no issues. you said everything i'm sick of saying over and over again on these boards. You just make it sound better : )

my personal view asides whats been said?
voter turnout wise, if thats your criteria for success, then sure, this was successful. But logically thinking for me, a country with a dictatorship rule for as long as they've had, plus 2 wars + last 14 years living in crap .... i just don't think a country in its current state right now can just move to democracy after 18 or so months. its just not ready for it.

Well that's alot of information right there and very well said. I haven't voted (in the poll) yet for two reasons, one, I have no idea what success means at this point in a space that has been mismanaged since the shock n' awe days, and two, should I be evaluating these elections on a relative scale. If I opt for the latter, than yeah, they are a success due to 1. Turnout (of elibable voters, which isn't all that many, but still Blacks and women didn't even vote in the U.S. for ages either) and 2. Only about 45 people died. Hey, if there had been 30% turnout as I feared and upwards of 100 deaths, that 1/2 of the infrastructure that had been rebuilt would have been burned right the hell back down in the ensuing riots.

But, do I want to view these elections through those spectacles? I tend to think not. Something mediocre in a space where everything sucks doesn't make it good (though it may appear to be) its still just mediocre. Honestly I think Bush is getting desperate to get the hell out of there and just wants to pass authority over to someone else asap, bring the troops home, and channel money as support. Money as support is just going to lead to the same thing, arms programs. All those power lines and bombed out areas aren't going to see a penny, public infrastructure isn't going to see a penny, their equivalency of haliburton may though? Or scrap that, Hali will just send them arms directly. I don't know, I'd like to think this is step one, but I see assassination attempts daily, and regardless of their success, there is going to be some very tricky situations with disenfranchised minority groups. Relocation? Ethnic Cleansing? I just can see about anything happening within the next two years. Maybe not, in which case I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong, but until then I just can't even be that pragmatic about it. I say it always but I'm not Machiavellian and I don't care if after the decade Iraq finally had an election, the whole process for getting it there reaked of malicious intervention so no one gets a pat on the back and a thumbs up from me regardless.

Less than a fourth? Where did you get that data? I'm not under any impression that the rebuilding process has gone perfectly, but let's at least agree on the data.

Key words: prior to 1990. And what happened in 1990? Oh, that's right, Iraq invaded Kuwait. I suppose nobody should've gotten involved. Because leaving a region for a brutal dictator to invade is, in the words of Bill and Ted, an excellent strategy.

Oh please, spare me. You might not go by the party line, but you only pick up on the bad things when it goes against your convictions. Where were you when Halliburton was being awarded no-bid contracts by the Clinton administration? Where were any people from the anti-Halliburton agenda? Sure, no-bid contracts are not a good idea for the government; but what's the deal with Halliburton?

If Cheney got so rich out of Halliburton's contract, how did he manage to do it considering he doesn't own one iota of it? Critical thinking, where art thou?



If suddent really destroyed the WMD, as Hans Blix claimed, then where is the destroyed WMD? Was it found? Surely, Hans Blix would know which direction to point to.



When were you mad? 13 years ago? About the sanctions? Then surely, you must be happy nw that they're gone.

Here's something about Hans Blix that I bet you didn't know:

While he was the head of IAEA in the 1980's, he praised Iraq for its total coopertaion in nuclear inspections, and did not find any sight of the nuclear program Iraq had at the time (developing it since the early 70's). The program wasn't fully discovered until after Kuwait.

And then you wonder why nobody believed him.

whats this about 9 billion dollars misplaced due to mismanagement?

I hope heads will roll.

Dolce,

I understand your ambivalance towards this election process. There are a lot of things which cannot be replicated in the future.

1. You cannot have a massive well trained foreign military in Iraq forever.
2. Some groups were essentially barred from running by the occupying forces. Once the occupying forces leave, the religious fanatics will come out of the wood work.
3. Truly free elections will not have entire regions not voting.

Look at the proclaimations by Bush regarding Iraq in the last couple of years,

1. There are WMD's in Iraq :^o
2. Major combat operations are over
3. Historic transferring of power to the interim govt. in Iraq
4. Election in Iraq is a success. Consider this then, Many regions did not vote at all and only groups/people authorized to run by the occupying force were allowed to contest.

Don't be fooled by some voter turnouts numbers.

@ bABA: you said it best. I agree that Iraq will not be ready for truly free elections for a while.


Finally, what does the election or stability of Iraq have to do with us? If the reason is that the moral thing to do was remove Saddam, it is laughable. We stood by and did nothing when 70,000 people were killed in the Sudan last year. The reasons for the invasion are always shifting. WMD, liberate Iraq, Fight terrorists on their own soil, promote democracy in the region. It is all bullshit. I can handle the truth better if the admin. has the guts to say It is the Oil, Stupid.

@Krem, I have to go to a meeting now. You will have the replies to your comments later.

I still don't think it was about the oil.

Say it with me: in order to get to the Iraqi oil all one had to was remove the sanctions.

That's it, no war was required.

That is the only thing that makes some sense, unless he is stupid enough to do it for personal reasons.

Rest of the reasons like WMD don't make any sense, even if he believed in his own lies.

i've always considered it to be getting a strategic position and ally (not so much as an ally but more a person bitch, to use the term loosely) in that region.

same with afghanistan really .. yes the war was fought for a different reason altogether but they managed to get another very good strategic location there as well.

How does oil make sense at all? Do you for a moment believe that Saddam would not be happy to sell his oil to the #1 oil consumer in the world??

All in all, I am happy that halfway decent elections took place. However, the low Sunni turnout is not good news, we might be looking forward to bigger conflicts than expected.

umm .. not having to pay saddam's prices????? having control OF the actual oil?

still, i dont think it was about the oil .. i'm sure oil was no more than a bonus.

That's one of the many reasons enumerated by the Bush administration.

doesn't mean i'm happy about it : )

The U.S. does not have control of the Iraqi oil.

Starting a war over oil would be downright stupid, considering the enormous expense we're paying to restore the pipelines. It's not even a benefit; it's just there for the Iraqis to sell it in the future, after the U.S. foots the bill for the pipelines.

Here's your chance to pull out the "I'm from that region" card. What would you prefer for those two countries in the future, considering their backgrounds? You're the supreme leader, you can make any decision you want.

it doesn't now ... but you're telling me the US has absolutely no control at all over anything related to the oil right now? nothing at all? the control is equal to what it was before the attacks?

The two Iraqi oil ministries control the oil production and sales.

The money from the sales goes back to the Iraq development fund.

you did not answer the question.

WHat question?

The Iraqi ministries have control over the oil. The U.S. job right now is protecting that oil, but it does not touch the money coming in from the sales or the sales themselves.

repeat question:

but you're telling me the US has absolutely no control at all over anything related to the oil right now? nothing at all? the control is equal to what it was before the attacks?

and the answer is yes: the U.S. does not control iraqi oil.

0% increase in control since the war?