(Baghdad) After three years of turmoil following the ouster of Saddam Hussein, a new Iraqi government has been sworn in before a special session of parliament.
to be filled, the interior minister and the defense minister.
Maybe it's just my ignorance, but it seems that the formation of a new government in Iraq is a milestone event worth trumpeting. Text books tell us that the colonies took considerably longer than three years to cast off the shackles of tyranny and establish the United States so, not only is the creation of a constitutional democracy in Iraq a major event in world history, it was accomplished in record time when compared to America. However, despite my beliefs, a search through the mainstream media reveals the story getting ho-hum mention and usually it's sandwiched between graphically reported segments showing violence in the streets.
Nonetheless, I congratulate the citizens of the nation of Iraq.
1
Re-run. Haven't we heard this before? Hate to be a doubting Thomas but I guess bombings that killed 24 qualifies as graphically reported segments showing violence in the streets. You talk about magical instant Democracy " mission accomplished " just because they all were able to stand each other for 30 minutes in the same room. Naivety becomes a crime when applied to stupitidy.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 20, 2006 08:16 AM (FCC6c)
2
24 people (actually 27 if you RTA)? Out of a population of 6 million?
I believe that shows Baghdad to be safer than DC, Larry.
Posted by: Spade at May 20, 2006 08:41 AM (uFd/a)
3
About effing time. But it never ceases to amaze me how Leftards who say Arabs are incapable of democracy have the nerve of calling other people racists. English as an official language? racists. Controlling our borders. racists. Support Israel against terrorism? racists. Arabs are incapable of democracy? Leftards thinking how smart they are. Irony your name is Leftard.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 20, 2006 09:45 AM (8e/V4)
4
Can't Grasp Reality Larry,
You show a woefully ignorant stance in regards to insurgency, and counter-insurgency -- history has shown time and time again, even when a lawful Government is in control, the insurgency will continue.
They do not stop until certain things occur -- like being brought into the political arena for negotiations (like the IRA), local support is completely dissolved, supply lines are destroyed and one could argue when all insurgents have been killed or injured.
No one trumpeted the end of the insurgency in Iraq with the establishment of a new Government Muppet, only that it is one stage closer to Iraqi's to self governing where we can start to wind down our control.
I'll even give you a clue -- it will become stronger when it's announced we're starting to move troops out of the area, so they appear to have chased off the "invaders" and partly because once we leave their will be no "legitimate" targets, and that will dissolve local support by all but the hardliners.
Posted by: davec at May 20, 2006 11:53 AM (CcXvt)
5
As long as the new Iraqi government actively persecutes islamic terrorists, rather than supporting them or turning a blind-eye to them, I'm happy and the war was worth it.
I don't hold out any hope that Iraq will be "free from the shackles of tyranny." As the world becomes more globalized and technologized (and therefore more scary and overwhelming) Muslims will continue to turn back to fanaticism.
There will be an apocalyptic confrontation between the west and Islam sometime in the near future; I'm convinced of it.
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at May 20, 2006 12:20 PM (CI4Lt)
6
Wow! I just can't turn down a rebuttal to that nonsense!
Spade, are you telling me we have daily bombings or shootings, kidnappings, dozens of tortured and beheaded bodies turning up on the streets of DC? LOL
Jesus! If Americans are incapable of Democracy what makes you think Arabs are any more well suited?
Davec last gasp but not least! You say: " it will become stronger when it's announced we're beginning to move troops out of the area " Well, I guess I'm still waiting for a clue since we just deployed thousands more troops to Rammada.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 20, 2006 01:18 PM (FCC6c)
7
Stuck in our ways.
The Arabs can't govern themselves, history has proven this. We should pick our shit and leave that hole. If they attack us again, just fire nukes from the Nevada desert. It's so much easier.
Posted by: Garner at May 20, 2006 01:42 PM (aYuiN)
8
Can't Grasp Reality Larry:
I bet you were
shocked when the military also escalated operations in Fallujah, Baghdad, Najaf, Samarra et al?
The reality is, that the military are always ferreting out pockets of resistance as detected, Operation Phantom Fury showed the enemy get stronger when they control an area, and it is dangerous to attack the enemy in their fortified positions (or their backyard so to speak.)
I guess it's pretty simple to think an insurgency and a war will be quick, when you compare it to the 1991 Gulf War you saw on CNN, but unfortunately it is a very different war this time.
Posted by: davec at May 20, 2006 02:46 PM (CcXvt)
9
>>>If Americans are incapable of Democracy what makes you think Arabs are any more well suited?
Because unlike you, I don't believe the Arabs are subhuman animals, that's why.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 20, 2006 06:38 PM (8e/V4)
10
Wherever we try to help our faces are slapped and our smoking corpses dragged through the streets... Fortify and nuke any and all threats.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 20, 2006 09:13 PM (FCC6c)
11
I just don't get the far-left's argument in regards to 'Democracy'. They constantly mock and ridicule a budding democracy and the democratic elections in Iraq by applying our own standards of democracy in the US (right down to the least detail), yet they say little about the democratic elections just held by the Palestinians other than shrill criticisms about not sending monetary aid to them as a result of their decision to be represented by people who killed indiscriminately for a living. The two are world's apart and they've shown their true colors by mocking one and not the other. They show not the slightest understanding of what it takes to build a democracy with a fair and representative government nor what it is when finally slapped in the face with it.
The vast majority of Iraqis want a democracy much like ours and have made huge leaps toward that goal against all odds and all we hear, day in and day out, is ridicule and naysaying. The vast majority of Iraqis are decent people and they deserve more than what they get from the west's far-left faction. And yes, even the near-left and many on the far-right. The Sunnis, Shias and Kurds are all at the same table for the first time in history and all we get is either yawns or sniping. It just makes me sick that these people can be so shallow, so partisan, that they can't or won't discern right from wrong.
Posted by: Oyster at May 21, 2006 06:28 AM (YudAC)
12
But we don't have democracy Oyster; we have a republic, though not for much longer it seems.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 21, 2006 07:51 AM (0yYS2)
13
We have a democratic republic.
Posted by: Oyster at May 21, 2006 08:07 AM (YudAC)
14
Rather than argue semantics, I think you understand what I'm saying.
Posted by: Oyster at May 21, 2006 08:52 AM (YudAC)
15
Semantisize this: Democracy Hypocrisy
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 21, 2006 09:04 AM (FCC6c)
16
>>>yet they say little about the democratic elections just held by the Palestinians
Oyster,
because the "budding democracy" by the palestinians is anti-Israel therefore good, while the budding democracy in Iraq is pro- American therefore bad. It's comical how predictable the Leftards are.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 21, 2006 09:23 AM (8e/V4)
17
Yes I understand, but using the wrong words doesn't clarify anything. Democracy is just mob-rule without the rioting, and is prone to all the flaws inherent in human nature, which are exacerbated when the group dynamic is factored in, and so rather than creating solutions through concensus, democracy creates greater problems through concensus, unless the people of the society in question are ethical enough to resist the temptations that come with such power.
As we have seen many times in many places, starting with Athens and continuing in every country with some form of democratic system, democracies always commit suicide, as all Western nations are doing right now, including our own. Why do you think that we, a democratic republic, would not give this same form of government to the Afghans and Iraqis, but rather a parliamentary democracy instead? The answer is simple; parliamentary democracies are inherently weak due to infighting, and thus are generally not a danger to anyone but themselves. Like the saying goes, democracy is a system by which people can give themselves the government they deserve, good and hard.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 22, 2006 05:24 AM (0yYS2)
18
freedom is simply a pipe dream. The masses must have right imposed on them. The masses collectively are morally bankrupt and will choose evil every damn time. Islam has the right idea at least on this.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 11:56 AM (FCC6c)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The session began more than two hours late because of last-minute haggling, finally opening with readings from the Quran.
