STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

in theory i would like to think that i would vote. but i'm one of those people who would attach a sentimental significance to the moment and be awed by my first opportunity to "participate" in democracy.

however as i write this i realize that these feelings are definitely based on my western upbringing which leads me to think democracy = good, everything else is bad, and that the opportunity to vote is something momentous and worthy of being celebrated. honestly i don't know, it's not like like my daily existance involves dodging bullets, so i can't really know what it's like to be in a war zone. also from what i heard the ballot is supposedly really confusing and somewhat lengthy (i think there are over 100+ participants) and that would definitely dissuade me.

Well, Maddie, I agree with that - the point about everyone, all of the non-terrorist population of Iraq (which is the majority) being able to overcome the insurgents just through numbers alone. I was just thinking that it's a lot easier to say this from my safe country where no one is threatening to kill me if I vote. Iraq is an incredibly violent, chaotic place right now, and I definitely might choose to put my personal safety (and the safety of my family) ahead of any other priorities. I mean, I wish we were seeing demonstrations in the streets by ordinary Iraqis telling the terrorists to get out of Iraq, but the security situation is not such that that could happen without a number of those people being killed. The US is not able to provide solid enough security right now.

Detroit - Yes, obviously Bush is a marked man, but the difference between George Bush and some civilian Iraqi trying to vote is the the fact that Bush has the most overwhelming and powerful security forces in the history of the world protecting his life, and many Iraqis have no one, no soldiers, no guns, to protect them.

My basic point is basically along the lines of what Colin Powell apparently said before the war re: you break a country, you own it. What that meant was, if you invade a country, then you are responsible for it and for providing security to the people of that country. I do not personally believe that the US is providing an adequate level of security in Iraq right now.  

If Mia was president...I would not have scheduled elections before the security situation was more stabilized.

I don't want to be misunderstood here. I was against the war, but it happened. I am not one of those people who wants things to go badly just so I can look smug and say "I told you so". It's people's lives we're talking about here - innocent people's lives, and if I were to wish bad things for Iraq based on my dislike of GW and his administration, I'd be as bad as the people I so strongly disagree with. Iraq is a country that's been screwed over by different foreign regimes too many times, and it would definitely be the best outcome if things were to stabilize and peace could be achieved there. I don't see how this will happen (I mean, literally, I don't know how this could happen at this point) but I want it to.

If I were suddenly to wake up tomorrow as the POTUS I would postpone the election and I would immediately go about getting more US troops on the ground in Iraq. If this meant instituting a limited draft, I would do so. We have to remember that this election didn't have to be this weekend. I definitely see the timing as more concerned with Bush's domestic agenda and Bush's prosecuting of the war in Iraq than it is about ensuring life gets better for Iraqis. It's not feasible to ask people to come out to the polls if you cannot protect them from those who are threatening to kill them for doing so. 

i like POTUS, too.  i'm pretty sure it's the abbreviation journalists have used for a long time for all of the prezes--laura bush is also our current FLOTUS.  potus and flotus--hee!  i wonder what the daughters are called?

anyway, i don't know if i would get out to vote today--from my (very limited) understanding based 100% on NPR reports, it seems really dangerous and scary to be out on the streets these days, and people seem to have more immediate survival needs on their minds (finding food & water, etc.). 

this is re: what detroit just said, did anyone hear the speech rumsfeld gave not too long ago wherein he said that once they had a viable iraqi government in place, they would absolutely pull US troops out of iraq, like immediately? anyway, i agree with what detroit said about hurrying up and getting someone into power as soon as possible because the presence of US troops is just exacerbating the situation.  but my skepticism of all things rumsfeldian makes me wonder if they are finally realizing that things are looking grim and are looking for an "out" that allows them to avoid admitting the war was bad idea in the first place.  which might cause them to rush to hold elections prematurely.  or perhaps this is something that everyone already knows and i am just pointing out the obvious (i always fear this when discussing politics--it seems like everyone has more info and insight than i do). 

Hahaha - Flotus and Potus!  Kinda like Flotsam and Jetsam, no?

I would have to say that I would not vote.  I think that the most vulnerable targets in the world on election day will be the polls and I for one would be as far away as possible. Frankly, I also have a hard time believing that the election will even 'take' and that the elected party will even be acknowledged as the leaders of the country.

All these people have grown up with war and dictatorship - it is all they know and all their parents knew and all their grandparents knew and so on and so forth.  It's going to take more than a forced election and a few months to heal that country.  Real change comes slowly with time, I wouldn't be suprised if it took an entire generation to accomplish what we have tried to force to happen in 2 years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: LMonet
Frankly, I also have a hard time believing that the election will even 'take' and that the elected party will even be acknowledged as the leaders of the country. All these people have grown up with war and dictatorship - it is all they know and all their parents knew and all their grandparents knew and so on and so forth.  It's going to take more than a forced election and a few months to heal that country.  Real change comes slowly with time, I wouldn't be suprised if it took an entire generation to accomplish what we have tried to force to happen in 2 years."

---

Exactly, LMonet. Exactly. I mean, even if someone attacked the US (and won militarily) and tried to impose a tribal, clan-based society onto the citizenry...think about how difficult that would be. It's just not how things *are* in the US - and democracy is just not how things *are* in Iraq.

I agree, Bumblebee, that in some ways US troops are exacerbating things, but on the other hand, if the US pulls out, what have you got? A country where the average man is armed, there's no tradition of democracy, or accepting the results of democratic elections etc. I think if the US pulls out too soon there is a very real danger if Iraq becoming a more dangerous (!) version of Iran. A theocracy run by fundamentalists. And this is the exact opposite of what GW (and the whole world except for the fundamentalists) wants for Iraq, including, I would guess, most Iraqis.

If I really thought you could invade a country and impose western style democracy that easily, I wouldn't just be pro the Iraq invasion, I'd be pro invading North Korea, China, Nigeria, Zimbabwe etc. etc. etc. But it isn't that easy. In fact, in might be impossible. And a LOT of people get killed in the process.

I wouldn't...not out of fear for my safety, but because I believe the government put in place will be ineffective and (surprise!) the US's first choice. I think those who vote will be those who also have the most protection.

Interestingly, I asked this question of my students today. Only about 15-20% of them said they would...the others admitted they'd be too scared.