Iraqi Elections

[Lief Erikson]

More good news! Apparently the Sunnis turned out in droves in the election, definitely binding themselves into the political process.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4531904.stm

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As the article I just provided a link to pointed out, the Sunnis are becoming more and more fully involved in the political process.

But you are also seeing more clear cut Sunni vs. Shiite violence. Assassinations and attempted assassinations of candidates and clerics. Several recent reports of Shiite jailers torturing their mostly Sunni prisoners. That horrible assassination of 5 Shiite teachers at a school by Sunni rebels as an open act of intimidation. And various other happenings.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But you are also seeing more clear cut Sunni vs. Shiite violence. Assassinations and attempted assassinations of candidates and clerics. Several recent reports of Shiite jailers torturing their mostly Sunni prisoners. That horrible assassination of 5 Shiite teachers at a school by Sunni rebels as an open act of intimidation. And various other happenings.

The fact that most insurgents are Sunnis does not mean that most Sunnis are insurgents.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, my response to that would be that Oxford is a very liberal place.

LOL! Point of information.... Lemme tell you, I am sitting here and if you can find a more conservative corner of England...

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Finding this poll accepted on BBC News, a very liberal paper

Oh! And another one....

On the predictions thing, let's rehearse the argument that we were having three years ago. People like me were saying "thousands of innocents will die, there are no connections with terrorism, it will actually inspire terrorists not deter them, it will destabilise the country and region, there are no WMDs, there is no threat, there is no moral case for war". Which particular prediction did I get wrong?

People like Dubya were saying whatever they needed to say to get people riled up and kill-crazy. And it was being dutifully swallowed and spewed out by "liberal" sources such as the BBC.

As for the survey, it may well be true. If I was unemployed, walking around in my own sewage, with no running water and 2 hours a day of electricity, I would probably expect things to get better.

What about the (comparatively methodologically rigorous) survey in the Lancet that put the number of civilian deaths attributable to the War at 98,000 in the first year?

Nurv makes an excellent point, in that the country is so dangerous that we can't even get reliable reports upon which to assess the situation. Are we instead supposed to trust the "sources" that gave us a relentless diet of hogwash from the illusory WMDs to the Jessica Lynch charade?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

LOL! Point of information.... Lemme tell you, I am sitting here and if you can find a more conservative corner of England...

I emphatically disagree. My sister attends Oxford. She was quite conservative when she left us, and when she returned, she was far more liberal. This has been largely due to the people she's in contact with in Oxford, all of whom are liberal. My experience with BBC News is ongoing also. I absolutely reject your claims that BBC and Oxford are conservative . Perhaps Oxford is conservative in comparison with your more liberal upbringing?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

On the predictions thing, let's rehearse the argument that we were having three years ago. People like me were saying "thousands of innocents will die,

The argument generally ran, "The US will kill thousands of innocents," NOT "terrorists will kill thousands of innocents and the US will be responsible for that." The US killed some innocents. I don't know of any war in which innocents have not died. However, the vast majority of those thousands have been killed by enemy action rather than our action. The casualties in civilians are an enemy atrocity, and not our fault. We do have a responsibility to the people of Iraq and we are doing our best, but we are not to blame for enemy atrocities.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

there are no connections with terrorism,

I find the idea that Saddam had no connections with terrorism very unlikely. Saddam Hussein had a history of supporting terror, and he was certainly a threat.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

it will actually inspire terrorists not deter them,

If Iraq becomes a stable democracy and the US accomplishes its mission, we will have proved that we will stand against terror to both our enemies and our allies. This will be a deterant to terrorists.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

it will destabilise the country and region,

And you consider a region where Iran is making death threats against Israel, Syria is assassinating Lebanon's leaders, Egypt is brutally suppressing democratic elections, and Hamas is declaring an alliance with Iran, Christians are being brutally persecuted everywhere, and nuclear technology is proliferating from North Korea and Pakistan not already unstable? Iraq would be a part of the kingpin.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

there are no WMDs,

Both Democrats and Republicans believed there were, based on the available intelligence. It was an intelligent decision, though a mistaken one.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

there is no threat, there is no moral case for war".

If Iraq were using its resources to sponsor terror, there definitely was a case. Iraq was an oil rich country controlled by an evil regime. The fact that it was brutalizing its people, and we are seeking to bring them freedom, justifies our war effort. Even if we were not under any threat, it would be moral to intervene on the Iraqi people's behalf.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

As for the survey, it may well be true. If I was unemployed, walking around in my own sewage, with no running water and 2 hours a day of electricity, I would probably expect things to get better.

And I suppose you would be saying that things are going great for you, too.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

What about the (comparatively methodologically rigorous) survey in the Lancet that put the number of civilian deaths attributable to the War at 98,000 in the first year?

My opinion would be that those figures are pretty wild.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Nurv makes an excellent point, in that the country is so dangerous that we can't even get reliable reports upon which to assess the situation. Are we instead supposed to trust the "sources" that gave us a relentless diet of hogwash from the illusory WMDs to the Jessica Lynch charade?

I'll need to see evidence that all those news sources were arguing that there were WMDs. However, whether they were or not, that data was considered to be reliable by many high ranking officials of both parties. There was extensive intelligence data. I thoroughly read Powell's UN presentation of evidence concerning Iraq, and it was very interesting material. I have seen bias in BBC News, but so far, all the bias I've seen has been anti-conservative. Oxford is the same. This was a survey that was funded by many major news sources, and asserting that it's unreliable without evidence is weak.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If Iraq were using its resources to sponsor terror, there definitely was a case. Iraq was an oil rich country controlled by an evil regime. The fact that it was brutalizing its people, and we are seeking to bring them freedom, justifies our war effort. Even if we were not under any threat, it would be moral to intervene on the Iraqi people's behalf.

Now if yer gonna use this as justification for invasion then yer gonna have quite a long list of places youll need to invade to be "moral".

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Now if yer gonna use this as justification for invasion then yer gonna have quite a long list of places youll need to invade to be "moral".

I would change that to saying, "you'll have quite a long list of places you CAN attack WHILE being moral."

[Insidious Rex]

how bout "NEED to to be CONSISTANT."

[Nurvingiel]

It's not the BBC I have a problem with, it's pretty much all journalists in Iraq right now.

Maybe journalists were reporting possible WMDs before it was discovered that the intelligence about WMDs was incorrect. Obviously no one is going to buy that now.

Ballots are being counted today! Counting under way in Iraq election

This story I can (mostly) believe because ballots will be counted in a safe area, so journalists will actually be there. (Not that I'm a little bitter about journalism in Iraq right now.)

Although violence was low on election day, the US Marines said a mortar attack killed an Iraqi soldier and four children playing soccer in a school playground that was a polling station in the western Euphrates River valley town of Parwana. Two children were injured.

Attack from who? Insurgents? This one was phoned in.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I emphatically disagree. My sister attends Oxford. She was quite conservative when she left us, and when she returned, she was far more liberal. This has been largely due to the people she's in contact with in Oxford, all of whom are liberal. My experience with BBC News is ongoing also. I absolutely reject your claims that BBC and Oxford are conservative . Perhaps Oxford is conservative in comparison with your more liberal upbringing?

Simply in the interest of accuracy I have to agree with The Gaffer on this one and join in finding it quite amusing... Oxford is one of the most conservative places in the UK, small- and big- c. It's far and away the most conservative university, both in its students and staff. A large student population always increases a town's liberal tendencies, but Oxford is as much an exception to this rule as it's possible to be - it has the largest student conservative organisation in Europe, for example. It may seem liberal from an American standpoint, but that's really because of the difference between the two countries' definition of the term.

In addition, I should point out that Oxford Research International is not a part of Oxford University, but an independent firm, so the point is moot (as it were )

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sun-star

It may seem liberal from an American standpoint, but that's really because of the difference between the two countries' definition of the term.

I can believe that. I guess it's a matter of perspective. If most people in England are intensely liberal, and Oxford is less intensely liberal, it may look conservative to them. Meanwhile, if we in America are very conservative, and Oxford looks less conservative, it may look liberal to us. Reference frames . . .

Originally Posted by sun-star

In addition, I should point out that Oxford Research International is not a part of Oxford University, but an independent firm, so the point is moot (as it were )

Oh.

[The Gaffer]

A couple more points of information

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

"The US will kill thousands of innocents," NOT "terrorists will kill thousands of innocents and the US will be responsible for that."

No, the argument ran exactly how I phrased it: the War would set in chain an unpredictable chain of events in which many people would suffer and die in the chaos that ensued. That is exactly what has happened.

If China had invaded the US with overwhelming firepower, and Americans fought a guerilla campaign to thwart attempts to normalise the situation, would you say the same?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And you consider a region where Iran is making death threats against Israel, Syria is assassinating Lebanon's leaders, Egypt is brutally suppressing democratic elections, and Hamas is declaring an alliance with Iran, Christians are being brutally persecuted everywhere, and nuclear technology is proliferating from North Korea and Pakistan not already unstable? Iraq would be a part of the kingpin.

And the answer is to invade? Wow. A career in the diplomatic corps beckons.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The fact that it was brutalizing its people, and we are seeking to bring them freedom, justifies our war effort. Even if we were not under any threat, it would be moral to intervene on the Iraqi people's behalf.

Aha, well you may have a point there. However, that was emphatically NOT the reason behind the War, was it? It is just all that's left by way of justification now the other fig leaves (terrorism, WMD) have been stripped away.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

If China had invaded the US with overwhelming firepower, and Americans fought a guerilla campaign to thwart attempts to normalise the situation, would you say the same?

I'd say that China is responsible for the killing it does, and we for the killing we do. That is the case in all wars. The situation is slightly different in Iraq, because we have a responsibility to protect some people while destroying others.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

And the answer is to invade? Wow. A career in the diplomatic corps beckons.

Invasion is not the answer to all instability. I was simply mentioning that we have not caused a great deal of instability in the region, but stability is mounting in Iraq, as more and more people become involved in the political process.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Aha, well you may have a point there. However, that was emphatically NOT the reason behind the War, was it? It is just all that's left by way of justification now the other fig leaves (terrorism, WMD) have been stripped away.

As I said before, I find the idea that Saddam was not supporting terrorism at all highly implausible. There also is the reason of setting up democracy in the heart of the restrictive Middle East.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

. . . fig leaves . . . have been stripped away.

[Lief Erikson]

70% of registered voters voted, and apparently, many also voted in insurgent dominated areas.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As I said before, I find the idea that Saddam was not supporting terrorism at all highly implausible. There also is the reason of setting up democracy in the heart of the restrictive Middle East.

Implausible is not the same as proven. Why has there been no evidence presented of this? They have had long enough to find it.

But my point is that the "setting up democracy" argument was very much a post-hoc justification and not one, I think, which the American people would have supported as a sole reason for starting a war.