather than see Bush suceed. Just listen to the liberals themselves:

"The Iraq vote is making me sick this morning...I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this 'democracy' bullshiat."

Yay, we're spreading our form of government to the dark people! Kinda reminds me of how the USSR wanted to spread Communism to free people of capitalist dictatorships.

Mellowtrauma gets it in one: "Resounding success" = "Not a total farking bloodbath"

At this point, the fact that a scenario befitting a Tom Clancy novel didn't happen is about the only metric possible, since the results of the polls aren't in.

That said, however, that alone is definitely good news!

Any wagers on what propaganda spin the administration will use to justify our push into Iran? You know it's coming. After all, Dubya received a mandate from the people.

ThatDevGuy:

Matrix Flavored Wasabi: Get a clue: not everyone blindly follows "leaders" from either side!

Like who?

Read the quote, first. The poster was implying that because both Bush and Kerry supported the war (as if we all must love one of the two), everyone should too, or at least not criticize Bush because of it.

Is it unpossible to criticize both Bush and Kerry? I think not.

i'm pleasantly surprised so far at the turnout and only a little violence. good job. let's hope that whoever the iraqis elect will do the job well. (of course, i'm sure that all the candidates have been vetted and approved by the US, or will be before he takes power.)

but calling the elections 'a resounding success' at this point is very much like the 'Mission Accomplished' fiasco.

Of course, don't forget that this is yet another transitional government - they still don't have a regular government. This one is supposed to write the constitution and allow the election (or whatever they come up with) of the real government in a year.

Politically, the interesting machinations should start now, with the constitution writing.