home

Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected?

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:20:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Journalist Chris Allbritton writes on his blog, Back to Iraq:

9:34:37 AM So far, not as much violence as everybody feared. The question is why? Is the insurgency taking a pass on this one? (It's possible. Our sources in the insurgency say the election will make no difference to them, so why expend a lot of energy?) Is the insurgency much weaker than previously thought? Or is the level of security sufficient to keep it in check? If that's the case, then that is discouraging, too, because the measures that have kept today safe (so far) are truly draconian. No driving, dusk to dawn curfews, states of emergency. If that's what it takes to provide security in Iraq, why erase one police state only to replace it with another?

Here's a Reuters photo from Mosul:

< Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting | Blogger Reaction to the Iraq Election >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? | 81 comments (81 topical)
    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 12:42:50 AM EST
    Lets all hope no one is killed. But many will be.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:21:13 AM EST
    et al - Why is violence lighter than expected? Could it be that the number of terrorists have been vastly overstated? Thirty one dead is sad, but the promise was for rivers of blood.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:58:57 AM EST
    Wow!!! It looks as though President Bush has a good shot at freeing even more people than the great President Reagan did. The cycles of history sure are interesting. We have a dud like Carter followed by a giant like Reagan then Clinton pisses away his term chasing tail and selling pardons followed by another giant. It sure bodes well for your side. The only question is which clueless dud? Kerry would fill the bill. What a great day for Iraq and the USA. Mark W.........still the President

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:05:49 AM EST
    I think we can hope that no-one dies due to the gross negligence of the Bush administration. Just hope that draconian doesn't mean puppet government. Although of course that would be the most suitable outcome for Bushy.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:23:51 AM EST
    The_ Do you mean puppet as in Afghanistan or do you mean puppet as in the Ukraine or Belarus? Did you forget that Iraq was all about oil? Let the pumping begin.Gas up the Hummer! Of course only rich republicans will get to buy cheap oil. Right? You libs are hard to figure. Why are you always so negative? Is everyone evil except you? It never even occurs to you that President Bush may want democracy in Iraq for exactly the reasons he has stated. You just can't grasp what it means to he honorable and committed to core beliefs can you? I think that explains why our side produces Reagans and Bush's and you guys come up with Carters, Clintons, Gores and back benchers like Kerry. Mark W.......still the President

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:31:41 AM EST
    How pathetic you are. You see pictures and hear stories of people ignoring threats of death and violence in order to exercise, for the first time in their lives, the same rights of democracy that you so freely take for granted, and all you can talk about is the "police state" that had to be put into place in order for them to do so? And whose fault is that? No, honey, NOT America's. It's the fault of those fascistic thug goons the media ennobles by calling them "insurgents," when all they are really are are cowardly, pathetic, paramilitary death squads. If it weren't for their threats, car bombings, beheadings, assassination of election workers in the streets, etc., the Iraqi people would have been able to vote in more normal circumstances. We are witnessing the birth of a new democracy, and there can never be birth without blood and pain. I hope someday you look back on your stupidity and are humbled by how short-sighted you were.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:49:55 AM EST
    ...I don't remember going to Iraq to give them a democracy! Does anybody remember why we invaded and occupied Iraq? Have you forgotten? Dubya said, "...25,000 liters of anthrax; ...38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; ...materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. ...30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. ...several mobile biological weapons labs. ...had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb....Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa....attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." None of this was true. No "cash on the barrel head" even if I gave Dubya the benefit of the doubt. Now, we're in Iraq searching for a reason to be there. That's what George Bush said. Ten thousand American families broken to remove Saddam Hussein and we self-evidently no safer than we were before.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:12:06 AM EST
    1400 dead Americans and $280 billion dollars? And you would do it all over again? You are lying to yourselves my friends. You would not have embarked on this course if you knew then what you know now. Look yourself in the mirror. Ask yourself if you are willing to take on the same task in Burma/Myanmar. I am hopeful for democracy in Iraq. I simply wasn't willing to accomplish it at this cost. We could have freed many more millions of Africans and ended poverty across that whole continent for $280 billion. We sure as hell could have given health care to every child in America. People who support this war are in denial. We will have spent $10,000 per Iraqi by the end of this year. A $1000 dollars from every man, woman and child in this country. Exactly what did the Iraqi people do to deserve that kind of largesse? I am the bleeding heart here for Christ's sake. For people who detest government intervention and taxes and insist that people are responsible for their own fates you are oddly willing to pour cash and lives down the rabbit hole so that one country can freely elect an Iranian friendly government.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:19:19 AM EST
    Just off CNN/Foxnews, 72% turn out rate in Iraq. That is higher than many US elections. Way to go! Some people did get killed (36 or so). I guess the message of democracy worked. Even the left has to admit that what happen in Iraq Sunday is a GOOD thing.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:20:09 AM EST
    Darryl, I bet you are still walking around muttering about police blockades stopping blacks from voting in 2000. Still going on and on about "selected and not elected"? Let's see who thought that there were WMDs in Iraq? France Germany John Kerry Ted Kennedy Bill Clinton The UN Security Council Tom Daschle You Me How many of them are you holding accountable? I guess only the ones with enough balls to actually step up to the plate. Mark W.....still the PRESIDENT

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#11)
    by John Mann on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:22:26 AM EST
    The "terrorists" don't need to actually commit acts of terror to accomplish one of their goals - which seems to be to make the American media and military dance to their tune. They've been highly successful in this effort. The United States, in its insufferable arrogance, has used the big fat red herring of "bringing democracy" to the people of Iraq to secure a military presence in a strategic location in order to protect America's oil supplies. Since 1990, the United States military has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destroyed the infrastructure of the country. If the U.S. simply wanted to oust Saddam Hussein, it could easily have been accomplished with far less bloodshed. Only someone truly stupid, warrior-woman, would believe that these "insurgents" would be doing their work in Iraq if the United States had not unleashed its vast military machine on people who had no chance to fight back.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#12)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:36:44 AM EST
    Bush doesn't give a rats a** about democracy and it had nothing to do with the invasion. But since all the the original reasons are now been shown to be wrong, unfounded, and/or lies the wingers are now latching on to democracy as its only hope of justifying this nonsense. Bush like almost every president before will support anyone who serves his purpose. If he's for democracy why did he try to overthrow Chavez and they are still trying? If democracy is so important why do they support the brutal guy in Uzbekistan? You can jump up and down and yell the latest revionist history and Repub talking points but it doesn't change the facts on the ground. The only reason he is allowing elections now is that if he doesn't the Shia's will join the Sunnis in the insurgency. Garner wanted elections within 6 months after the fall of Saddam so he was replaced by Bremer. The funny thing is that the law of unintended consequence may bite Bush in the butt. Unless there is wide spread election fraud the ticket supported by Sistani will win. This will make a "crescent" of Shia power and influence consisting of Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Many Middle eastern experts say that this could actually destablize the area further since there are a number of countries with either sizable or majority Shia factions who are ruled by Sunni's, including Saudi Arabia. This election could empower them to rise up, and lead to a more unified and certainly more powerful entity which may not be friendly to the US given its threats against Syria, and Iran and actions in Iraq. The other aspect to consider is that the election does not represent the establishment of a government on Monday so there is plenty of time for the US to finesse things. If Allawi gets to be prime minister, that will be a sign of US manipulation. The truth is if the insurgency were to end tomorrow, the US would be asked to leave the day after. Thus, a continued insurgency is actually in Bush's interest since it will allow US troops to stay longer, give them more time to finesse the government and achieve the real goal of a continued supply of oil which will be brought about by US coporations like halliburton and international oil companies leaving the Iraqis with only a fraction of the revenue they should get. This could be negated if the future government throws out the TAL and other revisions to the Iraqi law wrought by Bremer and his band of free-market stooges. So wingers run around rejoicing about the lies you have gladly bought into i would expect nothing less.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:38:35 AM EST
    Of course Mark forgets that many of those who believed in WMds did so based on info proved by Bush coupled with a presumption of honesty, a mistake that many will not make again.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:48:36 AM EST
    Let's see who thought that there were WMDs in Iraq? ...after 2000? I could throw out some names here but "the well's been poisoned" as they say. UN inspections would have cost $100 million a year and they weren't finding anything. US invasion/occupation/inspections have cost over $100 BILLION and they didn't find anything either. ...ready to spend another $80 billion dollars? Really, I envy how idealistic the current administration is... but if we, as a country, our going to invest this much blood and treasure, can we please make the countries we're invading STATES? Oop, that sounds a little too imperial, I think.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:57:03 AM EST
    Bruce - I would do it again in a heartbeat... The overthrow of a tyrannical dictator, stabilizing the middle east, and putting a bit of scare into Iran and Syria. Mission Accomplished...

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:57:59 AM EST
    SD - There you go again. Trying to rewrite history. Aint gonna let you. Nope. Wouldn't be prudent. As you well know. The WMD belief was a bipartisan effort, and I have posted the statements of Kerry, Kennedy, Gore, both Clintons, Daschle, Pelosi, Graham, Beger, Albright time and again. If you would like to challenge me, I'll post'em again. In addition the world's intelligence agencies also believed. et al - It is instructive to note that the usual suspects see no good in this, and just continue to attack Bush and America. I am LOL at you this fine, cold, Sunday AM.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:01:47 AM EST
    How does this scare Iran? It may scare Saudi Arabia but the Shi'ias came out in full force.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:07:35 AM EST
    1) Draconian Measures for the Election surely had an effect on reducing the violence. 2) There have been a wave of arrests of senior leaders and other militants, including the guy who reputedly made 75% of the car bombs in Baghdad. That puts a crimp in the insurgents campaign. 3) Since the loss of Fallujah, the insurgents have not had an effective base of operations. The number of attacks has been decreasing since that battle. 4) Better information and intelligence has been coming in from the local populace. This is a reflection of better trained and more numerous Iraqi Policemen, More Arabic Speakers from the US coming online, and an increased sense of ownership by the Iraqi people themselves. 5)Zarqawi's tape against the vote apparently backfired. Calling voters "evil" or "Stupid" and threatening them is not conducive to winning support. I point to the collapse of the Democratic Party in 35 of the 50 states as a prime example of that. We have had the upper hand in this fight for a couple months now- only time will tell if this trend will continue. The elections will be a pivotal moment- how much so remains to be seen.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:17:57 AM EST
    Since the loss of Fallujah, the insurgents have not had an effective base of operations. The number of attacks has been decreasing since that battle. Link, evidence please.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:18:05 AM EST
    Suppose I should mention that the UN inspection teams and administration, Scott Ritter, et al, were on record that there were no wmd. I believed them then and I believe them now. The WMD scam was just one of several ideas that Dubya threw up trying to get public support for an invasion that Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz had on the drawing board while vote counting in Florida was still being fought about. I am skeptical about the turnout percentage just like I was about the wmd story. I am pleased if the bloodshed was less than expected. I will be even more pleased if a properly elected Iraqi joins Ted Kennedy asking the US to send the troops home.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:20:23 AM EST
    PPJ you can print the quotes until hell freezes over I don't care. The fact remains that the info they had from the Bush admin. Old data into the 90's is useless since the decision to go to war was not made in the 90's Bush knew there were no WMDs. They had to set up the OSP to bring in bad intel and bypass the CIA

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:23:26 AM EST
    3) Since the loss of Fallujah, the insurgents have not had an effective base of operations. The number of attacks has been decreasing since that battle.
    Wishful thinking they have increased as anyone who has followed the news knows. They have just moved to Mosal and other places. They have been effective, just keep spouting crap

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#23)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:24:45 AM EST
    We have had the upper hand in this fight for a couple months now
    Just pure BS. saying it doesn't make it so. God what nonsense.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:26:26 AM EST
    Interesting comment by a C-SPAN caller this morning who used to be a computer salesman. He said that when you're trying to sell people something they don't want, you have a lot of reasons. "It'll help you with your housework," etc. (I guess you could keep track on your computer of your inventory of cleaning products.) Truth is, the American public has no real interest in Iraq.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Walter on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:35:45 AM EST
    What Iran couldn't do in eight years the U.S. did in two. I'm with you Jim, job well done!

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:42:26 AM EST
    According to this overlooked Harpers article, the war in Iraq was about much more than grabbing oil--it was to sell off all Iraq's assets to international corporations. The violence is what scuttled this plan, and if it ever ends you can bet the selling will begin anew. Some democracy!

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Al on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:43:52 AM EST
    Walter, No...what Iran couldn't acheive on their own in 8 years, they conned us into doing for them in 2, saving their money and men for the future. Really...Chalabi was working with the Iranians, sold the Bushies what they wanted to hear, and got us to launch a war against Saddam on behalf of Iran. I wouldn't be cheering that too loudly my friend. We were pawns.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#28)
    by John Mann on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:46:28 AM EST
    This is light? When a similar number of American soldiers - not civilians - were kiilled the other day, "light" was not a word I heard anyone use to describe the casualties. Then again, those killed today were just Iraqis.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:47:20 AM EST
    The WMD belief was a bipartisan effort..., They were wrong. ...as you well know. . . .but you're right, PPJ. I sincerely hope that this foreign-adventure of setting up elections run smoothly. I fervently hope that the United States will respect the decisions of a sovereign Iraqi government. But, as the president said, "...covert missions will be secret, even in success." Meaning we will never know ...as you well know.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Walter on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:51:47 AM EST
    Let me see.....Ahmed Chalabi was the neocons golden boy. He fell out of their favor when he was accused of passing US secrects to Iran. Makes you wonder. Like I have always said...the neocons found the "right" America. It would seem that Chalabi found the "right" Americans.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:53:46 AM EST
    The left is also willing to look back and ruminate about things a bit more than the right. Hence this thread - why less violence than expected? We are thinking critically, evaluating our own data and processes. Are there many threads on any right wing websites asking "why no wmd were found?" I doubt it because the right wing agenda is essentially fascist with plausible deniability established with absolute nonsense like wmd, bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, pure fiction. I think the true motivation is positioning for control and power in the post peak-oil world. If you trust Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rummy, give them your children for safe-keeping. Help your children enlist in those men's army. If you and yours are not willing to enlist, I doubt the depth of your faith in this approach. Then you are just political patsies and dupes. You never had it so good.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:55:07 AM EST
    I really feel that a large turn out in the Iraqi election will be a benefit to the Iraqi's and the U.S. effort. However, low turn out in the Sunni area will create significant problems down the road unless efforts are made to include them as part of the legislative process and formation of the new constitution. The primary concern ought not to be whether a stable government can be formed in Iraq. We have the resources and military muscle to accomplish that task. The primary concern ought to be the manner in which this whole adventure was under taken. The timing was poor. The execution was horrendous. The cost was far too high in terms of life, treasure and U.S. reputation. There were far better ways to accomplish the goal. The administration's lack of self criticism, recognition or mistakes and pie-in-the-sky optimism as to the likely environment after the "war" was concluded should be the focus of our concerns. Failure to hold incompentent policy makers accountable for some very basic strategic and tactical mistakes will not bode well for our chances of continuing towards a stable government in Iraq or for stabilizing the middle east. I would imagine that Iran will be less concerned as to the threat from the United States to its interests. They have seen the lack of competence, the extreme cost and the loss of U.S. prestige caused by the manner in which the war was waged and the aftermath bungled.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:56:32 AM EST
    CA - Scott Ritter has his own problems, and the UN inspection team couldn't even get a decent report from Iraq that was not evasive, most likely because they were guilty of various illegal programs to get them back into the WMD business. See the Kay Report for details. And here is what Ritter said in a Time interview: "In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind? I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability .." Ritter Link Now, this shows two things. One, Ritter himself claims that he never said Iraq was clean. Two, the Kay Report shows that Iraq was putting its weapons program back together, and, in fact had done so on some. Thus Ritter's claim about no evidence is refuted. So who you gonna quote now?

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:58:04 AM EST
    Darryl, Maybe you should look up the definition of covert. It's the OVERT missions you will know about. Mark W.....still the PRESIDENT

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:04:12 AM EST
    Truly Democracy through the barrel of a gun. Seems the violence today is irrelevant. My question is, if some candidates couldn't even publicly campaign, how is this new Govt going to function? And the quote of CNN saying 72% was quickly dismissed by their "analyst" in the next sentence. I hope they voted in large numbers, but the spin is laughable. And I haven't even watched Geraldo. This nation building crap is just that. I think we're lousy at it.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:16:59 AM EST
    Mark, Maybe you should consider that "covert" secret missions without oversight leads to grotesque abuses. For example: Your neighbor disappears. Or worse: Your neigbor is killed in a hail of bullets. ...who did it? ...why? There are no answers.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#37)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:17:08 AM EST
    The inspectors on the ground were finding nothing despite being given sites by the US to inspect, Saddam's son in law debriefed by both the CIA and MI-6 in 1995 saidthat he personnaly gave the order to destroy the weapons. The inspectors were forced out by Bush's invasion. This has been discussed to death. Anyone stiill promoting WMD's or thethreat of WMDs is being a shill and an apologist

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:20:20 AM EST
    Mark, the system is just that one big puppet, but who is moving the puppet lines? the onslaught of mass programs of propaganda is really fun to watch, but it can also become murderous

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    The left takes another HUGE hit in the balls. Struck again like lightning by reality. The lefties are sad not because their ideas and ideology has beenr epeatedly shown to be erroneous by reality but becvause America has emerged successful in a difficult mission in a faroff land that just happens to occupy centrestage in a region that's volatile, oil-rich and a fertile jihadi breeding ground. Repeating old slogans won't change anything. Truth is W won. The conservative Right, as usual, is right again.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:48:57 AM EST
    Freedom marches on, and all the liberal left can do is whine like infantile children who don't get their way. Thanks to this generation of liberals, the Democratic party will end up in the trashbin of history next to the Whigs and Commies. Flunkies like Ted "I invented water torture at Chappaquiddick" Kennedy and Jimmy "It's all America's fault" Carter only prove how irrelevant and out of touch the liberal elites are these days. Afghanistan was a quagmire...NOT. Iraq is a quagmire...NOT. Democracy has not been seeded in the Middle East. Let the islamofascists try to stop the tide.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimcee on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:55:52 AM EST
    Those wouldn't sour grapes someone is tasting, would it?

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:01:41 AM EST
    Ah! Here in this discussion we see that George Bush has failed at being a uniter, not a divider.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Adept Havelock on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:01:58 AM EST
    Glad the elections went off without too much difficulty. However, I suggest waiting a few years to see how this govt. works out before declaring victory. When Iraq is capable of hosting an election without needing thousands of US troops all over the place, maybe I'll buy the rhetoric that this is a wonderful moment in the history of democracy. Until then, I'll remain the same pragmatic skeptic I've always been. Nothing to do with right or left. I'm just being politically realistic, something lost in the far lefts premature naysaying, and the far rights prematrure triumphalism. Mark.....still a Bushevik sycophant!

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Adept Havelock on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:03:02 AM EST
    Previous post- prematrure should read "premature"

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Walter on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:04:20 AM EST
    With our great success in Afganistan I am just hopeing the price of herion goes down. Maybe we'll give them another 43 million dollars like Bush gave the taliban.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Walter on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:17:29 AM EST
    Jim, howcum you always fail to mention that Iran had a direct pipeline into the neocons inner circle and fed them information about Iraq?

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:21:05 AM EST
    The biggest lie you will hear today and in the coming days is "I hope I am wrong ......." by some liberal who will then go on and on about how bad things will be in Iraq and how the elections will mean nothing. Fact is that they hope against hope that they are right. Mark W.......still the PRESIDENT

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    To All, any idea is in the minds and the ideals of a culture of a people if that people stand around and go-along-to-get-along a guy like saddam will be back, the elections so far have been ok as far as mass murder goes, and let us see how smart the people of the mideast, I.E. Iraq are. by the way remember one fact the world is not what you think it is. watch the chinese that is where the real power will be over the years not the usa, but also remember bush and boys have been moving our power to that part of the world; meaning your jobs. also where is bin laden?

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Walter on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:18:05 AM EST
    Chalabi.....still a spy for Iran Perle......still a spy for Israel

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:25:07 AM EST
    Perhaps the Iraqis aren´t so keen on killing their own...maybe the extremists call for slaughter of civilians have fallen on deaf ears by the majority of insurgents. The Shiite clerics have clearly stated they best way for them to gain power would be to use the shiite majority to their advantage in elections and if possible, kick the US out by peaceful means. Rock the vote! free theocratic elections could be a possibility.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:26:53 AM EST
    Walter - Since I am not a neocon I am afraid you will have to be the one telling us about pipelines and inner cirles. Dearest No Name - Assuming you live in the US...Have you had a neighbor disappear? And the last real threat I saw of bullets flying was when the Feds siezed the Cuban Kid, of course there was Waco... but wait! Those happened under a Demo President. How Can That Be? SD - I think the inspectors were forced out in 1998..by Clinton and his attacks on Saddam. Heaven knows what happened between then 2002. Why even Scott Ritter told us that. Still sarcastic - Why don't you take that "house N" remark and go down to the corner of Century and Crenshaw in LA and start yelling it. I'd enjoy seeing you get your as* whipped.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#53)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:34:33 AM EST
    PPJ - dont be disingenuous The inspectors were back on the ground just before the invasion and left because of the impending invasion. If you are unaware of this basic fact then....

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Al on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:35:33 AM EST
    Couple of things: First, someone else has used my moniker at 9:43. which of course they have every right to do, but since I've called myself Al for quite a while now, I thought I'd point out that wasn't me. The strategy of the right when caught with their pants down is to obfuscate and try to make you believe your eyes are deceiving you. No, PPJ, only the wishful thinkers on the right (and I use the word "thinker" very loosely) actually believed the WMD crap, or the crap about Saddam being behind the 9-11 attacks. Or the monumental crap about invading a country which just happens to be floating on an ocean of oil because -- wait for it -- the United States wishes to give it democracy.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:36:11 AM EST
    Wow, are the Oxycontin dealers, NASCAR, and tranvestite hookers all on vacation today? The dittoheads are really out in force. It must be comforting to blindly adhere to the ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims of the most intellectualy dishonest administration in living memory.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    Well, nice to see that instead of all the usual triumphal "high fiving" and dem/liberal bashing that's going on at the freep site that voter turnout was surprisingly high, here it's about 50:50. To the triumphalist Bushies here, I would wait a bit before uncorking the champagne (remember "Mission Accomplished"? Have a little hubris). The level of insurgent violence was high today, just like yesterday, and it will continue to be high. Security for the elections was "draconian" and can't be continued at that level. Why was there a large turnout? Probably because most folks in Iraq think they're as "stuck" in the present situation to plod forward as the occupiers are. As shown in one election poster, voting was the first step toward an authentic national government that would see the tanks and bradleys and their occupants leaving, sooner rather than later. The election was not for Bush or the Americans or a vote of confidence in the occupation or "democracy". The Americans are still hated, but most people held their noses and voted in a pragmatic fashion to get their own country back. Also, Allawi is no popular "democratic" figure like Chavez or Viktor Yushenko. Many Iraqis who support him regard him as another thuggish strongman dictator, a Saddam-Lite. But they would prefer a strongman to chaos, like Europeans did in the 1930s.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Walter on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:43:31 AM EST
    Who said you were? Chalabi......still a spy for Iran Perle......still a spy for Israel

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#58)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:55:57 AM EST
    We all ahve to remember that the wingnuts were all dancing around telling us how wrong we all were after: 1. Fall of Baghdad 2. Mission Accomplished 3. The killing of Saddams Sons 4 the capture of Saddam 5. the assult of Fallujah 6. the defeat of Sadr in Njaf 7. the second attack on fallujah 8. the handing over of sovergnity 9. the capture of various Zarqawi associates and 10. the elections. Eventually they might be right but I'm not holding my breath.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    Maybe the insurgents are smarter than the US planners? How do a large number of insurgents, terrorists, rebels fight a big Military force like the US has? Let them win the battle, but look at the long term. I would bet the people who have been laying bombs, have not left the country or stopped, rather they are waiting for a more opportune time. It would be in the best interst of the US leaders to commend the Iraqi's for their voice, but not get to cocky about the fact that many Iraqi's voted. It is only my guess,

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 01:12:10 PM EST
    SD - Aw, come one. Give it a go. Suck in. Now hold. Walter, well, you asked about neo-cons. If you want medical information do you ask a road builder? jackl - Yeah, Chavez is so popular he doesn't seem to have any opposition. SD - Who you going to believe? A bunch of inspectors whose schedule and travel plans are being handled by those being inspected, or the CIA? Especially if you are wrong NYC may suffer a nuke attack. That rear view mirror sure is handy, eh? Al - You take that "I'm smarter than everyone else," pill twice a day,or just in the morning?

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 01:22:11 PM EST
    Jim is blind to the probability that US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are the precursors and distal causes of new terrorist attacks, however they may materialize. You want peace, work for justice. Work for peace. An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind. Resist the impulse to pick up a weapon and have disagreement escalate into conflict. It is too bad that stupidity is not immediately painful. Jim and I probably agree about that.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 01:23:41 PM EST
    Jim- Re: Chavez. Sure he has opposition. So does Bush. So does Yushenko. But he was democratically elected, and in his case, his "opposition" inlcludes the oligarchy, former dictators and the U.S./C.I.A. So what's your point? Mine is that we shouldn't be promoting democracy worldwide and simultaneously involed in covert ops to overthrow elected leaders because their actions don't favor U.S. corporate or local oligarchic interests.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 01:39:22 PM EST
    Assuming you live in the US... Sorry, Jim. That "no name" was me! Here in Ventura County, CA the first thing that comes to mind is the mistaken assumption the sheriffs made in that a rancher was growing marijuana; they swooped in, the property owner defended his property using his 2nd Amendment rights; the law enforcement staff killed him; their inspection found no illegal actions or substances on the property. Now, I'm a firm believer that the guy in charge (whomever that might be) has to make decisions, tell people what do... but he must be accountable. Things that happen in secret generate conclusion like that of our founding father, Benjamin Franklin, that "three may keep a secret if two of them are dead." Things that happend in secret generate grotesque abuses. However, I must be aware that privacy is a separate issue from secrecy. When the American flag flies over a prison where a guard is shoving a glow stick up somebody's colon, that shakes the foundation upon which I've put my faith in this country.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 01:45:47 PM EST
    I wonder how many insurgents voted?

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimcee on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 02:08:38 PM EST
    Although I'm not surprized I am a bit disappointed in the anti-democratic rhetoric that has eminated from this site. This IS good news and should be cautiously celebrated by all people who believe in freedom. It is becoming more obvious that the Left really doesn't like the idea that some brown-skinned folks might like to chose thier own leaders and that is really sad, just visit Democratic Underground to see for yourself. Hell just read some on this thread kind of the same. Man the Left is really, really sad.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 02:13:02 PM EST
    PPJ, You wrote, "Could it be that the number of terrorists have been vastly overstated?" Interesting you've finally come around to our side. Must be the same reason we haven't had any attacks in the states. If the number of terrorists has been vastly overstated in their own back yard, then doesn't logic dictate the same for here in the U.S.A.? Peace, my fellow American. P.S.) Actually thought about you the other week when I was crusing south on I-5, past the Commerce Casino and headed home to San Diego. Ouch.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Adept Havelock on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 02:18:54 PM EST
    Jimcee- Your attempt at race-baiting is noted, and has been filed, guffawed at, and dismissed accordingly. Thank you for your contribution. Have you forgotten that it was the "conservatives" in the Democratic party and the GOP that opposed civil rights legislation? Or in England where they promoted continued control over colonial areas like India as part of the "White mans burden"? Both sides have PLENTY to be ashamed about on this issue. The difference is that I can admit it. The ideologues cannot.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimcee on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 02:45:27 PM EST
    A. Havelock, No race baiting here just an observation. There has been plenty of condescension from the Left about the Mid-East being unready for democracy and that is sad. As far as the Civil Rights Movement in the US was concerned is was mostly southern Democrats that opposed it. There were some Republicans that opposed it but to most it didn't matter although there was racism in all parties at the time and still is in some precincts. The difference was that the southern Dems stood at the school house door and forced Federal intervention where with most NE Republicans they didn't mind integration as long as the Blacks didn't apply for membership in their country club or private school. One of the founders of the Democratic party was a slave owner, Thomas Jefferson. One of the cornerstones of the Republican party was the abolitionist movement, there's a big difference, ain't there? Neither party is pure but the Dems came out on the wrong side of the Civil Rights Movement and have tried to play catch up ever since. They are on the wrong side of the democratic movement as well. By the by, I'm not a conservative but I am a right leaning Liberatarian. I used to be a Lefty but as I have explained before here the Left has become really reactionary and ..well..dumbed down to the sloganeering and negativity that we see today. Why can't the Left celebrate a "Blue finger" in the eye of the terrorist Zarqawi? Could it be you just don't like democracy? Or you just can't support anything if it makes the Bushies look good? The Left, anti-Bush, anti-West, anti-democracy. Go see for yourself at Democratic Underground. As I said, just sad.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Adept Havelock on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    Jimcee- Nice case of apples and oranges there: Southern Dems and NE repubs from that era. Yes, TJ was a slave owner. Yes, the GOP had abolitionists. How many years separate those two? Are you really trying to say there were NO slave owners supporting the early GOP? I think not. Nice assumption that "I" don't like democracy, or am incapable of giving Bush credit when he accomplishes something. Where did you obtain your vast mind-reading skills? I guess I spent my years in service to this nation because I hate democracy so much. As for: "The Left, anti-Bush, anti-West, anti-democracy. Go see for yourself at Democratic Underground." I'll simply reply: The Right, anti-Clinton (or any other Dem.), anti-freethinking and tolerance, pro-fascism. Go see for yourself at Free Republic. As I say, just another ideologue.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Adept Havelock on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 03:09:33 PM EST
    In regards to my previous post: You do make a few correct points in regard to the early days of both parties. The difference between you and me is I can see the good and bad in both sides of the political spectrum. You appear to have decided to put Blinders on and claim that only one side is correct. In short, an ideologue.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 03:23:21 PM EST
    link ”They are wrong on principle, the High Commission for Elections was appointed by Bremer (former U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer), so how can we have a legitimate election under these circumstances,” said Sabah Rahwani in the Karrada district of Baghdad. ”This election only serves the interest of the occupier, not Iraqis. This is only propaganda for Bush.”

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 03:27:04 PM EST
    The victory today does not belong to the United States or the Bush administration, nor does it belong to the insurgency. The people of Iraq are today's winners. Although the very act of attempting to vote could cost any one of them their lives, a huge number turned out to take part in the election. The Iraqi people proved their bravery, determination, and resiliance today. They deserve all honors.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 03:33:50 PM EST
    Adept - Yes, it was Southern Democrats that opposed civil rights, but to call them "conservatives" is not accurate. All supported FDR, Truman and Kennedy, and the various social programs... until JFK decided to push civil rights. Maybe you can prove me wrong, but I cannot think of a single Republician who opposed them.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:01:40 PM EST
    Barry Goldwater

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:22:22 PM EST
    Sitting duck. Playing poker. We never had it so good as when the republicans were championing our civil rights. Even today when our black brothers and sisters may have trouble voting in East St. Louis, South Chicago, and elsewhere, they can count on their republican friends to come to their aid.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:23:45 PM EST
    Do we know who won the election? (Actually, do we know who was running?)

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:47:48 PM EST
    ...who won? Rumor has it that Ahmed Chalabi will have a significant role in the new gov't!

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:20:33 PM EST
    CA - Can you name me a Repub who was against civil rights legislation?

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:22:43 PM EST
    Dadler - No, I just don't believe there are 200000 in Iraq, nor do I believe our activites are creating new ones.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:42:08 PM EST
    Interesting question, PPJ. According to this article (scroll way down), 21 Dems and 6 Repubs voted against passage. However, it doesn't name them. I think John Tower was one of the Republicans.

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:55:50 PM EST
    Ooops. I meant to say: "in the Senate."

    Re: Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 05:35:02 PM EST
    already did - Barry Goldwater. We are off topic

    Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? | 81 comments (81 topical)