Iraqi Freedom Held in Balance by Elections?

<p>A friend had this link on his blog. I thought it was interesting, giving the perspective of an Iraqi on the impact of the U.S. Presidential Election's outcome. </p>

<p><a href=""&gt;;/a&gt;&lt;/p>


<p>Vancat, how did I know you were going to like that?</p>

<p>Anyways...the elections are not going to happen, or if they do, they are going to be contested and eventually thrown out. Take a look at Afghanistan. They had elections. And they are now in the process of being thrown out because of voter fraud. If anyone actually believes that free elections are going to happen in January in Iraq, you are simply crazy.</p>

<p>I understand where that Iraqi citizen may have been coming from, however, it may be an even larger threat to terrorists if we could have the help of foreign nations such as France, Spain, Germany etc. The fact Bush cannot admit there is a problem in Iraq is truly scary. Even the green zone got hit. Not only are things not getting any better...they are deteriorating rapidly.</p>

<p>No no no. The Iraqi blogger wasn't talking about the IRAQI elections, he was talking about the impact of U.S ELECTIONS on terrorism. </p>

<p>Perhaps you should <em>read</em> the article before responding to it. ;)</p>

<p>That blog severely lacks logic. For starters it shows a lack of understanding of how international relations work. Its quite frightening actually that some of you seem to agree with this guy. Really, if we are going to fight a war on terrorism, the least you can do as citizens is educate yourself on the orign and depth of the terrorist hate for America (of course if you were to take a book out from the library on that topic, the government will most likely survail it under our lovely Patriot Act but lets not get into that). </p>

<p>If you haven't noticed the terrorists in Iraq have already intesified their assualt to the maximum of their capabilities.</p>

<p>To them, Bush does not represent a symbol of defiance against the terrorists; America does. The terrorists hate the whole notion of America far too much to be bothered by segmenting hate to particular individuals. They will hate any President of the United States, regardless of party affiliation. They always have, they always will. Their motive to disrupt the US Presidential elections is not out of hate for Bush; it is out of hate for democracy.</p>

<p>"and it is a fact, that all the enemies of America, with the terrorists foremost, are hoping for him to be deposed in the upcoming elections"</p>

<p>I should have stopped reading at that point (I typically choose not to waste my time reading the writing of someone who can not differentiate fact from misguided personal opinion)</p>

<p>Bascially there is nothing left to say about that blog, it is uneducated, ignorant and very misleading.</p>

<p>I will however make a much stronger argument supported by logic:</p>

<p>Terrorists will always hate America regardless of who the President is. The orign of this hate far surpasses the mere term of one presidency. Iraq and terrorism do not go hand and hand. Neither does Bush and the terrorists. We have only recently created a warzone for terroristsin Iraq post "Operation Freedom". A change in the United States presidency is not a victory for terrorism because both candidates are vigorously against the terrorists. If anything, putting Kerry in office will only further our effectivness agaisnt the terrorists. We have lost many of our allies in this fight due to Bush's actions. A new President will do one thing: allow for the possibility for old alliances to be reconcilled. Result: The World vs the Terrorists.... instead of the United States vs the terrorists</p>

<p>Yeah! i1lmatic agreed with me on the alliance issue. I did read the article, but one of the big things Bush has been talking about is how terrorism will decline once elections are held in Iraq. That's just ridiculous. </p>

<p>The war and Bush go with the Alcoholics Anonymous idea: You can't stop a problem until you realize you have a problem. With that in mind, Kerry realizes the problem. Get him in office to fix it as best he can (he at least can try and create alliances that are real coalitions).</p>

<p>Yes, fantastic. You're so right. I'll vote for Kerry so he can get France and Germany on our side.</p>

<p>Wait, what's that you whimper? I can't hear you. Oh...France and Germany wouldn't join us even if Kerry was elected? Wouldn't even consider it? Huh. Hell, that really puts a bit of a damper on things.</p>

<p>It's a good thing we didn't have to ask for Germany's support in WW2, I don't think they would have given it.</p>

<p>Also...the blog is "misleading" and "ignorant"? This person actually lives in Iraq. I think they have a much better perspective on this than any of us do.</p>

<p>It's not soley a matter of France and Germany... it is a matter of putting a global face on what should be a global war.... GWB has failed to do so.... his father on the other hand created the successful coalition to do so in Desert Storm...GWB is incapable of creating a better coalition because his actions have closed this option for him. However a new leader [fresh face] who has not already doomed himself, may have the option of reconciling some of these countries back to the playing field.</p>

<p>The blog is misleading and ignorant. I still stand by that. The terrorist mindset is not set against George Bush, it is set against America. History proves this. An election of John Kerry is not a victory for terrorists. He is equally committed to bringing them down. If the author of that piece really believes the terrorists will feel victorous, than so be it. What does that change? Who cares what they feel? They are incapable of intensifying their assault becasue they are already doing so at a maximum. We will still continue the attack on not only an equal level, but on a more effective level. Baghdad Bob thought Iraq was winning the initial war (vs Saddam) and we didn't crack into Baghdad. The truth of the matter is that we did. Who cares what he thinks. Same situation here.</p>

<p>PS. Don't let your anger show so much in your posts... it kind of concedes defeat to whatever point you are trying to make</p>

<p>You seem to be grossly uninformed about coalitions throughout history. Allow me to educate you (and further prove my point at the same time :) ) :</p>


<p>"In the Gulf War of 1991, at least 33 countries sent forces to the campaign against Iraq, and 16 of those provided combat ground forces, including a large number of Arab countries. Countries other than the United States pledged more than $50 billion of the $61 billion cost. Only Cuba, Yemen, Jordan and the Palestinians openly condemned a war that the UN Security Council voted to authorize."</p>


<p>"In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the only fighting forces are from the United States, Britain, Australia, and Poland. Ten other countries are known to have offered small numbers of noncombat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination, making a comparable alliance of about 13 countries. The United States is expected to be responsible for essentially the entire cost of the war, at least $75 billion."</p>

<h2>::These figures have been provided by totally non partisan site, not even devoted to politics::</h2>

<p>Those facts are indisputable by the way... the Bush administration fudges the facts around those numbers.. they refer to all nations which have offered support to this war as the Coalition of the Willing....however the Coalition of the Willing includes any and all nations who offer as little as political support (meaning as long as they say ok do what you want, we wont help you but we wont stop you, they have given political support and thus are added to the coalition of the willing list) it also includes countries who have provided minimum monetary support... that is where the coalition of "49" nations comes from.... I believe they are the first administration to include such countries in their total coalition count</p>

<p>but as you have read above... it is totally misleading there is really only an alliance of 14 nations in this war (including us)... 4 who give combat support and 10 who give noncombat support....USA pays about 75billion$$ ... practically whole cost of the war</p>

<p>and for those of you keeping score at home... in the Gulf War we had 16 countries provide combat support, and 33 who gave noncombat support... total cost of the war was about 61billion$$..... USA paid only about 11billion$$</p>

<p>Huh. And wasn't Great Britain "going it alone" against the Nazis in WWII for a while? Hm? Until the U.S. finally decided to DO something...</p>

<p>What really irks me are people who act like war is bad just because it's war. Okay, war is never happy and the costs are high. But you have to not only weigh the costs and problems, you need to weigh the advantages gained and the urgency of the problem at hand. Honest and brave people do what needs to be done, even if it hurts.</p>

<p>i1lmatic, you seem to happily forget a little something called the United Nations Oil-for-Food program. in case you haven't heard of it, its since been revealed as one of the greatest scams in history. Saddam, in an effort to end UN sanctions and restart his weapons program, allowed the Oil-For-Food program to be initiated. Only problem was that due to the corruption and bribery that ranged all the way up to top UN officials, top officials of France, Russia, (ironic huh), and Saddam hhiimself, the only thing the Oil-For-Food program was able to accomplish was to strengthen Saddam and flount UN efforts. By the way, Saddam earned billions in dirty money while giving bribes to UN officials, while top UN officials earned millions in illegal laundered money as well.</p>

<p>Now, since you are complaining about how we didn't have a "UN alliance" to topple Saddam, I find it most ironic that the countries that made the most illegal money off of Saddam (france, russia, china, and many more) were also the most vocal opponents of the war. As Bush said, this war was going to be fought by the coalition of the willing, including countries such as Australia, Britain, and Italy. Our "UN allies" that you speak so highly of were simply corrupt countries that funneled money from Iraqi citizens while allowing Saddam to remain in power. </p>

<p>And plus, the profits Saddam illegaly recieved through this corrupt program were being devoted to continuing his stay in power, buy advanced conventional weapons, and to restart his WMD program at a later date. </p>

<p>But, if you still want to b&tch and moan about how we "should have asked the UN for help," you're free to do so.</p>

<p>I1lmatic, you are Scubasteve right?</p>

<p>thank you, Oil For Food is finally being mentioned. Now if only the NY Times would mention it.</p>

<p>Oh, no I1lmatic, it's not anger in my posts. As the elite like to call it, it's self righteous indignation. Let me just go order another martini and I'll get back to you.</p>


<p>I'm not really sure what the Oil for Food program has anything to do with building a respectable coalition for the Iraq war. And secondly, we are not so innocent ourselves... do not forget who actually armed the Taliban to fight the Soviets.. amongst many other things we would like to forget.</p>

<p>Moving along, most of your information is mere speculation at this point.. even worse so some of your information is just outwright incorrect. The Duelfer Report (final report on Iraq) concluded that Saddam's WMD programs were tossed out after the first Gulf War and years of international sancations (funny they actually worked). To repeat... Saddam had no WMD intentions post Gulf War and there is no evidence he ever tried to reconstitute the program. Furthermore, the Duelfer Report concluded that when Saddam was infact pursuing WMD's (pre gulf war) he did not want to attack the US or provide them to terrorists... but rather just to defend agaisnt Iran and Israel.</p>

<p>Bush approached this war like a maverick. He was not interested in building a respectable coalition. It was either his way or the highway, and that my friend is not how international relations work in this world. We went into Iraq rushed, with a weak coalition (as a result weak global support), and without an exit plan. I think the results of such actions are now more than obvious. We now have to bare close to 80 billion$$ in costs... and when you are facing a deficit in the trillions, that is no bueno.</p>

<p>To refer back to the Gulf War... Bush sr. did not take the maverick approach and thus was able to build a powerful coalition and gain world support as well as spare the United States the burden of a huge price tag (we only paid a fraction of the cost, nations within the coalition covered the rest). You are trying to tie the Oil for Food ordeal into this to fudge that fact. Are you even fimilar with the gulf war coalition? China and Russia had 0 involvement (refers back to your oil for food argument)</p>

<p>Here is the Gulf Coalition my friend... all I ask is where were all these countries during this war? 33 countries were involved... 16 of them with combat troops... did they all fall victim to the oil for food program (which is totally irrelavant by the way)? Poland, Austrailia, and Britian were the only nations to support combat troops under this war... only 10 other countries actively contributed..... Is it not obvious GWB did somethign wrong?</p>


<p>AFGHANISTAN - 300 troops </p>

<p>AUSTRALIA - See Australian Info Sheet </p>

<p>BAHRAIN - 400 personnel, 36 aircraft </p>

<p>BANGLADESH - 6,000 troops </p>

<p>BELGIUM - 1 frigate, 2 minesweepers, 2 landing<br>
ships, 6 C-130 planes </p>

<p>BRITAIN - 43,000 troops, 6 destroyers, 4 frigates, 3
minesweepers, 168 tanks, 300 armored<br>
vehicles, 70 jets </p>

<p>CANADA - 2 destroyers, 12 C-130 planes, 24 CF-18<br>
bombers, 4500 troops, Field Hospital (1<br>
Canadian Field Hospital) </p>

<p>CZECHOSLVAKIA - 200 chemical warfare specialists </p>

<p>EGYPT - 40,000 troops (5,000 special forces
paratroopers) </p>

<p>FRANCE - 18,000 troops, 60 combat aircraft, 120<br>
helicopters, 40 tanks, 1 missle cruiser, 3<br>
destroyers, 4 frigates </p>

<p>GERMANY - Jagdbombergeschwader 43 consisting of 18<br>
Alpha-Jets and 212 soldiers stationed in<br>
Erhac/Turkey during the gulf war. </p>

<pre><code> 5 Minesweeper, 2 Supply Vessels, 500 sailors


<p>HONDURAS - 150 troops </p>

<p>HUNGARY - 1 medical unit </p>

<p>ITALY - 3 frigates, 4 minesweepers, 10 Tornado<br>
Aircraft </p>

<p>KUWAIT - 11,000 troops, 2 missle boats, 1 barge, A-4 Skyhawks (exact # unknown)<br>
Emir of Kuwait </p>

<p>NEW ZEALAND - 50 medical soldiers and 2 C-130's </p>

<p>NIGER - 500 troops </p>

<p>OMAN - 25,500 troops, 63 airplanes, 4 Exocet-armed
ships </p>

<p>POLAND - 1 Hospital Ship </p>

<p>QATAR - 1 squadron of Mirage F-1E fighters </p>

<p>ROMANIA - 180 chemical warfare experts </p>

<p>SAUDI ARABIA - 118,000 troops, 550 tanks, 180<br>
airplanes </p>

<pre><code> Leaders:

King Fahad Leader of Saudi Arabia


<p>SOUTH KOREA - 5 C-130 transport planes, 1 medical<br>
unit </p>

<p>SYRIA - 17,000 troops, 300 T-62 tanks </p>

<p>UNITED ARAB EMRIATES - 40,000 troops, 80 planes,<br>
200 tanks </p>

<p>UNITED STATES - 540,000 troops, 6 aircraft carriers,<br>
submarines, 4,000 tanks, 1,700<br>
helicopters, 1,800 airplanes</p>

<p>babybird you have a lot to learn..</p>

<p>Babybird, </p>

<p>For starters, the very base definition of indignation is anger aroused by something unjust, mean or unworthy. What I have said is none of the above.. and what you have showed and now just admitted to is infact anger.</p>

<p>Moving on...the ny times has mentioned the oil for food program.. and on more than one ocassion.... so you might want to research that statement a little better before making it</p>

<p>Here are just two articles of many: </p>

<p>THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: OIL FOR FOOD; French Play Down Report of Bribes in Iraq Scandal <a href=""&gt;;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>THE ISSUE OF WAR: CORRUPTION; Report Says Iraq Misused U.N. Oil Plan<br>
<a href=""&gt;;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>If you actually read into the issue, you will see that there is nothing but speculation at this point...I suspect nothing more will ever ammount out of it.</p>

<p>However I am not going into any further detail about the oil for food program in this tread because I'll say it again... none of this has anything to do with Bush's failure to build a strong coalition in the Iraq War... I have addressed this issue with facts...still waiting on a response that pertains to the issue at hand
(If you want to discuss the oil for food program then by all means create a new thread for it and i'll be more than glad to chime in)</p>

<p>...It appears you fabricate in your writing to support an overall opinion on Bush that is not well derived from factual research. </p>

<p>enjoy the martini... I think i'll drink from the other fountain Ms. Elite</p>

<p>hahha, oil-for-food has nothing to do with it? lol ok...</p>

<p>And another thing, the first gulf war was actually a response to a rather blantant invasion of a oil-rich nation. </p>

<p>This current invasion is called pre-emption. it was meant to topple Saddam hussein, since he did intend to procure WMD as well as other advanced conventional weapons. If you cannot see that as a future threat, then I believe you are quite blind. If many nations did not suppport us now (due to oil-for-food, self interest, etc...), well that is really too bad. As we all now, Saddam was a threat and had to be taken out. Bush chose not to go begging to the UN (that in itself was clearly going to be a futile measure).</p>

<p><a href=""&gt;;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>If you are too blind to see why so many middle eastern and european countries did not support us, well....</p>

<p>i1lmatic, you still have not answered my question. Are you Scubasteve or not?</p>

<p>"Babybird, </p>

<p>For starters, the very base definition of indignation is anger aroused by something unjust, mean or unworthy. What I have said is none of the above.. and what you have showed and now just admitted to is infact anger."</p>

<p>"enjoy the martini... I think i'll drink from the other fountain Ms. Elite"</p>

<p>Sarcasm, do you speak it? I'll just say that it's not usually Republicans aligned with being the martini drinking elite</p>