PDA

View Full Version : Why are we having so much trouble in Iraq?


KC Jones
01-29-2005, 05:46 AM
pick the ONE that you think is more relevant. I wish I had put more time into it because I can already think of plenty more options to add.

2bikemike
01-29-2005, 08:23 AM
I think the 2 main problems are that:

1.) The international community really dropped the ball. They were all a part of the resolutions condemning Saddam and his evil ways. But lacked the fortitude to actually enforce the resolutions.

2.) The peace will never be won until the good Iraqi people stand up for themselves and start taking charge of their own destiny. The faster they progress toward their freedom the faster we get the hell outta there.

HC_Chief
01-29-2005, 09:12 AM
I voted International Community, but I believe it is a combination of our own mistakes (disarming and disbanding the Iraqi army) in conjunction with a corrupt international community willing to overlook systematic extermination of peoples in favor of skimming $billions.

tiptap
01-29-2005, 09:25 AM
There are two parts to war. One is the battle itself. Here I never doubt the American ability to win the battle. We have the technology and the people who know how to use it to win the battle. The second part of any war is controlling the field. This is a different focus. To control the field you have only three options. One is to displace the local population with one that is align with you like we did on the frontier. You could make slaves of the locals or treat them as colonalists or such as the Nazi did. This leads to the 2nd option of controlling by winning the support of the local population. This option has a very narrow window to implement before the population sees itself in the 1st situation. It also requires a much bigger investment early on to effect confidence.

This administration only understood the planning for the battle. They were arrogant in the knowledge that the battle could be won and woefully unprepared in light of having to go it alone to have success on the the 2nd option of winning the field. This leaves only long term fighting as the third and present situation. That is the long run, at least 10 years. Such fights at the scale in Iraq will be a drain on the economy equal to 10 times the lost of people and resources as the original 9/11 terrorist attack. Let me say here. The Bush administration was nearly perfect in their early dealings with Afganistan. They allied themselves with local people and utilized our strength in weaponry to turn the tide of battle. They destroyed the safety afforded these knaves in that country. We could have afforded to wait out Hussein, our preimmenence may be the price for not waiting. The drain on our economy will accelerate the decline of US verses China, India and even the European Union.

memyselfI
01-29-2005, 09:26 AM
where is the 'it's not a singular problem or solution because the problems are numbers 2-5' option?

KCWolfman
01-29-2005, 09:44 AM
where is the 'it's not a singular problem or solution because the problems are numbers 2-5' option?
You forgot 1 as well.

the Talking Can
01-29-2005, 09:54 AM
there are no problems in Iraq, no war either.....I don't know what you're talking about....

HC_Chief
01-29-2005, 10:36 AM
With that kind of attitude is it really a surprise why the word 'liberal' has negative connotations?

Mr. Laz
01-29-2005, 10:59 AM
because you can't "control" people who don't want to be controlled and are willing to die rather than be controlled or influenced.

nation building is a nasty business and more often than not blows up in your face.

Even if it eventually works and the country comes around, they usually will end up resenting/hating the country that started they whole "building" process in the first place.

Brock
01-29-2005, 11:20 AM
Because every towel wrapper with a bone to pick with life in general is over there with a death wish. It is generally not Iraqis that are causing the problems, it is syrians, iranians, and jordanians, and probably saudis as well. PS, people were killed in huge numbers when this nation was "built" as well.

Cochise
01-29-2005, 11:28 AM
Where's the "whoever thought it would be quick and easy in the first place was an idiot" option?

penchief
01-29-2005, 11:52 AM
There are two parts to war. One is the battle itself. Here I never doubt the American ability to win the battle. We have the technology and the people who know how to use it to win the battle. The second part of any war is controlling the field. This is a different focus. To control the field you have only three options. One is to displace the local population with one that is align with you like we did on the frontier. You could make slaves of the locals or treat them as colonalists or such as the Nazi did. This leads to the 2nd option of controlling by winning the support of the local population. This option has a very narrow window to implement before the population sees itself in the 1st situation. It also requires a much bigger investment early on to effect confidence.

This administration only understood the planning for the battle. They were arrogant in the knowledge that the battle could be won and woefully unprepared in light of having to go it alone to have success on the the 2nd option of winning the field. This leaves only long term fighting as the third and present situation. That is the long run, at least 10 years. Such fights at the scale in Iraq will be a drain on the economy equal to 10 times the lost of people and resources as the original 9/11 terrorist attack. Let me say here. The Bush administration was nearly perfect in their early dealings with Afganistan. They allied themselves with local people and utilized our strength in weaponry to turn the tide of battle. They destroyed the safety afforded these knaves in that country. We could have afforded to wait out Hussein, our preimmenence may be the price for not waiting. The drain on our economy will accelerate the decline of US verses China, India and even the European Union.

This is an even-handed assessment, IMO.

If ideological arrogance was an option I would have chosen it. IMHO, it was their self-righteous arrogance that spurned the regional expertise, military expertise, and international expertise which provided more than enough warning about the exact scenario we are now witnessing. If they did not have so much disdain for the opinions, advice, or criticisms of anyone who didn't see the world exactly as they do, they might have approached Iraq with more pragmatism than with the "shoot first, ask questions later" style that is so characteristic of our self-annointed savior of a president, IMO.

memyselfI
01-29-2005, 11:54 AM
You forgot 1 as well.

Ah yes, it's the fault of the meanie ole power impotent libbies that have caused all the problems in Iraq. Because of their position within the government and all the control they've exerted over the policy in Iraq this 'election' seems to be faltering in SAFE places around the world thus is an indicator of what is going to happen IN Iraq on E-Day. :thumb:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20050129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_overseas_vote

Iraqis Worldwide Continue Casting Ballots

14 minutes ago Middle East - AP


By ED JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - Fistfights broke out at an Australian polling station for Iraqis abroad Saturday when a group of Islamic extremists chanted slogans against those casting ballots, while Iraqis around the world voted for a second day in their homeland's election.

The scuffle was the first report of trouble to mar polling that began a day earlier under tight security, allowing Iraqi expatriates in 14 countries to cast absentee ballots for Iraq (news - web sites)'s first democratic election in half a century.


Iraqis elsewhere were enthusiastic as they lined up at the ballot boxes, even turning out in the hundreds in the Jordanian town of Zarqa, the hometown of Iraq's most feared terrorist leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, election officials said.


"I learned from my parents about past bitter days in my homeland and I voted in the hope of replacing that with a brighter future," said Ahmad Abai, 21, casting his ballot in the Iranian capital, Tehran, where he was born to Iraqi parents.


Some complained of low turnout as election organizers said just under a third of registered Iraqi expatriates cast ballots on Friday, the first of three days of voting. The election in Iraq takes place on Sunday.


"It is a shame, for me it is very depressing," said Hashim Ali of the Iraqi Community Association in Britain, where 30,961 of the estimated 150,000 Iraqis eligible to vote had registered. "These are great days for Iraqi people. I feel let down by the Iraqi community in the U.K.."


The low numbers have been attributed to a shortage of registration and polling places, fears of violence or reprisals from Iraq's violent insurgency and lack of documentation.


The Geneva-based International Organization for Migration, which is conducting the expatriate vote for the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, said 84,429 of the 280,303 registered Iraqis cast ballots on Friday, the most recent figures available.


Of those, the United Arab Emirates recorded the highest proportion, with 49 percent of those registered or 6,154 voting. In the United States, that figure was 22 percent or 5,643. Just 183 Iraqis about 18 percent of those registered voted in France, the lowest proportion in any of the 14 countries.


The news followed a disappointing registration turnout, with only a quarter of the 1.2 million eligible Iraqis worldwide signing up to vote, despite two extensions of the deadline.


Organizers said they were hopeful that most of those registered would cast ballots by Sunday.


The turnout Saturday was lighter but still "very satisfactory. There's a constant flow of voters heading to the stations," IOM spokeswoman Monica Ellena said in Iran.


Underscoring security concerns, protesters in Australia, identified by ballot organizers as Wahhabis followers of an austere brand of Sunni Islam suspected of having influence over militants in Iraq yelled insults at voters.


Some 50 people scuffled after the protesters began taking photographs of the poll, being conducted in a neighborhood dominated by Iraqi Shiites, organizers said, forcing the polling station to close for an hour. No injuries were reported.


"This is scary for the people, taking photos of the voting," said Thair Wali, an Iraqi adviser for the International Organization for Migration.


IOM spokesman Jean-Philippe Chauzy said no other violence had been reported at the international polling centers.


In Norway, eight buses packed with Iraqis left Oslo for polling stations in Goteborg in southern Sweden on Saturday, and 24 more buses were scheduled to make the 200-mile trip later in the day.

Turnout also was brisk in Amman, Jordan, where poles and building walls were plastered with campaign posters.

Thousands of Iraqis turned up at polls in Iran, which had the highest proportion of registered voters, amid tight security.

A third of those registered in Syria voted Friday, and the flow was even higher Saturday, officials said. But many Iraqis turned up without having registered, leading to arguments and disappointment.

"I came from Yemen especially to vote. But I arrived late because I was sick," said Amira Hassan, a native of the Iraqi city of Karbala said at a polling station in a Damascus suburb. "I want to vote. It is my country and I must vote."

Voters will select the 275-seat National Assembly that will appoint a new government for Iraq and draft a permanent constitution. To be eligible, voters must be born in Iraq or have an Iraqi father, and have turned 18 on or before Dec. 31, 2004.

When voting concludes on Sunday, all the overseas counts will be sent in to the operation's headquarters in Amman, which will forward them on to Baghdad. The results will be announced several days later.

penchief
01-29-2005, 11:56 AM
Where's the "whoever thought it would be quick and easy in the first place was an idiot" option?

That option was removed by representatives of the president since Mr. Bush was the first subscriber to this theory long before "Shock and Awe" was executed.

KCWolfman
01-29-2005, 12:02 PM
That option was removed by representatives of the president since Mr. Bush was the first subscriber to this theory long before "Shock and Awe" was executed.
Yes, because it was working so well with the previous 2 administrations.

penchief
01-29-2005, 12:27 PM
Yes, because it was working so well with the previous 2 administrations.

In hindsight, containment appears to have been successful in keeping Saddam in a box, and therefore, severely limiting his ability to threaten his neighbors, let alone us.

On the other hand, deliberate, rash, and often petulant action seems to have created a dilemna in which we now find ourselves attempting to gracefully safe face via shifting justifacations and Jeffersonian rhetoric. While also trying our damnedest not to gift wrap Iraq before presenting it to Iran.

KCWolfman
01-29-2005, 02:01 PM
In hindsight, containment appears to have been successful in keeping Saddam in a box, and therefore, severely limiting his ability to threaten his neighbors, let alone us.

On the other hand, deliberate, rash, and often petulant action seems to have created a dilemna in which we now find ourselves attempting to gracefully safe face via shifting justifacations and Jeffersonian rhetoric. While also trying our damnedest not to gift wrap Iraq before presenting it to Iran.
Those who were in Iraq disagree with you, but what do they know?

penchief
01-29-2005, 02:04 PM
Those who were in Iraq disagree with you, but what do they know?

Apparently, not all of those in Iraq. Only those who agree with you. :)

KCWolfman
01-29-2005, 02:06 PM
Ah yes, it's the fault of the meanie ole power impotent libbies that have caused all the problems in Iraq..

"All" the problems? I said "ALL"? Someone is having trouble with reading comprehension again, aren't they?

No, not all, a portion, and not "mean impotent libbies" - though if that is your perception, that does explain a great deal of your posts. I meant bitter people like yourself with an antagonstic hateful attitude toward our military does affect their morale. Hopefully, their perception is that you aren't worth the trouble or your message is so minimal it doesn't affect them.

KCWolfman
01-29-2005, 02:07 PM
Apparently, not all of those in Iraq. Only those who agree with you. :)
Yeah, those who were jailed, killed, tortured, and separated from families merely for speaking or thinking thoughts against their dictator.

KCWolfman
01-29-2005, 02:08 PM
Apparently, not all of those in Iraq. Only those who agree with you. :)
Of course, those who agree with your viewpoint are outsourcing terrorists to help the cause.

mlyonsd
01-29-2005, 02:40 PM
I think it's mostly a combination of options 2 and 3.

There is no doubt the Bush administration missed the ball regarding how the Iraqi's would react. It seems to me they assumed the Iraqi people would be so happy to be free that they would take a more active role in 'insurgent control'.

The election is a big deal. Will it solve all the problems right away, of course not. The key to making Iraq a success story is how well the common Iraqi embraces his freedom and decides that it is too precious a gift to let outsiders or non-believers destroy it.

That means there is a possibility of an outright civil war. You could say somewhat of a limited civil war is already taking place with the bombings and policy of intimidation going on. Until the majority of Iraqis decide enough is enough and snuff out the insurgents themselves there will be trouble.

Let's all hope they grow some nads and do just that.

Bwana
01-29-2005, 03:16 PM
2.) The peace will never be won until the good Iraqi people stand up for themselves and start taking charge of their own destiny. The faster they progress toward their freedom the faster we get the hell outta there.

Now I agree with this 100%. After seeing thousands of stories about this war, the one thing that sticks out is the fact that the people don't seem to be helping the cause much at all. They seem like a group of pussies as a whole. Get off your ass and kick some ass you sorry bunch of weak tits.

jAZ
01-29-2005, 08:37 PM
Wow, the results of the poll at this point are suprising (Bush had no post war plan #1).

The critical objectivity of the Planet's dominant neo-con faction seems to have returned post-election.

chris
01-30-2005, 12:17 AM
There are two parts to war. One is the battle itself. Here I never doubt the American ability to win the battle. We have the technology and the people who know how to use it to win the battle. The second part of any war is controlling the field. This is a different focus. To control the field you have only three options. One is to displace the local population with one that is align with you like we did on the frontier. You could make slaves of the locals or treat them as colonalists or such as the Nazi did. This leads to the 2nd option of controlling by winning the support of the local population. This option has a very narrow window to implement before the population sees itself in the 1st situation. It also requires a much bigger investment early on to effect confidence.

This administration only understood the planning for the battle. They were arrogant in the knowledge that the battle could be won and woefully unprepared in light of having to go it alone to have success on the the 2nd option of winning the field. This leaves only long term fighting as the third and present situation. That is the long run, at least 10 years. Such fights at the scale in Iraq will be a drain on the economy equal to 10 times the lost of people and resources as the original 9/11 terrorist attack. Let me say here. The Bush administration was nearly perfect in their early dealings with Afganistan. They allied themselves with local people and utilized our strength in weaponry to turn the tide of battle. They destroyed the safety afforded these knaves in that country. We could have afforded to wait out Hussein, our preimmenence may be the price for not waiting. The drain on our economy will accelerate the decline of US verses China, India and even the European Union.

You were doing great until the last two sentences. On what fact can you make such a vague statement? Just like the Japanese in the 1980s.

chris
01-30-2005, 12:23 AM
In hindsight, containment appears to have been successful in keeping Saddam in a box, and therefore, severely limiting his ability to threaten his neighbors, let alone us.

On the other hand, deliberate, rash, and often petulant action seems to have created a dilemna in which we now find ourselves attempting to gracefully safe face via shifting justifacations and Jeffersonian rhetoric. While also trying our damnedest not to gift wrap Iraq before presenting it to Iran.

Hindsight is always 20-20. All the intel agencies worldwide thought SH had WMD. Based on that intel, we had no choice.

Still doesn't excuse lack of post war plans.

penchief
01-30-2005, 02:12 AM
Yeah, those who were jailed, killed, tortured, and separated from families merely for speaking or thinking thoughts against their dictator.

I can't disagree with your feelings toward inhumane treatment. I have the same feelings. However, there are worse dictators in the world other than the ones we help to set up. I don't even disagree with the notion of removing Saddam. I never have. What is at question, IMO, is the forsight and the discretion exercised by what may be the most irresponsible presidency in modern history. Efforts to counter Saddam's regime or even remove it should have ended up much different than what it has. IMO, the dilemna we now face is due to arrogant, narrow-minded, self-righteous, ideological, and petulant decision-making on the part of this administration.

It's kinda' hard not to have just a little bit more respect for Clinton for rebuffing the neocon weenies when they wanted him to be their tool. Too bad for America that George W. Bush wanted to be their tool.

Out of curiousness, did you support President Clinton's efforts to put an end to the ongoing genocide that was taking place in Bosnia/Kosovo? Or were you one of those from the right that criticized Clinton?

By the way, it is my opinion that a Palestinian state would have been the ideal spot to experiment with democracy in the Middle East. It seems like that would be a win/win for all concerned. Yet one of this administration's first official actions in the Middle East was to remove ourselves from the peace process. As the violence escalated Mr. Bush said it was their problem, not ours. Remember?

Of course 9/11 changed everything, right?

penchief
01-30-2005, 02:28 AM
Hindsight is always 20-20. All the intel agencies worldwide thought SH had WMD. Based on that intel, we had no choice.

Still doesn't excuse lack of post war plans.

And it still doesn't excuse their conduct leading up to the war. Much of our current hardship would have been aleviated by the presence of a real coalition. It should have been easier for reasonable people to come to a concencus when everyone had a stake. Unwillingness to listen, to compromise, and to rethink any part of their plan is the number one reason we are paying such a steep price in Iraq, IMO.

I believe we are dealing with the consequences of this administration's choices. IMO, it is nature's way to produce outcomes that are relevant to the means by which a goals is pursued. We created our own problems in Iraq and I believe the United States will experience the consequences of this administration's administrating for a long time.

CHIEF4EVER
01-30-2005, 06:25 AM
And it still doesn't excuse their conduct leading up to the war. Much of our current hardship would have been aleviated by the presence of a real coalition. It should have been easier for reasonable people to come to a concencus when everyone had a stake. Unwillingness to listen, to compromise, and to rethink any part of their plan is the number one reason we are paying such a steep price in Iraq, IMO.

I believe we are dealing with the consequences of this administration's choices. IMO, it is nature's way to produce outcomes that are relevant to the means by which a goals is pursued. We created our own problems in Iraq and I believe the United States will experience the consequences of this administration's administrating for a long time.

You gotta be joking, right? Before making such a ridiculous statement as the one that is in bold type, ask yourself this........where were France and Germany all this time? You know, our so called Allies and potential "coalition partners". Oh, that's right, teaming up with Russia to secretly suck billions in illegal funds out of Iraq. Listen, we are a sovereign nation. WE DON'T HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION TO DEFEND THIS COUNTRY OR IT'S INTERESTS.

penchief
01-30-2005, 08:21 AM
You gotta be joking, right? Before making such a ridiculous statement as the one that is in bold type, ask yourself this........where were France and Germany all this time? You know, our so called Allies and potential "coalition partners". Oh, that's right, teaming up with Russia to secretly suck billions in illegal funds out of Iraq. Listen, we are a sovereign nation. WE DON'T HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION TO DEFEND THIS COUNTRY OR IT'S INTERESTS.

Oh good, here we go again. It's not about asking permission. It has to do with going about things the right way. The smart way. The honest way. Some of those allies whom this administration tried so hard to humble with their immature behavior have been open to giving limited forms of assistance all along. For some reason we just don't like their terms. We should be pursuing all diplomatic channels in our efforts to do what is in the best interests of our country. This administration's "my way or the highway" attitude toward many of our traditional allies "has not been helpful," to use one of my favorite Don Rumsfeld phrases.

Baby Lee
01-30-2005, 08:32 AM
Out of curiousness, did you support President Clinton's efforts to put an end to the ongoing genocide that was taking place in Bosnia/Kosovo? Or were you one of those from the right that criticized Clinton?
Give me one person who criticized Clinton who is behind Bush now? The only serious criticism that comes to mind is pulling out of Somalia with our tail between our legs and launching bombs on the same day as his deposition.

CHIEF4EVER
01-30-2005, 09:41 AM
Give me one person who criticized Clinton who is behind Bush now? The only serious criticism that comes to mind is pulling out of Somalia with our tail between our legs and launching bombs on the same day as his deposition.
Ditto. I was all for helping out in Bosnia/Kosovo. And I likewise was pizzed as heck when Clintwomanizeron botched up the Somalia fiasco.

go bowe
01-30-2005, 11:48 AM
Ah yes, it's the fault of the meanie ole power impotent libbies that have caused all the problems in Iraq. Because of their position within the government and all the control they've exerted over the policy in Iraq this 'election' seems to be faltering in SAFE places around the world thus is an indicator of what is going to happen IN Iraq on E-Day. :thumb:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20050129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_overseas_vote

Iraqis Worldwide Continue Casting Ballots

14 minutes ago Middle East - AP


By ED JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - Fistfights broke out at an Australian polling station for Iraqis abroad Saturday when a group of Islamic extremists chanted slogans against those casting ballots, while Iraqis around the world voted for a second day in their homeland's election.

The scuffle was the first report of trouble to mar polling that began a day earlier under tight security, allowing Iraqi expatriates in 14 countries to cast absentee ballots for Iraq (news - web sites)'s first democratic election in half a century.


Iraqis elsewhere were enthusiastic as they lined up at the ballot boxes, even turning out in the hundreds in the Jordanian town of Zarqa, the hometown of Iraq's most feared terrorist leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, election officials said.


"I learned from my parents about past bitter days in my homeland and I voted in the hope of replacing that with a brighter future," said Ahmad Abai, 21, casting his ballot in the Iranian capital, Tehran, where he was born to Iraqi parents.


Some complained of low turnout as election organizers said just under a third of registered Iraqi expatriates cast ballots on Friday, the first of three days of voting. The election in Iraq takes place on Sunday.


"It is a shame, for me it is very depressing," said Hashim Ali of the Iraqi Community Association in Britain, where 30,961 of the estimated 150,000 Iraqis eligible to vote had registered. "These are great days for Iraqi people. I feel let down by the Iraqi community in the U.K.."


The low numbers have been attributed to a shortage of registration and polling places, fears of violence or reprisals from Iraq's violent insurgency and lack of documentation.


The Geneva-based International Organization for Migration, which is conducting the expatriate vote for the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, said 84,429 of the 280,303 registered Iraqis cast ballots on Friday, the most recent figures available.


Of those, the United Arab Emirates recorded the highest proportion, with 49 percent of those registered or 6,154 voting. In the United States, that figure was 22 percent or 5,643. Just 183 Iraqis about 18 percent of those registered voted in France, the lowest proportion in any of the 14 countries.


The news followed a disappointing registration turnout, with only a quarter of the 1.2 million eligible Iraqis worldwide signing up to vote, despite two extensions of the deadline.


Organizers said they were hopeful that most of those registered would cast ballots by Sunday.


The turnout Saturday was lighter but still "very satisfactory. There's a constant flow of voters heading to the stations," IOM spokeswoman Monica Ellena said in Iran.


Underscoring security concerns, protesters in Australia, identified by ballot organizers as Wahhabis followers of an austere brand of Sunni Islam suspected of having influence over militants in Iraq yelled insults at voters.


Some 50 people scuffled after the protesters began taking photographs of the poll, being conducted in a neighborhood dominated by Iraqi Shiites, organizers said, forcing the polling station to close for an hour. No injuries were reported.


"This is scary for the people, taking photos of the voting," said Thair Wali, an Iraqi adviser for the International Organization for Migration.


IOM spokesman Jean-Philippe Chauzy said no other violence had been reported at the international polling centers.


In Norway, eight buses packed with Iraqis left Oslo for polling stations in Goteborg in southern Sweden on Saturday, and 24 more buses were scheduled to make the 200-mile trip later in the day.

Turnout also was brisk in Amman, Jordan, where poles and building walls were plastered with campaign posters.

Thousands of Iraqis turned up at polls in Iran, which had the highest proportion of registered voters, amid tight security.

A third of those registered in Syria voted Friday, and the flow was even higher Saturday, officials said. But many Iraqis turned up without having registered, leading to arguments and disappointment.

"I came from Yemen especially to vote. But I arrived late because I was sick," said Amira Hassan, a native of the Iraqi city of Karbala said at a polling station in a Damascus suburb. "I want to vote. It is my country and I must vote."

Voters will select the 275-seat National Assembly that will appoint a new government for Iraq and draft a permanent constitution. To be eligible, voters must be born in Iraq or have an Iraqi father, and have turned 18 on or before Dec. 31, 2004.

When voting concludes on Sunday, all the overseas counts will be sent in to the operation's headquarters in Amman, which will forward them on to Baghdad. The results will be announced several days later.it's simply astonishing to see places to vote in such countries as iran and syria and jordan...

hardly places that you would expect to allow such a basic democratic function to occur...

the high turnout in iran is particularly amazing...

kudos to the expatriate iraquis... :clap: :clap: :clap:

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 02:53 PM
it's simply astonishing to see places to vote in such countries as iran and syria and jordan...

hardly places that you would expect to allow such a basic democratic function to occur...

the high turnout in iran is particularly amazing...

kudos to the expatriate iraquis... :clap: :clap: :clap:

We heard from people in Iran that the government was very active in encouraging the Iraqi vote in Iran...they want Sistani in power.

I don't think it's amazing at all. They see an opening...