Re: Early Iragi Turnout Appears Huge!

From: Christopher M. Jones (christopher.m.jones_at_gmail.com)
Date: 01/31/05 

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:26:19 -0600

Charles Buckley wrote:
> Christopher M. Jones wrote:
>
>> Charles Buckley wrote:
>>> Which concisely sums up the the reason why things have
>>> deteriorated in Iraq.
>>
>> Deteriorated... into democracy! Oh, horrible, horrible
>> democracy! What foul, cruel machinations are in store
>> for those sad little wogs once they travel down the
>> road of democratic rule? Just the thought of all the
>> blood shed from people poking themselves with political
>> buttons makes my heart ache.
>
> Let's see.. from 5 attacks a day to 2500 a day?

Attacks by ... democracy?

> You're right, those political buttons only killed what..
> a couple hundred people this week.

All the fault of horrible, horrible democracy!

> It isn't a democracy. The have taken a grand total of
> *one* vote for a large number of people too afraid to even
> announce their names or motives to form a government, then
> write a constitution.

Ummm, no, they have already taken many votes on local
levels. The process of democracy has been established
for about a decade in the Kurdish north, for example.

> There are a lot of potential outcomes to this vote and
> a fairly large number of them destabalize the region even further.

For example, if the Iraqis were to vote in the "best
dressed celebrities of 2004" list then the world may
well be subjected to paroxysms of fashionista attacks.
Or, OR!, maybe, just maybe, the Iraqis will accidentally
vote an extra-terrestrial into a position of authority,
where he (err, it) will begin to enslave the population
of the world after finishing construction of the
Kle'q'q'q'nnion mind-ray device. Or not. Hard to say
until the votes are counted. Until then such idle
speculation is nigh unto worthless.

> Chris, I have been reading your stuff on here for a couple years
> now about this war. Do you really want to see your trackrecord on
> accuracy in your predictions?
>
> One of my favorites:
>
> "Oh, but please, go on pretending that Saddam's regime
> never had anything to do with international terrorism or
> al'qaeda, or that they never had a current WMD program,
> or that there was never any danger of Iraq's WMDs
> falling into the hands of terrorists. Sometimes it can
> be emotionally difficult when your precious security
> blankets get ripped away by the harsh reality of the
> world, so just curl up and keep pretending. "
>
> That *was* the official conclusion of the US government agencies
> researching it.

It's really, really super that you're literate and all,
that's great, a remarkable achievement really, and I
don't want to denigrate that. However, you might try
learning how to read for comprehension. Many community
colleges offer extension courses on fundamental reading
skills that might be of especial use to you.

For example, such improved reading skills could help you
better understand my post. Which concerns past events
not future predictions per se. And which contains very
few items of serious dispute. For example, not even
Saddam's government made the claim that they never *had*
WMD. Similarly, it would be very difficult to characterize
the Ba'athist Iraqi regime as never having had ties to
international terrorism. Moreover, being able to read
for comprehension would give you the ability to read the
Duelfer report, which backs my point of view on these
matters rather than your mischaracterizations.

>> Perhaps one day the wogs
>> will learn their proper place in the universe and will
>> refuse utterly the bait of democratic self-rule.
>
> And, of course, no democracy anywhere would wage war killing
> hundreds of thousands of people or pursue an aggressive radical
> policy of establishing a form of government around the world
> without consulting said world as to the advisability of such a move.

The track record on democracies waging war against each other
is pretty good. Especially so when you consider waging
sneak attack / terrorist wars against each other. Maybe not
100% perfect, but certainly good enough for most people to
sleep safe at night.

> Democracy is just a form of government. It is not a
> panacea, nor does it negate any hostile feelings. It is *not*
> in the US strategic interest to allow a hostile government to
> form in Iraq under any guise or form. And, the best - the very
> best to be expected - is neutrality.

Well golly gosh, imagine if the whole middle east were
transformed into such a vile, anti-american pit of
democratic states that they worked as much against
American interests as France or Germany. Oh what
horror. Cruel, cruel fate, why woulds't thou forsake
us so? Actually, I think I could live with that.

>> Perhaps one day they will rise up, cast of the shackles
>> of freedom and say "NO MORE!" and call with a
>> unanimous voice for a return to the halcyon days of
>> tyranical despotism and brutal thugocracy. Perhaps...
>>
>> Our hope for such a day has been sadly diminished by
>> recent events in Iraq, but we cannot let such things
>> erode our determination or quench our eternal hope that
>> one day the stability of tyranny will return to the
>> peoples of Iraq.
>
> This is a single vote. The results of this vote will play
> out over a long period of time and it is foolish to think that,
> in a country where 98% of the population oppose the occupation
> to one degree or another, that an election with a large turnout
> would be necessarily favorable to the occupying power.

The only result "favorable to the occupying power" I really
care about is curtailing international terrorist attacks on
the US. Spreading democracy is a nice, a very nice, effect.
On the whole, I think I could manage to live my life if the
Iraqis ended up as resentful of American occupation as the
Japanese, Germans, Koreans, or even the French.

> But, of course, you have no objection should the next 911
> be done by a democratic government. It's only those
> ones from the types of governments you don't approve of that
> upsets you.

Many democracies upset me. I'd rather they upset me and
caused me heartburn than that they'd kill my friends and
relatives with terrorist attacks on my country. There are
a great many fundamental reasons why democratic countries
are very much less likely to undertake terrorist attacks
against other countries. Most people know and accept this
simple fact.

Maybe, just maybe, you and your ilk could express a
fraction of a second's worth of unadulterated appreciation
for an event of historical proportions, which will almost
certainly prove to be a good thing for the Iraqis, without
trying to think up how you can *** all over it. Maybe?

P.S.
<http://friendsofdemocracy.typepad.com/photos/election_photos/captlon23401301432iraq_elections_lon234.html>