I know . Hoping I could be more civil tomorrow than today.

I leave for work and then we got a whole page of Krem vs. dolce/baba.

If there is a God (as Dubya surely believes), I sure as hell wouldn't want to have the blood of 100,000 innocents on my hands. That kind of corporate blood-guilt will probably buy you a one-way ticket to a very hot corner of Hell.

Sadly, most Yanks couldn't possibly care less about the lives (or deaths) of so many Iraqis. They're too busy kicking back with a six-pack, smoking Luckys, watching NASCAR and listening to George Strait to think about theology.

Is there going to be an election in January? Officials decide, probably not.



I forget already when the first time this supposed election was supposed to take place, and the ever back pushing dealine is no surprise. Why? Not because I don't think it right. I do think that rushing an election is just going to lead to hell breaking loose in the not-so-distant aftermath. So I'm all for a later election, but why not just initially project a later date, since I can safely assume everytime most people heard these dates they intuitively knew they were too soon? I guess because demands to get out are so high? This is unfortunate, because I have problems with a population (U.S.) that can be so supportive of the war and "liberation" of Iraq but not be willing to commit to something more than the idylic *shock 'n awe (tm)." Can't have it both ways guys. Either you really are invested in entering this space in this fashion, and are willing to here your troops will be there without a national election until late 2005, early 2006, or you shouldn't be for it in the same fashion. This does not mean you can't be interested in the benefit of an area, and no one is in denial that there is more than one way to dabble in international politics.

There are those who clearly didn't want this, and were vocally oppositional from the start, but are now stuck having to navigate concepts around the Iraqi election anyways. I am one of them, and even I have admitted pulling troops out or pushing for earlier elections that can quickly lead to infrastructure collapse is a bad idea.

I guess I'm just resentful of the people who say we should have entered, and are now bickering as to why Iraq couldn't hold elections a year ago already. Meh, I don't know, maybe it is a question of competency on the President (since I usually have one) but this is more a criticism of Americans that have clamored to have it both ways.

-Dolce

Well, I don't know how wise is it for elections to take place .. I mean with Saddam out of power, you think enough time has elapsed for the country people to even know who they might be waiting for?? I mean keep in mind theyve just gone through a whole war ..... and the media isnt exactly the best out there ..

bABA, I'm agreeing with you. I think perhaps that was unclear in my post. I'm just questioning why we keep setting all these obviously too early deadlines, and I'm pretty sure the reason is a desire to get the hell out of there. But I only anticipate elections coming up in late 2005, so everytime I hear one of these ridiculous deadlines getting pusked back a whopping three weeks or something, I just get mad. Why, because I think at this point we need to be honest with oursevles and realize we're their for the long haul. Perhaps that realization will help us comes to terms with the fact we can't have it both ways.

I hate to return to *shock 'n awe (tm)* but that really is the U.S. identity around war. That we're so powerful we can just come in and move out in one week and in that way we can still be #1 and still have our wars, but not deal with many of the consequences, including our own mortality. That people were fed that crap is obnoxious to begin with. Even if we did just fire-bomb the place like mad for three days and not ever bring in ground troops, what did we expect in the aftermath? Elections by the end of the month? Powerlines to miraculously bounce back up? That there wouldn't be a power vacuum? What? If these election don't happen in January, they'll promise them by early March, mark my words. Why don't they just come out and say, sorry, we're there until late Novemeber of 2005 at the earliest. That way we'll need to start taking responsibility for our own decisions and support of sending troop over there in the first place.

-Dolce

I don't understand what your confusion is, dolce. There's only been one set date so far (January 30th), and there's no intention of pushing it back.


My longer post is still forthcoming ;-)

Just answering your first para really, ignoring krem's post above (cause i don't know about the election announcements to begin with)

Keep in mind that Americans and a lot of people assume things are the same way in another place just the way theyre run in their backyard. Its good to announce elections cause people expect democracy to come about quicker ... people assume that Iraq is already capable of just electing anyone and stuff ... I think its more so to do with trying to keep people happy in the western world in the short term than any other reason really ..