Regardless of your views on the war. . .

[Finding Rawls]

I don't see how you couldn't be happy about the election. It was a neccessary step for the Iraqi people and it will help the US bring the troops home.

As long as the turnout is around 50%, a government can eventually be formed with enough supporters to create an effective police force. If the Iraqi government can establish a rule of law, we can leave. It's as simple as that.

Let's hope that it happens sooner than later.

[Parche]

1. Iraq

it is not actually a war......it was an illegal invasion

And I am not happy about over 1400 of our brave soldiers
dying so Iraq could have elections

[drdon326]

2. Agree.....

perhaps we're one step closer to getting out of there.

[fugrepugs84]

3. Here's hoping!

:toast:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

4. It was an illegal invasion

why do we think that imposing a Western-style democracy will stabilize the region? The British, Belgians, French and Dutch tried bringing western values 100 years ago, and they failed.

Anyone that thinks Iraq will stabilize because of US-style elections has little grasp of history and precendent, or is swallowing the right-wing meme hook, line and sinker. What we are doing is bringing colonialism again to the Middle East. And that's how its viewed by the population.

[drdon326]

7. Uh.....how do you explain Germany and Japan after WWII ?

All i'm saying is it is possible.

[atreides1]

13. The Difference is

The difference is that both Germany and Japan had Democratic types of governments before, Iraq hasn't.

And why would the US military give up a spot right on the border of Iran, if for no other reason then to blow the Iranians a rasberry every now and then.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

17. That's exactly right

this administration has a poor grasp of history, and it's funny to see DUers fall for their sophistry.

[Eloriel]

31. Japan and Germany also had relatively homogenous populations

unlike Iraq, which itself was cobbled together by the British way back when. There are at least 4 distinct groups who may NEVER see eye to eye about anything -- certainly haven't for generations if not millennia. When you really think about the "diversity" inherent in what was forced by the British to become Iraq, you begin to think that maybe there are appropriate times and places for dictatorships.

Really.

[drdon326]

39. I never thought I would ever see that here.

that maybe there are appropriate times and places for dictatorships.

no....there are NEVER times and places for that.

un.believe.able.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. That's NOT what we're saying

But imposing a "democratic" government made up of candidates approved by the invader, after said invader has trashed their country, destroyed its social fabric, and killed thousands of their people?

The Iraqi people truly would have been better off under Saddam. He was the type of dictator who attacked only his opponents (bad enough, but...) and didn't oppress the population randomly as, say, Stalin or Hitler did.

[drdon326]

52. He was the type of dictator who attacked only his opponents ??

look there were alot of reasons not to go into iraq but defending the BUTCHER OF BAGHDAD shouldnt be one of them.

the guy was a psycho who murdered up to 1,000,000 of his people.

he was/is a mass murderer.

and why are 2 people NOW wishing a dictatorship??

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. I'm not defending Saddam, for heaven's sakes, only saying that in

this case, the cure was worse than the disease.

Iraq had not attacked anyone since 1991, and before we went barging in there, the Iraqis had electricity, running water, schools, health care, and the ability to walk around in their own neighborhoods without getting shot or blown apart. Their archeological sites had not been looted. Women were not required to wear veils and had the right to pursue education and professions.

The whole "Saddam was a dictator" line is so bogus, because Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan are just as brutal even now, and there's no talk of deposing them--just deposing the government of Iran, which, dictatorial as it is, does have peaceful transfer of power.

[drdon326]

59. Yeah.....

they had those things but no freedoms,no right to vote and no human rights....

AND IF YOU DID SPEAK OUT ....There was no worry about your family after you were killed, because he'd kill them too.

those others countries are brutal and i sure hope the people rise up and throw the dictators to hell.

[Parche]

14. WWII

Iraq never attacked us like Japan did, and after
Germany declared war on us....

it is 2 very different scenarios

Iraq was invaded by the US....illegally

[Malikshah]

58. In addition--Germany involved a real coalition

Iraq did not.

The invasions of both Germany and Japan were tied to a World War, not the machinations of imperialist liars.

BIG difference--and it will affect the outcome.

Handpicked figures (mainly exiles) to form a system that will have an election to form a constitution ....sorry, the pot's been poisoned from the get go.

[Finding Rawls]

10. I disagree, so I'm a sucker

They do not have to adopt "Western-style Democracy." They can eventually adopt any kind of democracy they want, although I'm not sure how wide the spectrum runs.

All we need is a ruling power with the infrastructure and manpower to maintain some level of stability. Then we can leave. After we leave, that's when we'll see what kind of government will rule Iraq.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

21. Why do they even have to have a democracy?

Saudi Arabia is our ally and that country has no democratic traditions and is one of the most ruthless and oppressive regimes in the world.

Who are we to inflict a system of government on anyone?

[Jackie97]

75. This is not inflicting a government.

We inflicted a war on them that I don't think was necessary. I'm not for going to war with every undemocratic country. However, we did not force democracy on them.

THEY FOUGHT FOR DEMOCRACY TODAY. They showed up at the polls despite the threats to their lives.

[Jackie97]

62. I don't completely agree.

Colonialism is wrong. However, I don't think this is completely the case here. Iraqis voted for who they wanted today, not who we wanted. When we first took over Iraq, we put in some people that we knew darn well the Iraqis would not take up to. Well, the Iraqis haven't taken up to them, and they voted in somebody they would prefer.

They came out to vote despite threats to their own lives. They came out there holding their children. Do you know how hard it is to hold a child while waiting in line? They did that because they believed that their voting was their chance for them (not the US) to have a say in their future.

With any hope, the new leader will tell us to hit the road and we'll go.

Keep in mind that we're the reason Hussein was there. The Iraqis never wanted him there. If that isn't forcing ourselves on another country, I don't know what is.

[FreedomAngel82]

64. I agree with you

I remember around the election on CNN they had a special about Saudi Arabia where a British reporter was following around mainly two people. One was a young guy in his 30's and another was a woman in her late 40's who had her own business and everything. Basically out of the hour/two special I got that Saudi Arabia still had some problems of their democracy but the people they showed were happy about how things were coming along. People have to learn democracy their own ways. What works for them and what doesn't just as we have had to. We're not perfect either even though George Bush would like to believe it and live in his fantasy land. I just am glad they were happy with the election outcome and people did go and vote so hopefully now we can get the hell out of there soon and bring the troops home! I just hope Iran isn't next.

[mdmc]

5. yup get a governement

then let it survive the civil war.
Whoever wins the civil war, rules Iraq.

I'm glad that this election takes place. I oppossed the war, but conceed that Saddam was a SOB. Saddam ruled because he coudld control the country. No "elected Gov. is going to control Iraq. Bring on the civil war - whoever wins, leads.

[Spinzonner]

6. Presumably you assume that

a government dominated by Shiites based upon population can be stable in a country with large numbers of Sunni's who are used to ruling and Kurds who have developed a taste for independence under our protection, but whose independence is opposed by their strong neighbor, Turkey.

Even if such a government can be constitutionally composed - an open question - it remains to be seen that is can be formed and be stable in anything other than the short term without an external force suppressing a possible civil war.

This is at best a weak first step and not one which even addresses the above issues much less guarantees successful resolution of them.

[atreides1]

8. Permanent Bases = Permanent Troop Deployments

It will only be a success as long as none of the interim government leaders are kept in power, and there are no connections between the
new leaders and the US. We've already seen how that relationship has turned out in the past.

By the way there is a story that the Assyrian Christians were denied the right to vote by the Kurds in the Northern Iraq, near Mosul. Now the important question is how many others were denied the right to vote in this "illustrious" election?

And without international observers on the ground, and polling workers who were hand picked by the interim government, this actual
legitimacy of this election is in question.

It's better to have no election, then one that might be flawed.

[Jackie97]

63. Actually.

The UN sent their experts to help them out. We do have international people there.

No election is without flaws. That's impossible.

[FreedomAngel82]

66. Sounds familiar doesn't it? (on denying the vote)

Looks like they're learning well from BushCo eh?

[DrWeird]

9. I don't see how anybody could be happy.

Saddam had elections too. Were you happy about those?

[Finding Rawls]

18. That's an absurd comparison

Is there an authority in Iraq right now that will kill you if you don't vote their way?

[DrWeird]

20. Yes.

nt

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

29. Let me guess.

Bill O'Reilly Big Book of Debate Techniques? For kids?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulysses]

32. big on debate, aren't we?

:freak:

[DrWeird]

35. well, now that's a complicated issue.

can you expound on that to form a complete sentence?

[Finding Rawls]

36. OK

Who, exactly, is going to kill voters for not voting correctly?

[DrWeird]

38. Allawi probably.

And I wouldn't rule out the United States.

They have a reputation for rounding up people in the middle of the night and imprisoning them without a trial or even charges.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

42. Oh, absolutely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyad_Allawi

Allawi's even using Saddam's former secret police. Why, one would have to be an absolute imbecile to second guess the man.

:eyes:

[Finding Rawls]

47. Well

That's a nice little factoid, but what does it have to do with people believing that their vote would get them killed? (mind you, I am not referring to the actual process of voting, which people would have been justified in believing could have got them killed)

Putting aside the fact that Allawi's a corrupt SOB, why would he have a problem with people voting? Secondly, after the fact, do you think he's going to track down people who didn't vote for him?

This, of course, avoids the fact that Allawi is not running on Sistani's ticket and it is questionable if he will win.

[Jackie97]

67. I'll admit....

The United States gets in the bed with the devil time and time again. I won't even bother counting how many times they do this.

However, what would you prefer? Would you prefer that Iraq just have a civil war and the winner of the war gets to lead?

I don't think that Allawi has all the power here.

[Laurab]

46. Actually, it''s worse than that

The voters were going to get killed for voting at all. Thus, a lot of people didn't vote. Even the corporate media has reported that, so you must have seen it.

Who is going to kill them? Well, one of the many groups who don't appreciate the US taking over their country, I guess.

That being said, I do hope the "election" is a step toward getting us out of there.

[Finding Rawls]

49. You misunderstood my post

It was discussing Iraqi's being killed for voting "incorrectly." It did not reference the actual process of voting. I agree that Iraqi citizens would have been justified in not going to the polls out of the fear of a bombing. But the fear of retribution for voting for the wrong person is, in my mind, ridiculous.

[hangemhigh]

60. Uh, the same ones telling them to vote or not get their food rations?

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

[bobbieinok]

87. what about reports in several DU discussions that people had to vote

to get their rationing renewed?????

and that there were no names on ballots, only numbers, and many people 'helping' did not know which number stood for which candidate???

[Clarkie1]

23. That implication is absurd.

There were a lot of problems with these elections, and I disagree with the entire policy that got is in this costly mess, but the fact is that many and perhaps most Iraqis VOLUNTERALLY RISKED THERE LIVES to cast ballots, and most understood at a basic level what the different party lists represented and they were able to make a choice. If they didn't, do you really think they would have risked getting blown up to go to a polling booth?

That's something to celebrate, and if as democrats we fail to celebrate it then the word "democratic" in our party stands for nothing and we do nothing but undermine our own values.

[DrWeird]

34. Calling this a democracy is absurd.

Secret ballots, secret polling places, secret canditates, no free media, partial elections, boycotts, etc.

It's a mockery of democracy, every bit as much as Saddam's elections.

It's also absurd to believe that a majority of Iraqis participated.

[Clarkie1]

40. What are you smoking?

"Secret ballots, secret polling places, secret canditates, no free media, partial elections, boycotts, etc."

Secret ballots are fundamental to democracy. The polling places aren't secret, otherwise the people wouldn't have gotten there. The candidates aren't secret, either. Iraqis voted for lists of candidates for a national assembly, and most understood what the various parties represented and cared enough to go vote.

No, the elections were not perfect, but no one believes all your lies either.

You are a left-wing fundamentalist. Like a right-wing fundamentalist, any fact that doesn't fit into your established way of thinking is immediately dismissed.

Take Bob Marley's advice and free your mind, brother.

[DrWeird]

43. No, not that kind of secret ballot. Who's on the ballot is a secret.

Meaning it's impossible to have an informed vote. And that's an essential for democracy.

And least real democracy, not this fake stuff that's going on in Iraq.

I'm sure Bob Marley wouldn't hesitate to call this a sham either.

[Clarkie1]

80. I understand your perspective, but I also think it's important to have

some perspective. Those voters knew in a general sense at least who and what they were voting for...Allawi's party, Al-sistani's party, or the other major player whose name escapes me at the moment. The Kurds knew what they were voting for as well.

Most of the Sunnis (Saddam's tribe) stayed away. They represent about 20% of the population and have ruled the other 80% with an iron fist for the past decades.

Time will tell if democracy in Iraq is successful, but what happened today was not without value. This was a day of great joy for most Iraqis, and the insurgents were the losers.

[CTLawGuy]

54. Do you know what percentage of eligible adults in Iraq

registered?

We know that 70% of the people who registered voted, but do we know what the registration rate is?


What will test whether this election is successful is whether the losers will accept the results. It's key to a stable democracy. Just because Bush wins here, doesn't mean 49% of the electorate riots and starts killing people.

It's a bad sign that Sunnis refused to vote. Let's see what happens when the US finally leaves. It is at that point we will see whether democracy can flourish.

[Clarkie1]

79. I am in 100% agreement with your post

I would like to see a link to the registration rate.

[FreedomAngel82]

68. All this was

was a big show for George Bush to look like a hero and a god. I remember around the election his parents were on CNN talking and his mother called him the Chosen One for this. Seriously.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

48. yum yum

The Kool Aid is good, aint it?

[Jackie97]

65. The difference is....

they knew they would be killed if they voted for somebody other than Saddam. This time, we had Iraqi security and American troops there to protect them as they voted for who they wanted.

[ulysses]

11. that's like saying that those who love justice

should find happiness in kangaroo courts.

[McKenzie]

12. is your handle a reference to John Rawls?

just wondering because your post echoes his philosophy to my reading of it.

regards

[Finding Rawls]

24. yes nt

[Benhurst]

15. The Bush Crime Family is planning a 1.5 Billion Dollar Embassy,

17 permanent U.S. Military bases, and has a death grip on the Iraqis' oil. Just how "free" do you think those poor people whose nation we invaded without provocation are going to be?

[FreedomAngel82]

69. Don't you remember

around the time we first invaded someone asked him how we would pay for this? His answer? The oil. Now they have someone who will be President of Iraq who will become close allies with BushCo and we'll get their oil. Bush is an oil man after all and so is Poppy.

[Inland]

16. Vote mishandled, prelude to civil war.

Looking behind the total number--whether the 70% that has been pulled out the air or something realistic--you see bad days ahead.

The VARIANCE in turnout is what counts.

Huge in Shiite areas where clerics have encourage turnout, none in Sunni where the defacto powers have threatened those who turn out.

The hope of the Shiites, as encouraged by clerics, was to gain power. They have, in a huge way.

The government will not be representative if the Sunni minorities are not represented in accord with their true numbers.

Remember, this government is to write the constitution. Therefore this unrepresentative government is not something that can just be cured in the next election, assuming there is one. This government can legally, with American blessing, write a constitution with a winner take all, strong executive--essentially an elected dictator--and plan on Shiite majorities to run roughshod over minorities, including, but not limited to, rule by imams.

Of course, the first job of the strong Shiite executive will be to bring rebellious factions under his control by declaring the sunni areas under martial law and if voting is depressed in those areas in the next election......

Winner take all and damn the minorities is, by the way Bush runs his own shop, an acceptable result and democracy. Bush is on record as declaring that these elections are marvelous, super, democratic before they took place. The future "elections" are sure to pass his muster.

But the Sunnis and other minorities aren't going to accept the results. They don't think that becoming permanent second class citizens is a democratic result, and they are right. It isn't democracy but a complicated form of dictatorship.

The essence of democracy is not merely rule by the majority. It is acceptance by the minority as well. Frankly, having the same majority that rules accepting majority rule is not hard. It is having the minority accept, peacefully, the result of majority rule through a guarantee of liberties and ability to affect outcomes. That's not on the Bush radar. Bush himself is more of an elected dictator than a democratic figure.

Civil war to come.

[CTLawGuy]

56. what i find remarkable

is that there are so many candidates and parties, and minimial campaigning. How does anyone know whom to vote for other than whom their clerics tell them to?

If I were an Iraqi, I'd say "WTF?"

[FreedomAngel82]

70. That's what I'm saying

And when they were aloud to campaign on t.v. they couldn't tell their names or anything! So anybody could get on there and not even be on the ballot. My concern is what if they get someone and on down the line show signs of being a dictator? Would the U.S. swoop in and "save" them again? Or would they have to handle it?

[Inland]

86. They are voting by ethnic, religious identity for lack of any other basis

What else is there besides ethnic and religious identity, since there is no platform, policy discussion?

Of course, even the best democracies find votes influenced by ethnic, regional, religious affiliations. But in Iraq, that is all there was. Since they are trying to build a broader, civil, national identity, a vote based on a winner take almost all, I will vote for my tribe ethos is hardly a recipe for success.

Plenty of dictatorships are established in an election.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

19. We were lied to, and good men and women died. I'm not happy.

Sorry.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

AS OF JANUARY 30th: 1430 U.S. Casualties, U.S. 10,371 wounded

I cannot celebrate any "neccessary step for the Iraqi people" that resulted in that much spilled blood. These were mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, husbands, wives.

[moggie12]

27. Agree- and let's hope Bush & Co. don't screw this up, too

As you no doubt know, Bush has manipulated American public opinion, using lies and distortions of the truth to recklessly lead to country to war. Brave American soldiers have paid with their lives for the poor planning that accompanied this rush to a war. I pray Bush's team is able to work with the newly-elected Iraqi government and other countries to make the transition successful. Maybe now they will finally listen to those in their own Party, as well as the Democrats, who have tried for nearly two years to tell them that guns and bombs aren't the answer to everything.

[Gyre]

28. What on earth are we still doing in Iraq???

Is it time to split before their civil war starts? Oh that's right. The chimp put his imprimatur on the election before it was over. Well, we expected that, so it isn't so questionable, or is it?

So lets haul ass while we can claim "mission accomplished". Why don't we put the army to work repairing infrastructure here? Or at least, have KBR switch their efforts to over here, and maybe built a few hundred schools that this country desperately needs. At least that way we'd be getting something tangible for our tax dollars.

Gyre

[JoMama49]

37. We're not leaving until Haliburton, et al. has the oil, that's for

sure, election, democracy, rule of law, those are all smoke screens for what we're really doing there - expanding oil capital into the pockets of the big oil companies. We'll only leave once a U.S. friendly government (one that will support our theft of Iraqi oil) is installed.

[Guaranteed]

33. Yes, and it's great that Saddam was captured, too, however:

1) It's still not going to work.

2) We're still stuck in that place for years to come, and paying for it with blood and money, no matter what Robert Novak says.

3) It doesn't do anything to restore our reputation, especially since nobody really believes that these elections are going to be legitimate.

[Mountainman]

44. I think your being a little naive and over optimistic

Why should the neocons hand over the country to the Iraqis?

This is not an election to form a government so that we can leave.

The reason for the war was so the neocons could control Iraq and they haven't changed their mind.

This is a show for the world not a what you say it is.

[okieinpain]

45. hey I'm glad they are having elections. I just hope their votes

count. I glad saddam is gone, it's just to bad america is still picking their leaders. well lets hope the troops are closer to being sent home and not to iran.

Oh well.

[salin]

51. yep.

hope for the best... but hope that what follows doesn't end up leading to worse. Hope that the rhetoric and drumbeats we are hearing from dc aren't stage two - Iran.

but I do commend those voting today in areas that were not secure. Regardless of my opposition to the war, and my cynicism about what follows the election (per another Mission Accomplished period followed by later spikes of violence), I still have deep respect for those Iraqis who were willing to brave the worst in order to vote.

[okieinpain]

84. great post.

[leyton]

55. I agree - I hope it goes smoothly.

I hope turnout is high so that our soldiers didn't die in vain. I may not have agreed with the invasion and I doubted the feasability of establishing democracy, but if it can happen, I hope it does.

[Zhade]

57. It's easy to be unhappy about a sham election that installs a puppet govt.

NT!

[Jackie97]

61. I'm very happy that elections have happened.

I've been looking forward to this day all month. You think we had a rough election day, imagine theirs. They had to risk their life to get to the polls. That's what I call fighting for your country.

My main thing is what we went in for WMDs, not to free the people (that was just a part of the war). We can't just go around freeing countries all over the world. It gets a lot of people killed, including our troops.

[Jack Rabbit]

71. I wish I could believe that

However, what I believe is that after Katherine Harris/Ken Blackwell clones are finished counting the votes, Iraq will have a "government" that will refuse to ask foreign troops to get the hell out of their country and take the war profiteers with them, and will further refuse to invalidate Bremer's hundred decrees.

In short, I don't believe for a minute these elections were the least bit democratic and will not reflect the will of the Iraqi people.

The colonial occupation of Iraq will continue.

[TNMOM]

72. the Republican admin won't get such an easy pass from me

Just because the Iraqis had an "election" does not make this war justified, or a "success" or even that "progress" is being made.

The country, in its current shape, is worse than before the attack.

Is an election better than a dictatorship in Iraq? I don't think we as Americans can answer that from afar (our country wasn't preemptively attacked and our goverment wasn't forcibly replaced by another country who "knows better.")

Ask the average Joe Blow in Bagdad if it was worth it. To have the aggressor tell the country it attacked that they are better off is the height of imperialism.

[LibertyorDeath]

73. "I don't see how you couldn't be happy about the election"

Oh you don't

Well for starters it was not a Fucking Election

It was a sick twisted PR bullshit Propaganda Joke.

America is NOT LEAVING Iraq they are busy Building 14 Permanent Military Bases from which they will Project American Military might.

When the Oil runs dry or the need to control it goes away then and only then will they leave.

In the meantime they have more Iraqi Women, Children & men to Slaughter.

I mean bring "Democracy" to through an "Election"

[Bouncy Ball]

74. Start off by reading this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1548300

Then read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3030278

Then come back and talk. If indeed you are even still participating in this thread.

No matter how many times you low post count guys try to say "Whee! Isn't it great?" the fact remains that we have our eyes open and have had them open all this time and you have been keeping yourself willfully ignorant of the true facts of this crime of aggression.

[Finding Rawls]

78. I'm not sure if your post is relevant to what I said

I appreciate you pointing our that I have not made many posts to the board. That is certainly a relevant critique of what I posted. I apologize that I do not have the time or desire to post on every topic that comes up on the board.

I also appreciate you pointing out to me that I have been "willfully ignorant of the true facts of this crime of aggression." Yes, I believe everything that is said on Fox News and everything that is written in the Weekly Standard.

Oh, I looked at both of the posts you instructed me to look at and I can say that I see nothing there that I would like to introduce into the deabte on whether or not we should be pleased that the election went through with relative success.

[moobu2]

76. I'm happy for the Iraqi's

well, at least for the ones that survived alive and uninjured. I saw an Iraqi woman on world news who said she decided to vote because it was the only way to get the occupation forces to leave.

I wish them all well and hope they can make the best of it.

Fuk Bush for invading a country under false pretences and causeing all that death and destruction though.

[leesa]

77. Because it's a scam and the Iraqis are being cruelly manipulated.

I think it is tragic. The ONLY purpose for this election is to justify Bush's illegal invasion and slaughter of the Iraqi people. It is a tragedy.

[0007]

83. Allawi is as bad as Saddam Hussein and the "Death Squad" master

John Negroponte isn't in Iraq to set up Sunday School classes.

[Geek_Girl]

81. Only Time will tell whether this election will bring any stability to Iraq

and before we can blink an eye we'll be in Iran. So don't count on bringing troops home anytime soon.

[0007]

82. These elections are a farce. They are only to prop up

the Iraqi new crime family with junior's crime family and to give the world a show, a show that the United States can stay in Iraq permanently and use those fourteen military installations to gain further control over the Middle East.

Under the pretense of Democracy

[rockymountaindem]

85. I hope you're right.

I really hope this can be the beginning of something good in Iraq, but I won't strike up the band just yet.

Hopefully we can pull out sooner rather than later, or at least reduce our presence.