home

Election and Voter Turnout

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 08:42:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Not to beat a dead horse, but it 's worth pondering that in 1967, the U.S. crowed about the good turnout in the Vietnam election. As we mentioned yesterday in our open thread post, there's an eerie similarity between the two.

Martini Republic has some thoughts on who will control the new Iraqi Government. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim , a Shi'ite leader, already is calling the election a victory for the United Iraqi Alliance. And, big surprise, Iraq's President today said he wants U.S. troops to stay in Iraq.

"It's only complete nonsense to ask the troops to leave in this chaos and this vacuum of power," al-Yawer, a Sunni Arab, said.

< Guantanamo Detainees Entitled to Court Review | Racheting Up the Drug War >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Election and Voter Turnout | 38 comments (38 topical)
    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 09:17:28 AM EST
    If anyone wants to understand what is really happening just check-out the fact that the bush boys will now allow into the so called U.S.A., mass immigration from the mideast and mass government help programs, that was what the people of iraq voted for and will get, Our we really in a war to free people? our! we! really in a war on terror? and where is bin laden? and who is on a crusade to do what? Bush talks about Freedom, but what kind of freedom is he really all about? much of this is just Propaganda and murderous lies. by the way is our boys were not in iraq fighting in that hopeless place why would we be fighting here?

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 09:47:27 AM EST
    There's also an eerie similarity in terms of the people who were willing to abandon the Vietnamese to their fate (death and labor camps, boat people, and the Cambodian Holocaust) and the people ready to abandon the Iraqis now. Exactly what do you think will happen if the US just pulls out, as you seem to wish? Are you operating under some delusion that happy friendly people will come to power there?

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:18:40 AM EST
    If not killing Vietnamese people is abandoning them, then abandon away.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    I wonder how many French citizens thought the French should abandon the colonists during the American War for Independence. No, it's not a directly comparable situation, but I'm sure there were a lot of them.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:26:59 AM EST
    The bush rat boys will keep on with their crusade to inflict this so-called Freedom on more people by sticking troop in another godforsaken location. More Propaganda and maurderuous lies for the oil cartel agenda. My bunions ache and I know its going to rain a hard rain.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:32:45 AM EST
    wonder how many French citizens thought the French should abandon the colonists during the American War for Independence
    The French helping the revolution had nothing to do with helping us out of altruism, and everything to do with hurting/weakening Britain. Quite a history of war and conflict between those two.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#7)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:37:54 AM EST
    Or if the romans had pulled out of Jerusalem. Or if the Nazi's had pulled out of Poland and France. If Alexander had pulled out of Egypt. If Napoleon had pulled out of Russia. Oh the humanity. Those poor Vietnamese and Iraqis. They just can't do it on their own. Justpaul, What would have happened if we NEVER went into Nam in the first place? They would have become communist, which they did anyway and are ZERO threat to us. Obviously the Domino effect was WRONG. And it only cost 58 K american boys and a couple million vietnamese. Same result. No impact on world order. Waste, waste, waste.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:42:57 AM EST
    kdog, I don't know your e-mail address but thank you very much for your contribution to TalkLeft.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:45:40 AM EST
    So what does this mean? Is the Guardian, hardly a unbiased source in its own right, suggesting that the Johnson administration was wrong to pin its hopes for Vietnam on democratic elections? If so, what should Johnson have been looking to? Cambodian style communist bloodbaths? A Soviet puppet regime? Well, that's what Vietnam got and it didn't work out very well for the people of Vietnam. I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone at the Guardian to go to Vietnam and ask those who were alive in 1967 what they thought of the election and what their hopes were for it. For that matter, where in this article is there any mention of anyone at the Guardian speaking to anyone actually living in Iraq as of Sunday? This whole piece is a compilation of hearsay from sources not living in Iraq. Is it really too much to ask that an article which opens with a claim of hostility on the part of Iraqis actually include at least one direct quote from someone inside Iraq showing such hostility? I'm not saying that such hostility does not exist. In fact, I'd be surprised if it didn't. A lot of people who profited from Saddam's system are looking at a future where they will have to accept that there is no murderer-in-chief looking out for them. They may even find some of their former victims coming after them (the inevitable downside of going along with stuff like rape rooms and mass murder of large sections of the populace). And then there are those who, for whatever reason suits them, believe that this is a religous war against Islam. They too probably have a lot of hostility toward the U.S. But assuming those people do exist (and I do assume such), why couldn't the Guardian dig up even one such person to go on record? Too lazy? Uninterested in the truth when liberal hype will do? The world may never know. And what about all those Iraqis who do not have this hostility toward the U.S.? You know, the ones willing to go in front of the cameras and tell the terrorists to stop trying to destroy their country? Do they not matter at all? The Guardian seems to think so. Imagine if, during World War II, the U.S. had listened to those in France who were involved in the Vichy government and resisted Allied "liberation" of Europe. Would the liberals of today say that the U.S. was right to consign Western Europe to Nazi rule because a minority of Frenchman opposed the war effort? Finally, since we are once again comparing Iraq to Vietnam: Does this mean that the left is finally willing to admit that JFK was wrong when he got us involved in that war? Is the left repudiating JFK's famous speech about undertaking any burden? Are we finally allowed to admit that it was Johnson who dragged us deeper and deeper into that quagmire while lying about the depth of our involvement and the death toll? Or is Vietnam still "Nixon's War"?

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:48:52 AM EST
    To the right trash, Wake up and smell the coffee. War is not the answer unless you are a radical religious fundamentalist. If you need a "war" to justify your actions, you are a failure. I'll check back in a month to see what's changed after THIS particular transition. Obviously with a functioning government in place and all these Iraqi security forces around, there should be no need for an occupying force. After all, we have replaced the government, right? Oh yeah. I forgot. THE TERRISTS! Of course, the only reason THEY are there is because WE are there.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:56:44 AM EST
    WE are there to remove a belligerent, brutal regime and promote democracy; THEY are their to defeat democracy, as Zarqawi clearly stated; in Iraq, the terrorists will only find defeat and death as democracy flourishes.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#12)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:57:59 AM EST
    There's also an eerie similarity in terms of the people who were willing to abandon the Vietnamese to their fate (death and labor camps, boat people, and the Cambodian Holocaust) and the people ready to abandon the Iraqis now. And an equally eerie similarity between those who told us about the "light at the end of the tunnel" and those who keep assuring us that we've "turned the corner." Tell you what. Let's just go ahead and start planning where we'll build the memorial, shall we?

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:02:26 AM EST
    I must learn the skill of finding the bad in all things. This is a skill liberals/progressives have had to use in the last 48hrs to justify their inability to support Iraq's election. For people that are so desperate to hear Bush say.."I was wrong" you'd think you might here them admit that Sunday was a good day for America, Iraq and the Bush Man. Nope. Just cynacism and negativity. Standard.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:09:18 AM EST
    I wonder how many French citizens thought the French should abandon the colonists during the American War for Independence. French involvement in the American Revolution bankrupted the already depleted funds drained from wars with the British and the lavish lifestyle of the royalty. Considering many Frenchmen were starving I would guess a good number of them saw another scuffle with England half way across the globe as unnecessary. The statement is a bit ridiculous though considering the French people had no say in the decision to back the American Revolution.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#15)
    by Adept Havelock on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:13:16 AM EST
    Sladedivac- What I see from the vast majority of the posters here is a healthy skepticism, met with Right wing hostility because we are not out in the streets chanting "Hail Bush". Don't know where you get the "inability to support the election" line. Sure, the usual wingnuts on the left dismiss it, and the usual wingnuts on the right condemn everyone else for it. It would be nice to see some other reaction for once, but can we hope for that? Nope. Just wingnuttery and assuption. Standard Quaker in a Basement: Location for a memorial? May I suggest the future site of the George W. Bush memorial library? Seems that would be an appropriate spot, it is his legacy.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#17)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:27:04 AM EST
    May I suggest the future site of the George W. Bush memorial library? Seems that would be an appropriate spot, it is his legacy. I think we can agree there. Normally, I'd feel obliged to make a crack about the words "Bush" and "library" in the same sentence, but I'm not up to it here. Anyone?

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#18)
    by Adept Havelock on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:38:23 AM EST
    Medscribe- I'll forgive the wingnuts on the left if they are skeptical as to the premature reports of their political demise, and ignore political advice from the wingnuts of the Right, who after all, are only interested in furthering their own agenda. It's one of the oldest tricks in politics, and easily seen through, easily dismissed. Your concern for the political fortunes of your opposition is truly touching, and rings a bit hollow. Speaking of obstruction...how about Clinton's judicial nominees? Or are you another who is selectively outraged by the actions of only one party?

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#19)
    by Andreas on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:00:36 PM EST
    @James Robertson: Pol Pot was a result of the murderous activities of US imperialism in Cambodia.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:02:59 PM EST
    Call me a conspiracy theorist (I've been called worse), but I think Kennedy realized the mistake of getting us involved in Vietnam, was attempting to rectify that mistake, and he got murdered for it.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:03:06 PM EST
    John F. Kennedy (Jan 20, 1961):
    Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
    Ted [deleted] Kennedy (January 26, 2005): Let every American know...we Democrats shall obstruct any GOP legislation, decry any Bush initiative, oppose any nominee, embrace any terrorist, to ensure the failure of freedom and liberty at home and around the world. Ask not what the Democratic party can do for America, ask what it can do for America's enemies. How sad to see how far the party of Jackson and Roosevelt and Truman have fallen. Thank you ahead of time for giving the GOP a supermajority in the Senate come 2006. [Medscribe, you are limited to four comments a day and stop the personal attacks.]

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    No...Thank you TL, the pleasure has been all mine, just sorry this working class stiff couldn't send more.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:15:01 PM EST
    The Iraqi insurgents have no ideology, no political leadership, no sanctuary for rest and regroup, no blank check from major arms producers for weaponry, no control of any of their areas of operation, no popular support from the local population, and offer no alternative solutions for the Iraqi people. The Communists in Vietnam met all of these. Vietnam's terrain is well suited for an insurgency due to hills, jungles, and deltas where insurgents can hide, Iraq is not. In Iraq, the key rural areas where insurgents could effectively hide from counter insurgency forces are all populated by peoples friendly to America- the Marsh Arabs in the south and the Kurds in the north. The only bright spot for the insurgents is the far west of Iraq, which is criss-crossed with wadis and rocky outcroppings, but is not conducive to sustaining life on any scale (good for smuggling). Vietnam's population is more homogenous and the VC were drawing from the majority base. Iraq has three major groups and several other subsects- the insurgents have not been able to expand their base from the Sunni minority (which has yet to register widespread support for the insurgents either). Not very similar, when you really look at it.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:17:37 PM EST
    "Of course, the only reason THEY are there is because WE are there." GOOD! I would rather them be fighting battle hardened Marines there than gunning down soccer moms here. Works for me....

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#24)
    by Adept Havelock on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:20:33 PM EST
    Gerry Owen- After all, they couldn't possibly find refuge in large urban environments, right? And urban regions are not at all friendly to "insurgent" style tactics? Military history begs to differ. Your point about the lack of superpower sponsorship is, however, surprisingly accurate.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#25)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:31:19 PM EST
    The Iraqi insurgents have no ideology depends on your definition some want power back most want the US out , no political leadership, An assumption, or lets see the proof no sanctuary for rest and regroup, I disagree, they dont need a large area since its a guerilla war fought by small groups. The destruction of Fallujah may have affected their ability to make car bombs. no blank check from major arms producers for weaponry, Dont need one since we were gracious enough not to guard the ammo dumps no control of any of their areas of operation Its a guerilla war how much control do they need? , no popular support from the local population, They are supported by local Sunnis not Shiites or Kurds and offer no alternative solutions for the Iraqi people. their solution is to grab back power, not a good one from our perspective Vietnam did not have, as far as I know, internal ethnic and religious differences like those seen in Iraq

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:55:55 PM EST
    But of course, you forget the millions of Vietmanese, Cambodians, Loations killed by the NVA, VC, Kimer Rouge, Pol Pot. I guess it's alright with you that someone killed them as long as it was not America. Freedom should only apply to those lucky enough to be born into it. Screw the little brown jerks. They are not intelligent enough to merit freedom anyway. I did not hear any protestors screaming about the millions murdered after the US abandon the South. By the way, when was the last election in Viet Nam anyway?

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 01:05:36 PM EST
    Comparing the terrorists to the Viet Cong is down right bogus. Proof, did you hear them (the terrorists)threaten to disrupt the elections and thereby make the turn out so small that on one could call them ligitimate? They failed, failed, failed. Not exactly the Tet Offensive.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    no ideology : Getting the US out is Definitely high on the list of Iraqi desires- but "leave immediately" is not. Not even a majority of the Sunnis want the Baathists back in power. no political leadership: Name me the political leadership of the insurgency that is putting itself forth as an alternative. Zarqawi? He's Jordanian! There is no political face to the insurgency- no Castro, No Ho, etc. no sanctuary for rest and regroup: Adept's point on urban areas is valid only for smaller cells, which limits the scale of operations. An insurgency needs safe areas to rest, regroup, train, plan, etc. In this regard, it is hard to do weapons training in a city, and the insurgents have to spend more time, effort, and personnel on security- which also limits their effectiveness. no blank check: Excellent point about the Ammo dumps, but those supplies are finite. ammo gets old (and used), weapons break, and more are being recovered every day. Its a guerilla war how much control do they need? Sanctuary. No control means everywhere they go they are susceptible to discovery, and have to assume the surrounding population is hostile. No effective control also weakens whatever intmidation factor they have built up. "They are supported by local Sunnis" Their support among the Sunni Arabs is far from universal. Most of the Bedouin tribes are on board with the US, and there are no public figures among the Sunnis offerring any support for the insurgents (at least publicly). Fallujah residents had to live under them for several months, which explains the higher turnout there. "their solution is to grab back power, not a good one from our perspective" Nor from the perspective of the vast majority of the Iraqi population, either. After all, 70% of them braved the threats and showed up at the polls. I wonder how many wanted to and felt intimidated. Makes people ripping their hair out over a police car cruising past a polling place in this country seem a bit silly, don't you think?

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#29)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 01:36:37 PM EST
    Gerry Owen, Not even a majority of the Sunnis want the Baathists back in power. Most of the Bedouin tribes are on board with the US,... Wow, where are your sources on all this new info? Fallujah residents had to live under them ("insurgents") for several months, which explains the higher turnout there. Now on this one you need to back up your assertion. Turnout higher than what? Please cite links which accurately report that turnout in Falluja was high at all! Falluja was destroyed last fall.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 02:34:09 PM EST
    Man, I must have taken my wisdom pills today - absolutely no desire to jump into this swamp of foolishness. Nope, just taking my purple index finger to teach some adult ed tonight. -C

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 02:49:50 PM EST
    cliff why post then? to let us know again your finger is blue?

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#32)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:17:55 PM EST
    Not even a majority of the Sunnis want the Baathists back in power. Do you have a citation or are you hoping it just sticks. Name me the political leadership of the insurgency that is putting itself forth as an alternative. Zarqawi? There is no political process so in one sense there are no political leaders. But there may be more than 1 leader in the insurgency. This is a fight mostly for power and the removal of the US IMHO. Excellent point about the Ammo dumps, but those supplies are finite. You do remember how many tons were taken, and thats just whats been reported. The fact that the insurgents are not being captured at a high rate, at least from reports I've seen, suggest that their support is adequate. Fallujah residents had to live under them for several months, which explains the higher turnout there The only report I've see about this quoted an unnamed source that 8000 voted. Don't believe it until verified somehow. If you have a better report would like to see. One of the differences between Iraq and Vietnam is that the tactics of the enemy are quite different. Iraqi insurgents are waging a very narrow highly selective campaign. They are avoiding direct confrontation with US troops whenever possible. They are relying on mainly on explosives to blow up individual trucks, tanks etc. They are also targeting the infrastructure and the Iraqi police/military (by car bombs) and are assassinating political figures. They are in no hurry. There has been constant disruption of the oil infrastructure as well as electric etc. They know the US will get blamed for not being able to protect or rebuild basic services. I would maintain that few Iraqis are really on "our side". They will tolerate us as long as there is an insurgency they cant deal with, a fact that I expect Bush to exploit. But if the insurgency were to end tomorrow they want us out the next day. So our incompetence to maintain or establish peace after the fall of Saddam is the only reason the Shiites are tolerating us.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:29:57 PM EST
    SD - Nice "YesBut" comments. BTW - Your comments re the tactics of the terrorists versus the North Vietnam is somewhat correct up until Tet. After Tet they focused on selective targets, selective attacks, fighting and then running. Che - Were do you get your information he is wrong?? No Tet - True, but in both cases the Left tried to position the results as a loss by the US. Problem for them this time is that there is more than three news sources. As Peter Jennings is undoubtedly ruefully considering tonight. kdog - With that theory you may claim the title of King of the Tin Hats. ;-)

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:33:43 PM EST
    Che- I've spent the better part of my adult life in the military and other agencies, usually posted in the Mid East. A simple scan of the leading Sunni political groups will show you they are definitively anti-Baathist. My point about the Bedouins is not New info- rather, it is old news.Since the early days of the occupation, these tribes in SW Iraq have had a great working relationship with our forces. This relationship actually dates back to the First Gulf War. Turnout higher than what?- My source for Fallujah is couple of soldiers on the ground there I served with. I couldn't chat long, but they said turnout was a lot heavier there than they expected. Most of the population had fled before the takedown, but they are returning. I'm curious what the final number will be. Another bud said Ramadi was pathetic, but I think I saw that mentioned already. Also, the locals are pretty pleasant to our forces now. Soccerdad- "There is no political process so in one sense there are no political leaders. But there may be more than 1 leader in the insurgency" If this is the case we have already won. An insurgency that does not provide an alternative leadership and philosophy to the current status quo is doomed to being reduced to gangsterism. You got to have something to handg your hat on and win support from the population you hope to rule to ever have a hope of gaining power. Violence in and of itself won't do it. "You do remember how many tons were taken, and thats just whats been reported." If you are referring to the stupid ammo dump story that broke right before the election, there were no gigantic convoys hauling out tons of explosives- the stuff was probably destroyed. As for how much ordinance they got, we will never know. There were hundreds of ammo stockpiles scattered all over the country. "The fact that the insurgents are not being captured at a high rate, at least from reports I've seen, suggest that their support is adequate." If you look at the number and frequency of attacks and the number of insurgents being picked up, I would say we are making headway! Centcom posts the numbers our forces pick up. The Iraqi forces are conducting ops of their own as well. "The only report I've see about this quoted an unnamed source that 8000 voted. Don't believe it until verified somehow." I Agree. I am only maintaining that turnout there wil come in higher than some of the other places in the Sunni Triangle (you heard it here first). "Iraqi insurgents are waging a very narrow highly selective campaign." Thats polite. I would say "A Desperate Campaign with limited capabilities used to create the most havoc and death". "They are avoiding direct confrontation with US troops whenever possible." Smart on their part. They always lose.They have neither the numbers or capabilities to do so. "They are relying on mainly on explosives to blow up individual trucks, tanks etc." Because they cannot get the operational strength to do otherwise. "There has been constant disruption of the oil infrastructure as well as electric etc." Pipelines and Transformers don't shoot back. Again, this speaks to limited strength and capabilities. "They know the US will get blamed for not being able to protect or rebuild basic services." So what? Are the terrorists making the case for rebuilding and providing these services? All we are doing is trying to get the country on its feet enough to rebuild itself. Iraqis don't want to live in the stone age. These attacks are counter productive. The terrorists are increasingly viewed as evil, we are considered merely incompetent (which I think we have earned, in some cases). The deciding factor will be how they percieve their elected gov't and new constitution, not how they view us. "I would maintain that few Iraqis are really on "our side". They will tolerate us as long as there is an insurgency they cant deal with" Agreed on both counts. "But if the insurgency were to end tomorrow they want us out the next day." Except in certain areas where they enjoy the cash- the bases in Kurdistan and SW Iraq come to mind! Hey, we are STILL in Germany partly because of this factor. "our incompetence to maintain or establish peace after the fall of Saddam is the only reason the Shiites are tolerating us." There is some truth to that- although this insurgency would have happened, period. It was preplanned. We made some critical tactical errors early on that definitely didn't help our cause. However, the insurgents have made a number of possibly fatal mistakes to theirs.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:39:03 PM EST
    I cant get over how 60 years after the fact,the right - suffering from terminal intellecual dishonesty - has nothing but unreserved praise and admiration for FDR - kinda like thier revisionist beatifying of safely- in-the-ground MLK. This is truely to laugh. Both of these men were demonized by the conservative right while they were alive,but find a winger at this site who has the b***s or the integrity to acknowledge this,or heavan forbid, take up the old argument. Sorry for the o.t.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 08:12:32 PM EST
    "War is not the answer unless you are a radical religious fundamentalist. If you need a "war" to justify your actions, you are a failure." Che, would you go to war to defend that statement? If not, does that mean you consider it indefensible? Was D-Day the work of fundies, Che? Really, you indicate the truth by spewing prattle diametrically opposed to it.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#37)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 09:11:41 PM EST
    My source for Fallujah is couple of soldiers on the ground there I served with. I couldn't chat long, but they said turnout was a lot heavier there than they expected. And exactly what does this mean they expected 2 and got 4? If this is the case we have already won. An insurgency that does not provide an alternative leadership and philosophy They have a leadership, they are just smart enough to nor stick their neck out, whats to be gained? There's no philosophy like communism It is pure power, they want it back thats the only philosophy that counts. BTW the stupid ammo dump story was real. There no sense going any further, your analysis treats this more like a conventional war. This is meant to be a long drawn out affair, just like bin laden did to the Russians in Afghanistan. Its not a matter of operational strength, that kind of construct doesn't mean anything. They know we can't afford to do this forever, especially if there no oil money. They don't care if takes ten years, they'll just try and bleed us dry. Kurdistan and SW Iraq don't need us for the money, if we left tomorrow there are plenty of other countries willing to invest in Iraq, once the violence lessens. The fact that the insurgency was preplanned does not mitigate the fact that we were not prepared to secure the peace. We let the looting go on. I have said before that its to Bush;s advantage to have the insurgency continue, then he could bargainwith Sistani about providing security. THe Newsweek analyst was on TV today and brought up another possibility.he said Sistani had two possible routes, one negotiate with Bush and trade political power and security for oil, or if he could negotiate with the Sunni leaders [not including some of the hard core Saddam leftovers, more like the AMS] and give up some political power, share it with the Sunnis in return for chasing the US out and then keeping the oil money.

    Re: Election and Voter Turnout (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 09:08:10 AM EST
    Soccerdad- The Insurgents will NEVER be able to garner the support they would need from the general population to win without providing either a leader or ideology for the public to believe in. No insurgency has ever won a conflict without being able to provide a believably viable alternative system or leader. While there are always the nihilists in any population that will support violence for the sake of violence, that recruit pool is rather small. The Ammo dump story was overhyped. Most of that stuff was destroyed, at least according to the Officer who was in charge of destroying it. The unigue types of specialty explosives stored there have not been used in any of the Car bombings and other attacks- this alone should show the rumors of nthem falling into enemy hands are off base.

    Election and Voter Turnout | 38 comments (38 topical)