#4: Place your bets? > Hoping for Disaster?

THREAD BEGAN: September 28th, 2004

BOB: Alright, it’s only about 100 days until the Election in Iraq.
Place your bets now…Choose an outcome from the list below.
ELECTIONS WILL TAKE PLACE AS PLANNED:
(A) …with little or no interference
(B) …despite persistent terrorist attacks
ELECTIONS WILL HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS:
(C) …only a ‘partial’ Election will take place
(D) …the vote will result in a recount / scandal
(E) …mass protest / rioting will break out
(F) …there will be unrest when U.S. intervenes in candidate selection
ELECTIONS WILL BE ‘POSTPONED’:
(G) …because of terrorism / security concerns
(H) …because of Civil War
Feel free to add to the list if I forgot anything.
(I want to hear from everyone, even Maney)
Winner gets to say, “I told you so” come January.

ZELIN: Tony Blair voiced the following words today as he makes his bid for re-election: BRIGHTON, England, Sept. 28 — Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged today that there had been a decline of public trust in his government over the military campaign in Iraq and he offered the assembled delegates of his governing Labor Party a qualified apology for some of the judgments he had made in taking the country to war."The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons as opposed to the capability to develop them has turned out to be wrong," he told hundreds of party leaders and delegates as about 8,000 protesters against the war and against a ban on fox hunting demonstrated outside the hall in this seaside resort on Britain's southern coast.My question is, why can't Bush come out and say something along these lines? Seriously, to his own credit. I think if he was able to publicly relay some sense of honesty about the war to the American people, he could win over (okay, maybe not win over) liberals like myself who are questioning his actions. But, he is to narrow minded and focused on the upcoming election to level with the American people and portray a sense of honesty regarding Iraq.Jay, regarding our previous email on poor Southerners fighting the war and rich liberals debating it. I guess, it takes some educated liberals such as myself and yourself to argue this war, and question our president's policies, in order to keep you and me out of Iraq. Don't worry, the liberals will take care of questioning an unjust war to make sure none of use get drafted.

JAY: Zelin, I also read an article concerning Blair's re-election. Here is the site if anyone else wants to read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3692996.stm. It's from the BBC. The following sentence that Zelin omitted states, "But the prime minister told Labour delegates in Brighton he could not apologise for having been involved in the effort to remove Saddam Hussein. Blair was interrupted by a protester and responded, "That's fine sir you can make your protest - just thank God we live in a democracy." Sounds familiar. Did I say that to you libs a while ago. Blair went on to say, "The problem is I can apologise for the information being wrong but I can never apologise, sincerely at least, for removing Saddam. The world is a better place with Saddam in prison."
bob, i will answer your survey after i think about it for a little bit. the sad thing about this survey is i think you would prefer a disaster/civil war just so you can say "i told you so." i really think that. it's pretty sick.
My response to this survey stating how i thought bob wanted to see a disaster got me thinking. This is the one problem i see w/ a bi-partisanship. I see a huge conflict of interest. When you guys make your arguments stating how the war in iraq is going to shit, i think that's what you want. you and all the democrats want to see bush fail so it hurts his campaign around election time. his failure equates to democratic success. do you see a conflict of interest? the worse things go in iraq (the more deaths), the better kerry will do in the election. if you are one of those guys that want to see a disaster in iraq (more civilian and us soldier casualties) just to get a democrat in office or to say "i told you so", then you are disturbed. so, after what i just said, who wants to see a disaster in iraq? i want to hear from all the democrats.

ZELIN: Jay, I guess I will respond to one of your 16 emails you sent in the past 5 minutes. You mention that us liberals, mostly Chuck, are unable to look at both sides are so considerably one-sided, that we cannot have a debate. I invite you to look on the blog and re-read a trail of your previous emails. You simply try to argue every point that we make without even considering the possibilities of our rational. In that case, I think you are guilty of the same crime. Furthermore, to also say that we are hoping for more casualties so Kerry will win, is ridiculous and immature. No Jay, we are just realists, people who look at the situation for what it is and try to see that things are not going so well in this war. That is all. Our president and you want to put a fucking rosey color stamp on all the news, to increas our morale. I think that is shortsighted and irrespnosbile. As I stated before Jay, just questioning what is going on, that is all. Seriously man, take it easy. From the tone of your emails I feel that I could email saying my shirt is yellow and you would find some fucking way to argue that it has an orange hue. What the fuck did law school do to you.Jay, I agree that it was good to get Saddam out of power. My point was, I think the Bush administration could be a bit more honest about the current situation instead of trying to paint a beautiful picture for pre-election boners. That is all. Okay, agree, with the other issues regarding Saddam.

BEN: hewitt in response to your little poll question....if Bush wins: B) will take place despite terrorism and C) only a partial election will take place. If Kerry wins: B) will take place despite terrorism and F) when the US intervenes there will be unrest

CHUCK: Okay serious problem: Since there is no WMD, no 9/11, no imminent threat, why are we in Iraq? Well, the acceptable answer is to spread democracy in a region in need of help. Well, that is a nobel cause. Problem: Our the current White House does not want a legitimate democracy.
A story broke this week (which was way underreported) that exposed a CIA planned to financially influence the outcome of the Iraq election. Can you believe it? We want to spread democracy, but then think about rigging the election, so we get a pro-US winner. Bush has now rejected the idea. But when? After Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) found out and led a charge to NOT fix the election. What would have happened if the 'secret' documents didnt get out.
So to summarize: We want to spread democracy. White House wants to secretly 'influence' the Iraq election. Democrats lead charge to not 'influence'. Thanks to democrats we will not influence the election. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041004-702122,00.html

ZELIN: Can one Bush Supporter please Answer Chuck's first question?
Okay serious problem: Since there is no WMD, no 9/11, no imminent threat, why are we in Iraq?
Please, I am interested in your case for this question.

BOB: Jay, I WANT TO SEE DISASTER!
But not for the reasons you suggested. My reason is simply this:
I believe that it is wrong for us to invade another nation pre-emptively, overthrow their government (even if it is a bastard like Saddam), and ‘install’ one that suits our interests simply because we say that it’s a threat. ESPECIALLY IF IT ISN’T!
If the United States gets away with this, it sets the precedent. This current policy needs to be stopped before it gets out of hand. As long as our foreign policy is viewed by non-Americans the world over as imperialism, it will only breed anti-Americanism (which I believe is the real root cause of terrorism.)
So for the sake of the next generation of U.S. soldiers, all the other countries on Cheney’s To-Do list, and most importantly: the safety of the American people, I am rooting for a moderate failure in Iraq.
By moderate failure I mean:
----A situation that is unsuccessful enough (unprofitable enough) that the American people realize that this pre-emptive, go-it-alone, imperialistic, nation-building crap is fundamentally wrong.
----A situation that is unsuccessful enough that the U.S. (Republicans and Democrats) are forced to return to the ‘irrelevant’ U.N. with their tails between their legs and say, “We need your help, please, thank you.” (Not for troops, as much as legitimacy in the eyes of the Arab world)
However, no one wants to see the situation spin out of control and the region turned into a breeding ground for terrorists the world over. (Although, it’s looking more probable with every bloody month.)
We are at a foreign policy crossroads right now. Everything is pivoting on the success of this Iraq experiment. Will we realize that our hypocritical, smash-em-all foreign policy is actually breeding more terrorism than it’s eliminating? Or will we ‘stay the course’ until the majority of non-Americans celebrate when a bomb goes off in New York City?
I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer. Do you think that I am disturbed?

JAY: zelin, i didn't say you liberals. i addressed that towards chuck. reread my e-mail. you'll see. the more boners the marrier. blair doesn't apologize for going into iraq, and that's how i think your message was misleadingchuck, that's what i'm talking about. you take every question and instead of anwering it, you throw in a bush comment. only bob anwered my question. where are the rest of you democrats? conflict or what?

ZELIN: I answered your question yesterday. Said that your accusations are ridiculous and immature.

JAY: how is it ridiculous iif bob answered in the affirmative. something is not ridiculous if it is true. so you are telling me that it is ridiculous to think that some/most/all (whatever) democrats would like to see bush's occupation in iraq fail? you don't think some would like it to fail horribly to help kerry's position on iraq? chuck, i'll look into your "way underreported story." see, I'll do that b/c i want to hear all sides and make an intelligent decision based on all views. when i discussed the oil-for-food scandal you immediately bashed bush for something cleary irrelevant to the topic (unless you were saying somehow it was bush's scandal; i don't think that's what you meant either) you know the answer for this question. bush had intelligence that was wrong (allegedly so far). if you were president and recieved such intelligence, what would you do? i'll tell you what kerry would have done. he would have gone into iraq b/c that's what he voted for. i still think there was a threat. wait until the report comes out. didn't you get my e-mail about the report where i analogized w/ conspiracy. i ask b/c nobody responded. before you answer, research for yourself on the inpections report and then tell if you think there was any threat whatsoever.

ZELIN: Jay, And then you know what my response will be. Let's get into N Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and even Israel. They all have nuclear weapons and certain countries possess threats that are to grave for us to even think of. We should send troops to all of these nations to free to world of terror and make sure all persecuted people are liberated. In that case, add Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, Colubmia, and shit, why not Canada. We can all get drafted and serve our dear leader.

JAY: don't worry. i'm sure sooner or later we'll be dealing w/ one of those countries. however, that argument conflicts w/ one of your arguments. it's often argued that bush is spreading our resources too wide by invading iraq during our occupation in afghanistan. if we now go into one of those countries you mentioned,wouldn't that strengthen your argument? If you couldn't grasp from my email, I was being sarcastic about invading all those nations. Zelin, in another article I read blair stated, "In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. on Wednesday Blair suggested, however, he did not think that the “basis upon which we went to war was wrong. We took the action as a result of Saddam’s failure to comply with U.N. resolutions, and that noncompliance still stands."I like his reasons, what about you? Bob, First off, you stated in your response "go-it-alone." That is a blatant lie. How many countries were in the coalition? I know it doesn't meet your standard, but it is one of the largest coalitions ever. How many people have to die for it to be a moderate failure. You can think it's wrong, I respect that. But when you hope for the deaths of civilians and soldiers merely to prove a point, arent you just as bad as you claim bush is? I always knew you were slightly different in your artsy little way, but this crosses the line. As much as something may be wrong, you should always wicsh for the best outcome. Also, you guys argue "why don't we go into other countries that pose more of a threat?" Doesn't that contradict what you just said,"I believe that it is wrong for us to invade another nation pre-emptively, overthrow their government (even if it is a bastard like Saddam), and ‘install’ one that suits our interests simply because we say that it’s a threat."I am saving this quote from you: "I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer." Tell that to the families that have sons and daughters over there.

CHUCK: Jay, i am sorry for adding more then simple yes/no answers. I will say for the 3rd time, YES the french theory is possible. Until there is more evidence I cannot say more then that. (now i'll stop, because evidently i am only allowed yes/no answers and then no other comments) MY ANSWER: I dont want disaster. i want to stabalize badly because i think if we let iraq go it will turn into the old afghanistan times 10 for terrorists. (again, i will refrain from any other comment on why the terrorists are there, because any additional comments make me irrational)

BOB: Well Jay, I like your spirit. Keep swingin away kiddo.About my email: I WANT TO SEE DISASTER!I knew that few people, if any in this roundtable, would agree/understand my point (REP or DEM). And for the love of God I don't want to agrue about the size and legitimacy of the coalition (its already laidout on the blog). (Also I am not one who agrues that we should get involved with Columbia, Rwanda and every other nation that has problems.)But please don't put words in my mouth:I DON'T "HOPE FOR DEATHS MERELY TO PROVE A POINT!"I DON'T HOPE FOR DEATHS!I DO HOPE THAT AMERICA WAKES UP AND REALIZES THAT THIS TYPE OF POLICY IS ONLY GOING TO MAKE AMERICA MORE VULNERABLE. BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.And I AM hoping for the best outcome (the best FEASIBLE outcome)(The best outcome, of course, is that we overthrow Saddam, find the weapons, the Iraqis rejoice, the country is stabilized, reconstruction gets underway, countries like France and Germany call us to apologize and we spread liberty and freedom to the Middle East. Unfortunately, the best outcome is a pipe-dream.) Instead, I will wish for the best FEASIBLE outcome. I will hope that the American people realize soon that pre-emptive invasions like Iraq aren't the way to make us safer, force our government to bring our soldiers home safely ASAP and elect politicians who don't fear-monger us or put our soldiers in harms way to neutralize non-existent threats.

JAY: this reply seems considerably different than "I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer." What constitutes a moderate disaster? I would assume a moderate disaster equates to more deaths. sorry for the constant e-mails. i feel the need to respond every time i am singled out.

SAMMY: Sorry guys I have been really busy, and haven't checked my mail. I must say you guys have been busy. Well it seems their is one mailing I want to comment on. And that is Jays.No I don't want to see disaster, but on the other hand aren't we seeing that right now. I haven't checked the latest death and injury counts , but when the first man died for Bush's war that was a disaster for me. Bush has failed, and the more death and more money that man spends is just another nail in the coffin for Bush. I don't want anymore of it. But, if Bush is going to stead fast and keep his corse, then the only good thing that can come of it is to say "I told you so!!!!"

BEN: bob, i am glad you cleared it up you dont want deaths in iraq.......i dont think anyone on this list does, no matter what they think.....now there are some fringe folks out there that do, but no one here.as far as watching the debate.....i think kerry is going to try and say bush is the "real flip flopper" true or not, it wont wash, because the fact that kerry is a flip flopper is ingrained in peoples mind. should be fun to watch, and i know the comments will be many from every one here

CHUCK: i think the debates are going to lack substance. since there is no direct questions from candidate to candidate, i think each guy will have there scripted answers memorized, and it will go smoothly. i bet the big discussion after will be something dumb like kerry is 'too tan' or bush looked at his watch. neither guy is going to say anything surprising (i hope i am jinx that, and there is yelling and arguing and all that good stuff, but doubt it)

KYLE: My dream question for tonight's debate: President Bush, you opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission, but then changed your opinion. Why would you oppose a commission seeking to investigate the most catastrophic attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor?

ZELIN: Regarding tonight's content, I agree with Chuck. The debates are so scripted and regulated that I feel we won't hear anything knew, or breathtaking. However, that is the opinion of a bunch of politically spirited, smart kids like ourselves. I think this will be the first time lots of Americans truly see the candidates on stage and get a view of their characteristics. That is why I worry about Kerry.

BOB: STILL WAITING?!
On tuesday I asked a very simple question (what will happen in the Iraqi Election). It was even multiple choice!!! Since then I have gotten exactly 30 emails (10 just from Jay) and ONLY Keeler has responded. Jay, you always claim that no one is answering your questions, are you planning on answering mine?!? (And that goes for all of you other, too. Also Jay, after I wrote, “I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer." You replied, “Tell that to the families that have sons and daughters over there.” In regards to the families of those fallen soldiers...the one who has explainning to do is your buddy Bush, not me. He is the one that needs to tell those families why they sacraficed their son or daughter neutalizing some non-existent WMDs.
The precise reason that I want an unsuccessful occupation (that leads to the withdrawl of U.S. troops) is to end this type of American blood-shed ASAP and to change our foreign policy so that it never happens again.

KYLE: Bob, Good news on your question. There aren't going to be elections in Iraq anytime soon. Does this look like a place ready for an election? www.aljazeera.net

JAY: you can't possibly justify what you said. “I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer." bullshit all you want. i have forwarded this remark to everyone on my contact list and you should see the reactions. apparently you're the devil. once all my questions are answered i'll take a good week or two to respond to your survey. hey, i'm still waiting too (on many unanswered questions)
do you unerstand that a moderate disaster equates to more "American blood-shed?" do you understand that what constitutes a disaster is lost lives? i understand that you feel our occupation there is wrong, but your "moderate disaster" remark completely contraducts yourself. you don't want "American blood-shed," but you will tolerate it if it means we'll leave iraq.

CHUCK: i dont want to say it aloud to everyon(out of fear of jay outing me to hundreds, like he supposedly did to you), but i totally understand your point. i dont agree, and hope we quickly succeed or quickly withdraw because i cant take all this innocent death. but i get your point, and its never going to sound good, but its logically it makes sense. maybe its weak of me to not say it to everyone, but i just dont feel like jay having this thing on me that he feels is some trump card.

JAY: i was at the bar last night talking w/ zelin and i realized something. one thing i always liked about kerry was his plan to give tax incentives to businesses to keep them in the u.s. (prevent them from outsourcing to other countries). however, as i argued for it i realized it could be a horrible thing. this would hinder globalization, hinder free competition, and affect millions of lives throughout the world. do you think the families in other countries that rely on th income they recieve from u.s. businesses will be happy? do you think it will result in much more hate for the u.s.? (this is where i expect bob to throw in his view that big business exploits labor in other countries; however it's called supply and demand. they want us there. families wouldn't survive if it wasn't for big businesses over there. it's not like slavery. if they don't want to work, they don't have to. i would love them to pay more, but that's not how supply and demand works. direct your stupid argument to economics)

CHUCK: Its really sad. 34 children killed. well, on the upside, at least these kids dont have to live a life w/out any parents, like the thousands of children who had there innocent civilian parents killed in this war.....because the kids those living/parentless children are definitely going to hold a lot of hostility towards americans and grow up into full blown adult terrorists. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6378394 (Jay, i want to give my 2 cents on the economic argument, when i get a little time)

SAMMY: Bob, Regarding your question about the Iraqi elections, their will only be one outcome and that is Saddam placed back into power. Ha! Seriously, I would have to pick C, D, E, & F. The scandel of american government butting in will result in mass protest, which in turn will only produce few voters, such as rich and wealthy oil tycoons. And the U.S. will demand a recount when the popular vote differs from the electoral college. Most likely the U.S troops will remain to try to keep the peace and control over the land, although they don't have that now.

JAY: why don't you describe the life in iraq prior to the war? i'll do it for you if you want

ZELIN: Jay, you know, you are beginning to sound quite a bit like your boy Bush. Living in some fantasy world and trying to convince yourself and the rest of your peers, (In Bush's case, America) that Iraq is going fine and things are getting better. Why are you so reluctant to admit that Iraq is a disaster, elections are going to be a sham, and something else needs to be done. Really, take a look at what is going on, the reports that are coming in, and try and make an unbiased analysis of how things are going. Sure, we can only know so much and the newspapers and such only describe part of what is going on, but really Jay, just admit that Iraq is a mess and there is only more bloodshed on the horizon.

KYLE: Dear Friends, Share your reaction to the Presidential Debate in our comments at the Chief Source during or after the debate at our special post debate discussion page:http://chiefsource.blogspot.com/2004/09/post-debate-discussion.html#comments

CHUCK: certainly, life before war: there were very oppressive leaders (mostly husseins). they oppressed women and suppressed dissent. they tourched people, often for fun. they lived in constant fear of their dictator, who back in the 80's killed a bunch of his own iraqi's. it was a horrible place to live.
AND there were NOT car bombings killing 40 children. there were NOT 15,000 that were going to die b/w 2002-2004. there was a minimal amount of terrorists, and it was definitely not a breeding ground for daily death, and future terrorism.
Jay, you love to talk about how bad iraq/sadaam was. what has he done since the first gulf war? all he did was give the UN a hard time. and i find it really funny that
his disobeying the UN is used to show his danger. WE disobey, and mock, the UN. So what is? What? The threat? Okay. I dont agree, but I know your point. But you also like to remind us of his horrible oppression. what has he done in the last 10 years that makes him any worse then dozens of other oppressive nations? I need to know. Everyone needs to know.

DAN: To answer your question, Bob, I think that there will be an increase in terrorism amongst the Iraqi people. This is do to the obvious fact that they (the Iraqi insurgents) don't want to be liberated and want go back to the Saddam regime, where it is o.k. to car bomb your own people - or behead innocent reporters and construction workers - or skin bodies and drag them through the streets like trophies. These militants will do anything to stop progression from happening, but just like in Sammara where 109 insurgents were killed, we will not back down. We SHOULD NOT, and WILL NOT pull troops out (like you want)...as long as "W" is at the helm. As for the elections, they will occur, and on time, and the Iraqi people WILL be better off because of it.

BOB: Jay, are you kidding? Can you really not understand such a simple concept? Let me spell it out for you. And please listen this time!...
(And then hopefully you can recontact your mystery friends and clear this up. I would hate for Jenn Landis and the Greek basketball league to be talking about me.)
(1) The world hates us because of our lopsided, inconsistent, hypocritical, inhumane foreign policy.
(2) That hatred is the root cause of terrorism
(3) This Iraqi experiment in imperialism-in-the-name-of-defense is our worst offense yet.
(4) A moderate failure in Iraq would open peoples’ eyes and change the course of the war on terror before it is too late.
And YES, that does involve a spike in American casulaties in the next few months, but it is alot better than a steady trickle of casualties that lasts for the next 20 years as we spread liberty by force to every corner of the globe with our red-white-and-blue war machine (not to mention the big bang when the terrorist finally succed in sneaking a nuke onto American soil because we fought the War on Terror ass backwards.)
JAY...DO...YOU...UNDERSTAND?
Now that we have that out of the way....
Well, I just finished watching Fahrenheit 9/11 and I must say Keeler you did the right thing by refusing to watch this film. Your conservative contributions are vital to balancing this roundtable and I wouldn’t want you converting on me.
After seeing this film, I got to thinking. Especially about my comments about ‘hoping for disaster’ Had I gone too far? Had I lost site of the big picture? Was Jay right? Well, here is the conclusions that I’ve come to thus far: My overall statement stands. That is: The only way to make America safer is by changing our approach to the War on Terror.
It’s interesting cause Bush has said over and over again that “WE need to be right 100% of the time while the Terrorists only need to be right once.” That is exactly the point. How can you win a fight like this? It’s like one of those games in Chucky Cheese with the little gofers popping out of the holes. We’re smackin away, smackin, smackin, smackin. We’re hittin some, missin some but the collateral damage of every smack is speeding up the game. As long as the U.S. is meddling in the region they’re never gonna stop popping. Our exhaustion, our failure is inevitable. A lot of people seem to think that its only a matter of time before we these terrorists tire…just keep smackin! Smack harder! Smack here! Smack there! Look at what’s going on in Isreal they’ve been smackin now for 50 years!! The only chance to win the war on terror, is to defuse the hatred that gets kids to sign up to be suicide bombers in the first place. And I believe that this hatred is a direct result of our lopsided, inconsistent, hypocritical, inhumane foreign policy. This experiment in imperialism-in-the-name-of-defense must be stopped.
However Jay, after a lot of thinking about it, I have devised a new BEST OUTCOME that I am now rooting for 100%: Maybe just maybe, Kerry can get in office and lead the American people in another direction.
If not…it is only a matter of time before the terrorists hit the jackpot.