kamagra soft pas cher

Remember, this was virtually impossible

Iraqi constitution seems likely to pass

Recall that it would take many months and many thousands of American lives simply to conquer Iraq.

Recall that, even if we managed to get control, the Iraqi people would never regain their sovereignty.

Recall that, even if we did give Iraq back to the Iraqis, it would simply be a puppet government that ruled.

Recall that, even if the government ever allowed elections, the Iraqi people wouldn’t be interested in participating.

Recall that, even if the Iraqis did want to vote, the violence in Iraq would prevent them from doing so.

Recall that, even if elections were held, they would be so corrupt as to be worthless.

Recall that, even if a freely-elected government was formed, they would never be able to keep control.

Recall that, even if a new Iraqi government did manage to run things, they would never agree on a permanent charter.

Recall that, even a charter acceptable to all government leaders was written, the Iraqi voters would never approve it.

Recall that, even if voters did approve a new constitution, it would be without much participation of the Sunnis and would therefore be meaningless.

And now we have this today from AP/MSNBC.com:

Oct. 16, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Iraq’s constitution seemed assured of passage Sunday despite strong opposition from Sunni Arabs who turned out in surprisingly high numbers in an effort to stop it.

The constitution’s apparent victory was muted, though, by the prospect that the vote result might divide the country further.

Apparently now that the constitution, with a great deal of Sunni participation, is being approved, it is BAD NEWS.

Let’s just say that it’s not a worst-case scenario we’re looking at here.

UPDATE: The fact that some extreme statements by the “pro-invasion side” are the only things the “anti-invasion side” can point out in response to a list of their basic beliefs simply underscores my point.

Despite overly-optimistic predictions at some points (such as the ‘they’ll greet us with roses’ theory) the basic position of regime change supporters has been “this is going to take some time”. The basic position of anti-regime change folks has been “this will never work”.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Comments

  • Doug Welsh says:

    The MSM continues to amaze me. Why is it that they feel every vote taken in Iraq is going to result in civil war? It’s a vote–somebody wins and somebody loses. That’s how it works. It happens every day, all around the world, and doesn’t result in civil war all that often.

  • GM Roper says:

    Recall that the arabs are so used to despotism, that they will never be able to handle democracy – it is foreign to their nature. Great Post.

  • Peggy says:

    It is so disgusting to me that there actually are conservatives who consider their disagreement with Bush over the nomination of Harriet Miers STILL more important that the miracle of what’s happening in Iraq. What our military has accomplished there and the courage of the Iraqi people are The Story of This Century. Thanks for your comments, Murdoc.

  • Murdoc says:

    One thing that I noticed as I was writing this was that the early predictions that were wrong were about US. The later ones (also wrong) were about the IRAQIS. They’re no longer predicting American failures, they’re predicting Iraqi failures. This demonstrates that the naysayers have unconsciously accepted the fact that Iraqis are running their own country. Just don’t point that out to the naysayers. It will drive them stark raving NUTS.

  • JonBuck says:

    I regard the media in general as a ratings game. It’s all about generating ad revenue. If you want to say they’re biased, well, it’s all for their bottom line. Negative stories generate ratings. Negative stories create ad revenue. So instead of couching local and world events as challenges to overcome, they say all the reasons why Problem X will never be solved. ‘And you heard it here, first!’

  • Abc says:

    So your point is that if you look at the whole range of predictions about any aspect of the war, the worst predictions have turned out to be too pessimistic? Well, duh. You could make the same list with the *best* predictions, all of which have turned out to be too optimistic. Wolfie said we should be able to reduce troop strength to about a fifth of what it is now, but we were supposed to have been able to achieve that less than a year after defeating Saddam . Wrong, obviously. And so on down the line.

  • Murdoc says:

    Abc: My list is not ‘the worst predictions’. Far more dire predictions than I listed were made by people with extreme views. My list is, more or less, the common wisdom of leading pundits and media organizations as fed to the American public. I didn’t have to cherry-pick pessimistic predictions to fit my model. I just had to run off the prevailing opinion of the majority of our Legacy Media.

  • Sean says:

    Let’s face, Jesus, Mohammaed and Abraham could appear to the public, offer support to America’s efforts, and the media would still manage a headline like: ‘Religious ‘Leaders’ Support US Efforts, Moderates Worry about Fundamentalist influence’

  • Pat A says:

    To paraphrase the soldier in Iraq that responded to Matt Lauer’s question about morale, ‘Morale is good. If I got all my information from the news media, I’d be depressed.’ Ditto that!

  • TJIT says:

    Peggy, Some people might take your comments as a rather rude attempt at threadjacking. Lots of threads in lots of places about the Miers nomination, they provide an excellent place to post your Miers related comments:-)

  • jaed says:

    They’re no longer predicting American failures, they’re predicting Iraqi failures. I remarked a year or so ago that to the extent we succeed in Iraq, they become an ally, and to the extent they become an ally, they become a target. I meant ‘a target of the jihadists’, but ‘target of the media’ works well too. I’m expecting them to get more and more vehement against the Iraqis as time goes on and they add more political and military successes.

  • michael says:

    I have this recurring fantasy, set about ten years in the future and long after American troops have departed and long after the terrorist attacks have ended, of a reporter in Baghdad reporting on the latest Iraqi elections and expressing surprise that the past occupation by Americans and Abu Ghraib are not dominating the debate since she ‘knows’ that they must be what is foremost on everybody’s minds and, despite the emergence of political parties which cross ethnic and religious lines, she is certain that civil war is simmering just beneath the surface.

  • Ginny says:

    Response to Abc & further (if extreme) example of worst predictions:

    Syria says it will keep its 360-mile border open to Iraqis fleeing the U.S.- led war and will cooperate with humanitarian organizations. The U.N. High Commission for Refugees has said that up to 600,000 Iraqi refugees could flee the war, with about half expected to head for Iran. The rest are likely to head to Turkey, Syria and Jordan.

    This is not a prediction from an obscure websight but an article from the San Francisco Chronicle, on March 29, 2003. These were not isolated predictions and few argued the war would be shorter than it was nor our troops would be out by now. Most hawks were holding out an outcome similar to post WWII Germany & Japan.

  • H says:

    Recall that, even if a freely-elected government was formed, they would never be able to keep control.’ This statement implies that an absolutely crucial step has been achieved… that control is being kept. When did this happen? Maybe the MSM is hiding from us the fact that Iraq is now a peaceful place? Also, this line right here, crucial to your argument, is patently misleading: ‘with a great deal of Sunni participation, is being approved’ A great deal of Sunni participation, yes. They participated to almost unanimously REJECT the constitution. Remember, the Sunni’s make up most of the insurgency, because they feel they’ve lost any say in the government there. Now, they’ve put in their vote and had it shown to them that, yes indeed, they have no say. You’re overly optimistic. Recall ‘mission accomplished’ and ‘bring ‘em on’ ages ago, almost 2000 dead US troops ago. Recall that the war would be over quickly and we would be greeted wih flowers. Recall that, once we managed to get control, violence would subside. Recall that, once we gave Iraq back to the Iraqis, violence would subside. Recall that, once elections were held, violence would subside. Recall that, once a freely-elected government was formed, violence would subside. Recall that, once a new Iraqi government managed to run things, violence would subside. Recall that, once a charter acceptable to all government leaders was written, violence would subside. And now, now that voters have approved a new constitution, violence will subside. Mmmmkay. It’s one thing to be optimistic, another to ignore reality.

  • corvan says:

    It is amazing to watch people like H shift their viewpoints. They have gone from hating the president when the Iraq war began. to hating the military to now, hating the Iraqis. Yes, H, we know, all Sunnis are savages. All Shia are zealots. Those brown people will never handle democracy. Not even one American death is worth lessening the suffering of countless millions foriegners. The fact that Al Qaeda knows that Iraq is the most important front in the war on terror and is willing fight for it desperately is proof positive that no battle should ever be fought in Iraq. (Better that jihadis be allowed to maintain staging areas for attacks on Western nations unmolested.) Your reasoning is so impressive. As is your dogged support for terrorism. Hope you’re proud.

  • H says:

    Corvan, it’s amazing that you somehow infered that I hate Iraq, or hate the Sunnis, or support terrorism. Should I read into your post that you support the insurgency? Using your sense of ‘logic,’ I should, but I won’t. Read back over what I wrote, and tell me where I suggested anyone was a savage. Pay attention. And come up with a real response, rather than weak talking points that do not relate to what I actually wrote. Think for yourself.

  • Murdoc says:

    H: Violence has subsided with every one of those steps, BTW. I expect it will do so again with this step. ‘Subside’ does not equal ‘stop’. No doubt the next suicide bombing of Iraqi men lining up to join the army or police or get a construction job, or maybe a daring attack on worshippers at prayer, will ‘prove’ that violence hasn’t ‘subsided’ and that Iraq is just as violent as it ever was…

  • Joe says:

    Peggy was not ‘threadjacking’. Her comments were relevant, appreciated and insightfull.

  • Danku says:

    Murdoc hit the point I was about to make regarding the definition of ‘subside,’ so I’ll restrict myself to a couple of H’s other missteps: Recall ‘mission accomplished’ and ‘bring ‘em on’ ages ago, almost 2000 dead US troops ago. ‘Mission accomplished’ meant then and now –despite what the revisionists have pretended, then and now– that the toppling of Saddam’s regime had been successful. No one expected that the troops would be hopping on planes and flying back home the next day. By that standard, the ‘loyal opposition’ during WWII should have been complaining the day after the Normandy Invasion was declared successful that such a declaration was premature. Indeed, by that standard, the ‘loyal opposition’ should have been complaining in 1947 that troops were still in Germany. And speaking of which… Recall that the war would be over quickly and we would be greeted wih flowers. Unless your position is that the Civil War didn’t end until 1877 with the close of Reconstruction, or that WWII didn’t end until 1952, with official sovereignty of Japan, the war with Iraq was over quickly. Right about the same time, in fact, that the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner went up.

  • Richard Aubrey says:

    It is a commonplace that the US troops were not greeted with flowers. True. But they were greeted warmly and with gratitude in many places. Ask the troops. I did. Some places were happier than others. But it is not true that the Iraqis were uniformly sullen and hostile.

  • corvan says:

    Ahh, talking points. But of course H, you didn’t spout any of those. Likewise, you didn’t infer they Sunnis were savages. You simply inferred that they were one hundred percent opposed to the constituion. We could term that an over generalization if you were capable of such, but being the perfect rational being you aren’t ever, ever given to over generalization. The fact that the consititution is apparently on its way to being approved in two of the majority Sunni provinces? Irrelevant H didn’t metnion it. And no you don’t hate the Iraqis, you simply obfuscate and twist facts in support of a prospective civil war. But that’s okay, you wish civil wars on your best friends all the time. It shows how much you care. The insurgency? Not terrorists, no sir, not according to H. According to H the insurgency is simply the Sunnis (who aren’t savages goodness knows, beheadings are a good and noble thing,) complaining that they don’t have a say in government. Of course, what you fail to mention is that great numbers of Sunnis are being slaughtered by the terrorists. As you also fail to mention that it seems that, in fact, rather significant numbers of Sunnis voted for the constitution and that large numbers of Sunnis peacefully participated in the process. Along with that you also fail to mention that the Sunni delegation struck a deal with the Shia on the constitution. A deal that made its passage all the more likely. Just as you fail to note that great numbers of the Sunnis (perhaps the majority?)don’t support beheadings and car bombings and terrorist atrocities, and desperately want peace. No, no, no you don’t despise the Iraqis and wish them the worse. You don’t hope for a civil war that will slaughter hundreds of thousands. No not you, you just hide certain facts and completely lie about others, all in hopes of making that civil war seem more likely. That’s nothing like what Al Qaeda is doing, just the opposite in fact. Al Qaeda just wants a civil war becuase they like killing people. You’re agitating for a civil war because you are a good, good extra special nice and wonderful, lollipop-person who will secure the best for all mankind. I am so chastened now.

  • H says:

    H: Violence has subsided with every one of those steps, BTW. I expect it will do so again with this step.’ ? We have experienced some of the bloodiest months in this conflict just this year, after most of those steps… 85 troops were killed in August alone. One year after the ‘mission accomplished’ speech, 548 more US troops had been killed. Almost 1300 more have died in the past year and a half. If anything the overall rate of US troop deaths has been slowly increasing if you take the long view. And, just like you, I expect things to continue in the same direction after this step. The difference is that I’m dealing with real numbers, not simply a feeling. Look at reality and tell me how you imagine a steady decline in the violence: Saddam was caught in in December of 2003. Before that point that was considered a key objective by Bush and company, we averaged about 42 dead US troops per month. Between his capture and the elections (another key point), we averaged 71 deaths per month. That’s a *significant* increase. Since then, we’ve suffered an average rate of about 62 deaths per month, slightly down, but still about 150% of the rate we were experiencing before Saddams capture. I do not believe you can look at the facts and continue to honestly believe that violence has subsided any significant amount with each of these steps. And I’m not even including the alarming number of Iraqi civilian deaths. Painting a rosy picture of what’s going on there may feel good, but it does not honor what our troops are really dealing with over there.

  • H says:

    You’re agitating for a civil war because you are a good, good extra special nice and wonderful, lollipop-person who will secure the best for all mankind. I am so chastened now.’ You hardly warrant a response. Read what I originally wrote, not what you think is going on in my head. Do not assume. Because I disagree with the way things were poorly planned for in Iraq by this administration does not mean I wish ill upon them. I criticize the failed assumptions of Bush and company, you criticize me for doing the patriotic thing by questioning my government.

  • cosmo says:

    H- Continue barking while the caravan continues to move on past you.

  • corvan says:

    H, I did point out what you said. You were the one that said the insurgency was simply Sunnis trying to procure a say in the governement of Iraq. A wild leap the facts don’t bear out. I also point out what you ignored. (That people who blow up schools and slaughter poll workers are terrorists, that great numbers of Sunnis aren’t real supportive of folks that blow up schools and slaughter innocents, that large numbers of Sunnis turned out for the vote, and that the referendum is going to pass in two Sunni controlled privinces quitre handily.) Ignoring these points to pursue your own twisted view of reality (ie Terrorism is all for the best, and democracy is an unspeakable tragedy) isn’t realistic. It’s disgusting. And no, supprting terrorism (refusing to even call it terrorism) and wishing ill on a new democracy are not the highest forms of patriotism. If you really want to discuss a point. Stop lying. All Sunnis are not opposed to the refernedum, and you know it. All Sunnis do not support terrorism and you know it. Iraqis are not incapable of running a democracy and you know it. And stop hiding from the facts (large Sunni turnout, passing of the referendum in two Sunni controlled provinces, low level of violence druing the vote) that reveal just how transparent you are. Your refusal to do any of these things (call terrorism terrorism, confront the facts, tell the truth) make it very clear what your position is. No one has to imagine what’s going on inside your head. And god knows only the most devoted horror fans would want to. Your words make it very clear what you want. Of that you should be ashamed.

  • H says:

    Terrorism is all for the best, and democracy is an unspeakable tragedy) isn’t realistic. It’s disgusting.’ WHO said ‘terrorism is for the best’?? WHO said ‘democracy is and unspeakable travesty’?? You, sir, are hearing voices in your head. I knew it was pointless to even try to have a reasonable discussion with any of you. But I thought it may be worth a shot. Keep your heads in the sand, and watch the 2006 elections bite you in the butt. Good day… and goodbye.

  • H says:

    Terrorism is all for the best, and democracy is an unspeakable tragedy’ Wow… somone’s putting words into someone’s else’s mouth. Do you really believe I said any of that? Keep your head in the sand, and keep listening to the voices in your head. 2006 is going to be a big shock to you.

  • I says:

    Hmm, my reply won’t show up using my valid email now. Typical behavior for one of these places. ‘Terrorism is all for the best, and democracy is an unspeakable tragedy’ Wow… somone’s putting words into someone’s else’s mouth. Do you really believe I said any of that? Keep your head in the sand, and keep listening to the voices in your head. 2006 is going to be a big shock to you.

  • H says:

    Nevermind… seems to have been a glitch in the site. Sorry for the multiple posts.

  • Nicholas says:

    Wow, a good old-fashioned turkey shoot. I think I’ll join in. > ‘Recall that, even if a freely-elected government was formed, they would never be able to keep control.’ > This statement implies that an absolutely crucial step has been achieved… that control is being kept. When did this happen? Maybe the MSM is hiding from us the fact that Iraq is now a peaceful place? Hmm, let’s see: control, tr. v: 1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. I would say that having a referrendum in a country being directly targetted and threatened by terrorists and have (as far as I know) none of those who are voting killed and a very small number lightly wounded shows a fair amount of exercise of authority and/or dominating influence over said terrorists. > Also, this line right here, crucial to your argument, is patently misleading: > ‘with a great deal of Sunni participation, is being approved’ > A great deal of Sunni participation, yes. They participated to almost unanimously REJECT the constitution. Misleading? He said there was a great deal of Sunni participation. That’s true. He said it was approved. That’s also true, as far as we know (pending verification). What’s misleading about it? He didn’t say it was a 100% yes vote. If it was, something would be wrong. > Remember, the Sunni’s make up most of the insurgency, because they feel they’ve lost any say in the government there. Now, they’ve put in their vote and had it shown to them that, yes indeed, they have no say. Actually, you got it half right. The Sunnis make up most of the ACTUAL insurgency yes, as opposed to straight-out terrorists. But not because they feel they’ve lost any say. Because they want to dominate and subjugate the other races and sects like they did under Saddam. They’ve lost that ability and frankly that’s a good thing and they’ll just have to grow up and get over it. > You’re overly optimistic. Murdoc is not as optimistic as some people are. Just because he sees this referrendum as another step towards stability and peace for the Iraqis does not make him overly so, I’d say. He’s merely point out that those who are overly pessimistic are ignoring the trends. > Recall ‘mission accomplished’ and ‘bring ‘em on’ ages ago, almost 2000 dead US troops ago. Yup, I remember that. One mission was accomplished. Another was just barely beginning. It’s sad that almost 2000 soldiers have died but quite frankly, in the grand scale of things, that’s miraculously low for what’s been achieved. (I’m more worried about the number of seriously wounded, I’m pretty sure it’s far in excess of 2000). But by any comparison with other dictator-evictions and democracy-installations of history, casualties have been light. > Recall that the war would be over quickly and we would be greeted wih flowers. It’s a pity it didn’t turn out that way. They’ve taken a long, hard road to the same point on the map. Oh well, there’s nothing we can do about it now except for finish the job I’m afraid. > Recall that, once we managed to get control, violence would subside. That is happening as far as I can tell. Violence at this election is DRAMATICALLY lower than last election! Yay! > Recall that, once we gave Iraq back to the Iraqis, violence would subside. See above. > Recall that, once elections were held, violence would subside. See above. > Recall that, once a freely-elected government was formed, violence would subside. See above. This is still happening and I hope (and predict) this will continue to happen. > Recall that, once a new Iraqi government managed to run things, violence would subside. See above. > Recall that, once a charter acceptable to all government leaders was written, violence would subside. See above. > And now, now that voters have approved a new constitution, violence will subside. See above. > Mmmmkay. It’s one thing to be optimistic, another to ignore reality. Yep! Next?

  • Nicholas says:

    Oh, and despite this rebuttal not actually being a rebuttal of the original point, I might as well address it anyway: > A great deal of Sunni participation, yes. They participated to almost unanimously REJECT the constitution. From what I have heard, that is not true. Some Sunni-dominated areas voted heavily for the constitution. Some others voted heavily against it. It sounds to me more like the Sunnis are divided over the issue, rather than unanimously rejecint it. Americals were divided over which president to choose in the last two presidential elections. In fact, that sort of thing is very common in elections worldwide. Let’s face it, up to 49% of people frequently don’t get what they want. We learn to live with it. It’s not like when we don’t get the exact constitution/political representation that we want, our society crumbles around us. Sometimes, in fact, we’re glad we didn’t get the guy we wanted in the first place when the other one turns out to do a much better job than we though (s)he would. It’s called democracy, H. I think they’ll learn to like it. I could be horribly wrong, but my experience of history is that people eventually realize when they are on to a good thing, even if they’re opposed to it at first. It just takes time to sink in.

  • Nicholas says:

    Which propaganda would that be, exactly? Most of this information is available from regular media, who are biased, if anything, against these things. It’s just a question of whether you believe their conclusions or make your own based upon what they report. I don’t have QuickTime and don’t want to have QuickTime, so I can’t view that file.

  • Nicholas says:

    Correction: > I would say that having a referrendum in a country being directly targetted and threatened by terrorists and have (as far as I know) none of those who are voting killed and a very small number lightly wounded shows a fair amount of exercise of authority and/or dominating influence over said terrorists. According to Smash, one voter died. I hadn’t heard about that event previously.

  • TallDave says:

    The Kurds did, in fact, greet us with flowers and dancing in the streets. And the Shiites were not displeased to see us either.

  • TallDave says:

    50.1% of the U.S. voted against Bush. 56% voted against Clinton. About 25% – 35% of Iraqis voted against the Constitution. Now what’s illegitamte again?

  • mikeca says:

    Iraq is a country that was created by the British while dividing up the Ottoman Empire after WWI. The British promised the Kurds their own country in 1918, but then in 1922 divided what was suppose to be Kurdistan up between Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. In the 1920s the British found it very difficult to govern Iraq directly. The Kurds and Shiites were the most difficult to control, so in the early 1930s the British installed some Sunni leaders telling them to control the Kurds and Shiites and granted Iraq independence. The various Sunni lead governments kept the Kurds and Shiites in line, sometimes rather brutally. (Actually, the British re-occupied Iraq in 1942, because the Iraq government had sided with Germany in WWII, but that is not important.) After the 1991 Gulf War, part of the Kurdish region in the north operated as a separate country no longer under the central Iraqi government control. (Actually, it operated as two separate Kurdish countries for much of the time, because the Kurds could not all agree on one government.) The Shiites are around 60% of the population. It is clear that in a democracy the Shiites will control much of the government and the Sunni’s, which are 20-25% of the population, will be a minority. The Kurds have apparently not given up their dream from 1918 of a separate country of Kurdistan, but are apparently willing to be part of Iraq as long as they can run their own government and ignore the central government the way they have since 1991. The Kurdish and Shiite regions of Iraq have all the oil. Under the Sunni governments of the last 70 years, the Sunni’s have gotten large share of the benefits from the oil revenue. Many Sunni now fear that the Kurds and Shiites will keep most of the oil revenue in their own regions, and the Sunni regions will now get a much smaller share. It will take much more than a couple of elections to create a democracy in Iraq. The origins of the tensions between these groups go back many years. Let’s not forget that the founding fathers of our country papered over the issue of slavery in our constitution because they could not agree on it. That led to the Civil War. I would not be surprised if it takes a civil war in Iraq to decide the issues that divide that country. It is not clear what the outcome of that Civil War will be, but I am sure the it is the Iraqis themselves that will have to decide that.

Comments Closed