RateItAll: The Opinion Network

I am disgusted at Lance's references to Europe supporting the US only when Americans died defending their soil. The two situations are not linked at all.Come over here and see the beautifully tended graveyards of soldiers of all nationalities that gave their lives in what really is a futile exercise - war. Then you will know why we think as we do in Europe. From this devastation,Europeans are agreed that war on such a scale should never be repeated.It is our fervant hope that we never witness such appalling atrocities again on our soil. This may be a forlorn hope given the threat of radical Islam and a gun-happy US president, but we ARE turning our back on 18th century thinking. With the help of a similarly modern approach in the States, imagine what we could all achieve. This however would require the removal of probably the worst presidency the US has ever had. (squawk,squawk) Let's see what will happen in Iraq after the elections: this will divide the country into roughly three parts,Sunni,Kurds and Shia. The 22% of the population of the original ruling Sunnis are already resentful that a more strongline Sharic Law is a likelihood of these elections. Once troops leave (whenever that is) the country will be pulled apart by the warring factions if a strong enough coalition Government has not been put in place. If Sharic Law is put into place, the US will have a worse situation than it had before. Sharia Law is almost mediaeval in its approach. Lance is correct in saying many Iraqis want democracy and desire the right to vote. But,as a recent survey purports, over half the population thinks it's ok to kill US and British troops,despite their efforts,because they are seen as an invading,occupying army. The Middle East (and nearly everyone else too) sees gross hypocrisy in a United States armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons telling everyone else they shouldn't develop them. Well, when they see the US invading a Muslim state to set up a puppet Government (their view) then they are bound to want to develop weapons to fight against such an eventuality themselves (hence Iran,Syria,etc) The Europeans do not want to see a failure of this mission,far from it. TheMiddle East sits on our doorstep and we are being overrun with Muslim asylum seekers ourselves. As much as we would wish them to return home, Bush's interventions,to us, are a catastrophe. We need leaders with foresight,understanding of complex cultural histories and the desire to change THINKING. We really hope that the elections formulate the basis of a new model society in Iraq and that the things he talks about can be achieved in the time frame stated. That would mean the removal of US and British troops and the use of independent UN troops in the intermediate time from now till this can happen. (The Iraqis have said this themselves) Then it would be good to call it a success.

Well you can't say they are a resounding success as of yet, there are still many hurdles to leap. However, the whole concept of a Middle Eastern predominantly Arab state holding any election is quite momentous. I have never seen such lugubrious reactions upon news of free elections than in the countenance of liberals in the mainstream media. Slogans like Democracy At Gun Point headline daily reports. Let us not forget that our nation was formulated at gunpoint- as just about every other democracy on earth. This endeavor is just- not because democracy is just a great idea but because it's consistent with naturally instrumental principles of human nature. These universal principles are not malleable- cultures are malleable though admittedly stubborn. It is for this reason that through truthful engagement and a consistent effort that liberty can be brought to the darkest reaches of the earth. The road will be tough and purchased with the lives of many braves souls but it is worth the fight- for Iraqis and the future safety of American citizens. These elections are one step further down that road. UPDATE- With the Constitutional referendum right around the corner I think it should be noted the disparity with which Americans view the situation in Iraq and the Iraqi people view new Iraqi republic. While support for the war effort has waned here in the States and Europeans are committed to labelling it a failure no matter what (they only support wars when hundreds of thousands of Americans die protecting their soil) the Iraqi people are very optimistic. Almost 60% think their nation is getting better and will continue to get better in a year. 72% think their nation will be much better in 5 years. Almost 60% believe the new constitution affords basic human rights to both women and men. 61% believe the new government properly limits the role of government (the concept of limited government in the middle east? Nope no nonsense here.) 59% believe it gives a proper identity for the Iraqi people and over 60% believe this fosters Iraqi unity. And over 59% believe it the Constitution creates an independent judiciary. It's amazing they have so much optimism when things are going so badly!

If successful at all (and I hope they are), it will not be resounding by any means. Rather, it will be a small step-by-step victory in the overall process.

I'm not sold on the notion that Bush's policies are the sole reason for the recent 'democratic' developments in the Middle East. I believe that he's been overstating developments over there, equating them with the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. The truth is actually a lot messier than that. Iraq held its first democratic election a month and a half ago, but yet no government has been formed. There are huge ethnic and religious cleavages that are very deep. Additionally, the Sunni insurgency has once again stepped up; they're hitting Shiite targets with the purpose of inciting a larger civil war that will undermine the government. In short, we shouldn't prematurely celebrate the rise of democracy in the Middle East. History shows that we've been taken by surprise many times, and the Sunnis, who are now out of authority, have traditionally been the power brokers in Iraq; they resent losing their major influence in Iraqi politics. The violence won't end because the majority of the population went to the polls; the root cause of the insurgency is an armed minority. Lets leave Iraq for now. In Palestine, US policy had almost nothing to do with the recent attempts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The death of Yassir Arafat and his replacement by Abu Mazen, who's more willing to negotiate with Israel, is the most important factor. American influence here has been negligible, just like Bush wanted from the beginning, and to an extent he was right, the parties needed to come to the table on their own. In Lebanon, the rise of the opposition to the Syria's military presence came as a result of the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, an anti-Syrian former Prime Minister; this had nothing to do with US policy. Hezbollah, a Syrian supported political party and terrorist organization is far more powerful than the opposition. Lebanon has a very fragile balance between the hodgepodge of religious and ethnic groups living there; any disbalance will re-ignite the civil war which had ravaged that country for 15 years. Having an election doesn't necessarily that the country in question will become a republic that respects the rights of its citizens, especially minority rights. Remember, even Hitler was democratically elected. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are 2 countries Bush is pressuring to open up their political systems. Both countries are doing the least to comply with US pressure. Egypt is allowing elections, but all candidates have to be pre-screened. Saudi Arabia held municipal elections, but most of the winners were picked by the government and women weren't allowed to vote. Both countries are rightfully concerned that extremists will gain power and end up undermining movements that seek greater freedoms and democracy. Additionally, US support for democracy can be selective at times, a major contention is that such an approach is regarded as hypocritical. Such countries like Pakistan are ruled by US supported dictatorships; although this case is more fragile because this is a nuclear power and we don't want the atom bomb going into the wrong hands, which would likely happen if an extremist government comes to power. Libya is another so called triumph for Bush, but the reality of the matter is that the autocratic ruler Quddafi agreed to scale back his WMD programs because he was much less afraid of a US attack after the mixed results of the Iraq War. He only sealed the deal after it was agreed that UN sanctions against the country will be removed. Quddafi has also been trying to normalize relations with the West for years. Is this really a success in the war on terrorism? As Quddafi was telling us that he wants to stop supporting terrorism, he was planning an assassination of the leader of Saudi Arabia. There really haven't been many 'ripple effects' in the Middle East stemming from the elections in Iraq; in each case described above, there are other causes leading to these openings. Democracy by gunpoint is counterproductive, for it become associated with invaders seeking to impose their will on the people. Ironically enough, many pro-democratic movements distance themselves from the US, thus undermining our support in the region. The US cannot force democracy down peoples throats, liberty is important for everyone. I don't take the position that Muslims can't accept democracy, but doing so by force has lead to American becoming much less respected in the region. Democracy comes through leading by example and individual volition. You can't force freedom, otherwise it really isn't freedom.

Is this supposed to be funny? There is an Islamic minority that can claim that they are not a part of the election and claim it as invalid. Furthermore, the U.S. has a history of putting people in power that we approve of regardless of election outcomes. (We have rigged elections before - places like Chile - that have lead to Civil War and other disastrous results.) The only sucess of a U.S. occupation and rebuilding happened in Japan - and that was because of the Japanese, not the Americans. In a few years, when enough people have died, we will remember these elections for the phony band-aid that it really is.

Very successful indeed but nothing to gloat over. Much work lies ahead, and no doubt Bush and our military realizes that more than anyone else.

The elections themselves were relatively successful. If there was any place for extremists to exercise their power it would have been during these polls. These attacks were at a minimum and therefore the elections themselves were successful. It will be a long time, however, before we can tell if the GOVERNMENT set up by these elections is successful.

I think it's amazing and encouraging that the elections went off as well as they did. Pretty inspiring the risks that many Iraqis were willing to take in order to vote. There is no question that the fact that Sunnis, who for the most part boycotted the election, will cause trouble down the road. But the fact that the election went through as planned is a credit to all involved.

Successful but not a resounding success. Imagine choosing to vote, knowing you were risking your life to do so. It's a good thing Americans don't face such a choice.