Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Another ends justifies the means article. Sheeshh!! The right simply refuses to ask if the cost was worth the outcome. If Democrats ever get around to picking up the pragmatism so devoid in conservative policy making, the GOP will have a serious challenge ahead of them.

That said, I agree with your sentiments about the heroism of those willing to run and vote in this upcoming election. My prediction is a 25 to 30% turnout and not uniformly representative of the constituent groups in Iraq. Bush can call it freedom and democracy if he wants, I will just call it a sham and show.

Bush encourages Iraqis to go vote. If Bush were a father of his two daughers in Iraq, I wonder how much encouragement he would give his daughters to show up at the polls and vote in the Triangle? Bush constantly proves how cheap talk is when others do the walking.

Lowering Expectations is the present Spin BushCo is giving the Iraqi Elections. That means you emphasize those nebulous terms like “Freedom”, “Liberty” and “Choice”. You DO NOT give any statistics to confirm or deny your claim. Have you noticed that we STILL don’t know how many Iraqis were killed since the “Liberation”? Fallujah no has a population of 15,000 out of the original 200,000. They won’t let anyone find out how many civilians were killed. There are no outside Observers to this little display of Democracy. I fully expect the Vote to be rigged.

By the way, I like the way you included “Withdrawal of Troops cause They asked Us” in your Post. It makes it look a voluntary action as opposed to a retreat under fire. That way, the Republicans can crow about Iraq being a “Victory” instead of it being a new haven for Al Queda.

Have you considered sending an Application to Karl Rove?

“Have you noticed that we STILL don’t know how many Iraqis were killed since the “Liberation”?”

If you knew the exact numbers * those killed by U.S. Military action AND those killed by infilitrators from Iran and Syria AND those killed by Iraqi’s (who side with Zarqawi and think they are saving their country from the ‘occupiers’ and democracy)* what would you do with that information?
Do you want names and addresses so you can send condolence cards and apologize for the government you live under that does not represent you as an individual?
Yes people have died. Yes it is awful.
It seems that some in our country want to blame the U.S. for every death in Iraq * both now and when Saddam was in power.

Do you know which Iraqi’s are grieving and blaming the U.S. and which Iraqi’s are grieving and accept death as part of their quest for freedom? The amount of grief for these people would be the same - it is the anger and hate that comes out of it * who they blame * they don’t all blame the U.S.
When you send your cards make sure they say the right thing for each individual. You wouldn’t want to send an apology for invading to someone who is glad we are there and got rid of Saddam.

“Fallujah no has a population of 15,000 out of the original 200,000.”
Are these numbers accurate?
Do you know the reason for this?
How do you know the people have not returned because they chose to make a new start in another part of the country? Fallujah was not a great place to live before we arrived.
Now the decline in the Fallujah population is the fault of the U.S.? You don’t know that.

You want facts, but you make negative assumptions about things without them. You want facts so you can use them to bash.

Now Kennedy is calling for removal of our troops immediately after the election. Kerry said they would be there 2 or 3 more years when he ran for President. Blues want the troops to get out now, but accepted Kerry’s view that they would be there awhile. So. Which is it?
Now that Bush is still Prez the troops have to leave? If Kerry were Prez, Blues would understand why they have to stay longer?
It must be tough to tow the line when the line keeps moving.
Reds can at least see a bigger picture and realize there is alot more to this and also accept that mistakes will be made.
Blues want mistakes to be admitted just to blame and try to use them to campaign for power. Claiming they have all the right answers. It seems at this point the majority of people in our country didn’t fall for the ‘we would have done everything different’ arguement.

That is one reason I was so impressed with the Iraqis I saw interviewed.

I am not sure that I would have the courage they are displaying. We Americans who try to avoid jury duty or cry about long lines at our own voting stations should take note of this.

I said nothing about the cost being worth the outcome because we still don’t know the outcome (and we are still not sure of the cost). If the outcome is a reasonably free Iraq, it will probably be worth the cost, i.e. it will save American and Iraqi lives in the long run and more freedom and dignity all around. If it is something less, we will have to make our assessments based on that. Making the assessment now is like talking about a football game at half time. It may look like one side is losing, but the game is not over, so I don’t know if it was worth it.

David said:

My prediction is a 25 to 30% turnout

I’m going to hold you to this one, David. For the record, I predict 60% turnout, which is marginally higher than in the recent U.S. election.

You’re on Chops. Finally, a blogger willing to put his bet where his mouth is. Good show, Chops! Let the best prognosticator win. And pray that I am wrong and you are right, for if that is not the case, civil war in Iraq becomes more likely.

I am with chops on this one, but we have to come up with a really firm way of determining the winner (of our contest, not the election).

Let’s simply split the difference. If 0-45% of eligible Iraqis come out to vote, David wins. If 46-100% of eligible Iraqis come out to vote, Chops and I win. The only problem I anticipate is accurately estimating the number of “eligible Iraqis,” so I don’t doubt that if turnout is from 40-50% we will have legitimate disagreements.

I don’t think that putting our predictions up makes light of this serious situation. It is sometimes useful to set up boundary conditions to success. I would call the elections a success if 45% came out to vote, considering the onerous conditions. 60% would be a resounding success. If you start approaching 30%, I think it would be a failure, so our numbers correspond well to realistic considerations.

brave Iraqis who are running for office or planning to vote

It’s a shame they have to be brave. It’s a shame President Bush didn’t react to the insurgency and double the number of troops, or accept peacekeeping forces from Germany, France, India and other countries when they were offered.

In my article on the other side, I predicted a “mediocre” turnout. Since we’re getting specific, I predict 45%-50%. Sorry if that messes up the tallying.

The only problem I anticipate is accurately estimating the number of “eligible Iraqis,”

Dude, if that’s an unknown, this election is already a farce. But I think elegibility is based on oil-for-food registration, so that’s probably the least of the process problems.

I would call the elections a success if 45% came out to vote

That’s a wacky way to guage success. If the actual numbers and demographics of the voters are not percieved to be representative by the majority of Iraqis, it will be a failure no matter what the percentage.

Success will be guaged on the outcome. If the election produces a stable, representative democracy, it’s a success.

I, for one, predict that all of these outcome prognostications will be for naught, because there will be half a dozen wildly different figures being produced by different organizations on Monday. I doubt we will ever have a clear idea of what percentage of Iraqis voted.

“accept peacekeeping forces from Germany, France, India and other countries when they were offered” These are not serious offers and they are talking about peacekeeping, not peacemaking. If the situation were already stable, they would help out. But if the situation were stable, we wouldn’t need them to help out, kind of catch 22. Only the U.S. can establish order. We have help from some coalition allies, but that’s it.

Remember how the UN reacted to the bombing of its headquarters in Iraq. Or think of the track record of UN peacekeeping. They do a good job when there is reasonable peace, otherwise they behave in Srebrenica fashion.

I recall the Germans rejecting even peacekeepers for Iraq back in summer of 2003. As I recall, Schroeder rejected the request before we even made one.

Way to shovel it people.
On the day of the Iraqi elections, the red side will be praying that everything goes smoothly. Not because they give a rats ass about the Iraqi people but so they can sing more praises for Bush and have something else to rub in the blue sides noses.
If its a great turnout, we’ll hear all the I told you so’s and who was right on this one rhetoric from the red side.
If its a poor turnout, we’ll hear all the same liberal media bias over again.

On the day of the Iraqi elections, the blue side will quietly be hoping for mayhem to breakout. Not because they hate America or our soldiers, but because they hate Bush.
Every arguement, fight, gunshot or bomb will overshadow any amount of success, just as it does now.
If its a great turnout, the blues will be the ones crying about the Conservative? media.
If its a poor turnout, the blues will be giddy and screaming their I told you so’s, all while they try to figure out the best way to use the tragedy to their advantage in their march towards winning the White House.

Thats what its all about, right?
We either bash Bush and the evil Republicans for everything or we kiss their asses because we support EVERYTHING they do and say.

This isn’t about the Iraqi people, its about which side gets the bragging rights.

kctim, there is great merit to what you say. I however, simply want an exit strategy for our country. If the vote goes well and is representative of the demographics of Iraq, there is a chance, that autonomous government can become a reality which gives even the Republicans the ability to remove our forces.

I have from before the invasion been very afraid that our Iraqi excursion would become another Viet Nam quagmire of can’t afford to stay, and can’t afford to leave, with taxpayers and US soldiers paying for immensely immoral decision to invade without an exit strategy, expertise and will to put the resources in to insure getting out.

If the vote goes well, there is a chance of avoiding such a scenario for a decade or more to come. That is my primary concern. The Iraqis are a secondary priority for me, I wish them well, and hope for the best, but, running their country is their problem, and should not be ours at the cost of threatening our economic future and doubling our military casualties and losses each year.

I saw Iraqis again on the news today.

The bad guys were threatening to kill anyone who came out to vote and their kids as well. “Kill, Kill. Kill” that is what the militant said.

It is so clear who is good and who is evil.

On the Newshour, a guest also talked about the elections and what would make them legitimate. One pointed out that the recent Palestinian election had only a 43% turnout.

These are not serious offers and they are talking about peacekeeping, not peacemaking.

They were absolutely serious offers contingent upon a internationalized governing structure like the incredibly (by comparison) successful system in Afghanistan.

Seriously, if you want to know the right way and the wrong way to do regime change, look at the difference between UN and NATO assisted Afghanistan, and US occupied Iraq.

Only the U.S. can establish order. We have help from some coalition allies, but that?s it.

Are you saying a few Mongolians are more help than a few battalians of German and French combat troops, MP’s, and civil affairs officers? That sounds silly, Jack.

You guys seem to take it as given that the Elections would be Fair. I am not that gullible. There are no Election Observers in Iraq. I fully expect rampant cheating with the US winning want they want.

The Germans represent the biggest contingent in Afghanistan. There are about 2000 German troops in Afghanistan. They stay close to Kabul and I believe they arrived on board U.S. transports. They also are not fighting troops. The French got there on their own and some of them can fight, but they don’t. They are the second largest contingent at 1800 soldiers. That is their peak strength. For most of the time there were a couple hundred.

NATO has been great in Afghanistan. But the U.S. has to do most of the heavy lifting no matter what. Iraq would have been no different. Europeans just don’t have big armies to spare, at least not ones they can move. They really can’t help very much even if they want to - and they don’t really want to.

On the other hand, there are tens of thousands of Brits in Iraq. The Poles command a multinational contingent of 8000 troops (about of which 2500 are Poles but also includes other nationalities) in Iraq. This is not a big think either, but that is also the way it is.

I’m not worried about turnout in this election. What concerns me is the body count in this one and the turnout in the next election thereafter.

Iraq would have been no different.

Jack, if Iraq was no different from Afghanistan, we wouldn’t have anything to worry about, would we?

NATO has been great in Afghanistan. But the U.S. has to do most of the heavy lifting no matter what.

No kidding. But perception is reality, and as a UN and NATO operation - no matter what the ratio of US to other troops - the US wouldn’t be perceived as trying to steal Iraqi oil and permanently occupy the country.

Crazy as it sounds to us, Jack, most people in the Middle East, and especially in Iraq, firmly believe that the US has ulterior motives there, and that’s the source for much of the support for the insurgents.

You guys seem to take it as given that the Elections would be Fair.

Aldous, it’s not going to matter either way. The election results will be disputed, and as you point out, there aren’t any UN observers like there were in Afghanistan.

The guys currently in the interim government are running for office AND they’re responsible for counting the ballots. It doesn’t take a Carnac the Magnificent to predict the outcome.

Fraud, fair, whatever - it’s going to take more than an election to unseat the current government.

Chops, Really good prognostication, Chops! I concede. NY Times reports 60% of eligible voter turnout. You were damn near right on the money.