Exactly ETW
I remember the smiling faces in that voting line on the news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

game, set and match!

---

Glad you are handling ideas and not hand grenades: you'd blowup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Unless you can show some evidence that we FORCED 80% of the Iraqi people to vote for something they didn't want or rigged the election, you got nothin'.

NOW it's game, set and match.

---

Hello again, Elliot:

I don't know. You somehow fail to mention that we had 130,000 soldiers in that country helping the Iraqi's fight a civil war during this election... It sure puts a different slant on things than simply 80% of the people voted for thus and so...

Of course, NOT to you. You make it sound as though the good citizens of St. Paul voted 80% for street repairs, blah, blah, blah...

You don't focus on the bigger picture. Probably too painful, huh?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

and 80% of them voted for a Constitutional Parlimentary Democratic system.

---

What options of political direction did they have? Did they weight differ models or was that their only choice? You know it's kind tough to evaluate other options when there is a huge military from an occuping force is breathing down their neck. So unless you can show me that they had a choice is deciding what form of government they wanted we can only concluded it's what the US wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

Glad you are handling ideas and not hand grenades: you'd blowup.

---

What does that even mean?

If they were being forced why where they so happy?
Do all the Iraqi's that posed this similar picture look forced to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What options of political direction did they have? Did they weight differ models or was that their only choice? You know it's kind tough to evaluate other options when there is a huge military from an occuping force is breathing down their neck. So unless you can show me that they had a choice is deciding what form of government they wanted we can only concluded it's what the US wanted.

---

What options?

Very simple:

Option #1: we like what has been proposed, and we're going to vote for it.

Option #2: we don't like what has been proposed, and we're going to vote against it and make the interim leadership come up with a better plan.

They chose option #1 overwhelmingly.

That's what votes are all about, NK.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

I dunno. You somehow fail to mention that we had 130,000 soldiers in that country helping the Iraqi's fight a civil war during this election.... It sure puts a different slant on things than simply 80% of the people voted for thus and so...

Of course, NOT to you. You make it sound as though the good citizens of St. Paul voted 80% for street repairs, blah, blah, blah....

You don't focus on the bigger picture. Probably too painful, huh?

excon

---

Uh huh...

I'll say it again.

Can you show me any evidence that the US soldiers or any US official forced anyone to vote, forced anyone to vote a specific way, or somehow rigged the vote?

If yes, put up or shut up.

If not, just shut up.

Show some respect for our military. You used to be one of them.

Elliot

I really have a hard time talking about ordinary people when it comes to politics

Whoever rose to be in a seat of power in Iraq when saddam was chucked out HAD NO CHOICE but to speak to us, and if they wanted to get their sovereignty back, and trade with the rest of the world without sanctions they HAD NO CHOICE but accept democracy in their own words

I am going to contradict myself here, of course they had a choice - they could have said no to the allies and were going to do it their own way

What do you think would have happened then - we would have just left and left a country to become a melting pot?

We did that once, and Hitler came out of the pot and annoyed a lot of people - or has the history you profess to know been lost again!

One more point... if we were forcing the Iraqis to accept democracy, why would we choose to force them into a parlimentary system similar to those in European countries, instead of the Republican style democracy that we use in the USA? If we were trying to make them over in our image, why did we instead make them over in Europe's image?

Elliot

Great point ETW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

I really have a hard time talking about ordinary people when it comes to politics

Whoever rose to be in a seat of power in Iraq when saddam was chucked out HAD NO CHOICE but to speak to us, and if they wanted to get their soverignty back, and trade with the rest of the world without sanctions they HAD NO CHOICE but accept democracy in their own words

I am going to contradict myself here, of course they had a choice - they could have said no to the allies and were going to do it their own way

What do you think would have happened then - we would have just left and left a country to become a melting pot?

We did that once, and Hitler came out of the pot and annoyed alot of people - or has the history you profess to know been lost again!

---

Actually, yes, I think if they had decided to create a different form of government we would have left. We might have left some soldiers there for basic security until they got their own security forces in order, but we wouldn't have intervened in the sectarian violence once it started. We would have told them "you wanted to govern your own way, go ahead and govern" and walked away from them when the sectarian violence picked up instead of trying to work with all the factions.

They had that option. They instead CHOSE democracy, because they looked at the rest of the world and noticed a pattern... countries with democratic leadership are generally richer and more engaged in world-wide economics, while those with tayrannies and dictatorships are generally poorer and have little connection with the rest of the world in any meaningful economic sense. They want that economic stability and growth.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

One more point... if we were forcing the Iraqis to accept democracy, why would we choose to force them into a parlimentary system similar to those in European countries, instead of the Republican style democracy that we use in the USA? If we were trying to make them over in our image, why did we instead make them over in Europe's image?

Elliot

---

Now let me think, was it just americans over there in Iraq, mmm!

The movies that will come out will probably show that it was just the US in Iraq, thank goodness history is not written by phoneywood

As far as your Hitler argument is concerned... Iraq already had their Hitler. His name was Saddam Hussein. The one thing they were going to be sure to do was prevent another Hitler from cropping up. I don't believe that this was ever a credible danger from a country that had just thrown off Saddam.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Now let me think, was it just americans over there in Iraq, mmm!

The movies that will come out will probably show that it was just the US in Iraq, thank goodness history is not written by phoneywood

---

But the charge put forth is that WE, the AMERICANS were the ones forcing them to accept our values... not you Europeans. That's what the articles you put forward seem to be saying anyway.

So unless we are now changing the accusation from it being Americans who forced their policies on Iraq to it being the USA and EUROPE TOGETHER that forced their values on the Iraqis, the point stands.

Are you changing your accusation? If so, can you show me any evidence that European soldiers rigged the Iraqi elections?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Actually, yes, I think if they had decided to create a different form of government we would have left. We might have left some soldiers there for basic security until they got their own security forces in order, but we wouldn't have intervened in the sectarian violence once it started. We would have told them "you wanted to govern your own way, go ahead and govern" and walked away from them when the sectarian violence picked up instead of trying to work with all the factions.

They had that option. They instead CHOSE democracy, because they looked at the rest of the world and noticed a pattern... countries with democratic leadership are generally richer and more engaged in world-wide economics, while those with tayrannies and dictatorships are generally poorer and have little connection with the rest of the world in any meaningful economic sense. They want that economic stability and growth.

Elliot

---

Hahahahahahahaha

So we didn't train and provide support to the iraqies so they could fight for themselves - we were there and are still available for training and support - all they have to do is call tollfree 555-help :D (But No Influence there)

And pal, if you think that our politicians didn't sit down and offer something to the new council for choosing and pushing democracy onto the people, then you really need to understand what politics is all about!(But No Influence there)

Mmmm (AGAIN!) World Econmics would also include the WTO which have stringent rules for allowing countries to trade on the open market, china had to go through the process and all countries that support WTO are mostly democratic in nature and as such has an influence over any other ocunrty wishing to be part of it (But No Influence there)

And secondly, so our combined cultural influence had nothing to do with their decision, especially after what you have stated (But No Influence there)

Elliot, politics is a lot more intangled than simply the 2+2 version you insist on

Great point phlanx!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

As far as your Hitler argument is concerned... Iraq already had their Hitler. His name was Saddam Hussein. The one thing they were going to be sure to do was prevent another Hitler from cropping up. I don't believe that this was ever a credible danger from a country that had just thrown off Saddam.

Elliot

---

Your missing the vital point, if a country is left to fend for itself after being destroyed by war, YOU MUST provide an infrastructure of stability to help the country trade and go to work

And as for just one Hussein - there was awhole list of people waiting in the wings to take the seat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

hahahahahahahaha

So we didnt train and provide support to the iraqies so they could fight for themselves - we were there and are still available for training and support - all they have to do is call tollfree 555-help :D (But No Influence there)

And pal, if you think that our politicans didnt sit down and offer something to the new council for choosing and pushing democracy onto the people, then you really need to understand what politics is all about!(But No Influence there)

mmmm (AGAIN!) World Econmics would also include the WTO which have stringent rules for allowing countries to trade on the open market, china had to go through the process and all countries that support WTO are mostly democratic in nature and as such has an influence over any other ocunrty wishing to be part of it (But No Influence there)

And secondly, so our combined cultural influence had nothing to do with their decision, especially after what you have stated (But No Influence there)

Elliot, politics is alot more intangled than simply the 2+2 version you insist on

---

So... It wasn't the USA that forced it's policies on the Iraqis... it was the WTO.

Got it.

What you are actually saying is that the USA is innocent of all charges... the WTO is the guilty party.

Thanks. Got it now.

And remember, as I said before, influence is very different from FORCING or "pressing" as you called it. Did we influence them? I certainly hope so. Did we PRESS them? Nope.