Why isn't the media talking about the hugely successful elections in Iraq?

  • Thread starter Thread starter True American
  • Start date Start date
T

True American

Guest
And lets be mature and NOT report this... because there is nothing hateful or abusive in it.
Why wouldn't they report something like that which could be a huge moral booster for the American people, by showing them that the war hasn't been a huge waste of time and money?

I just don't get it....

I hate to say this... but I can't help feeling that the Liberal media wants to keep the image of a Vietnam-like war in Iraq (hopeless) so that Obama can look like the hero who pulled our troops out of the slaughter...
because if everyone knew that the war was going good in Iraq and elections are going good they might question pulling out before Iraq was more "solid".

that's just my thoughts... what are yours on this?
 
Just like they failed to report on the success of the elections in that country in 2004. That was the time when 'this is a failure' was reaching its crescendo. With all the missteps the previous administration made (success could have come a lot sooner with out some major blunders) they had to oppose what was happening. I think it is typical that you haven't heard not one say that they were incorrect in their thinking.
And what should be understood is that Afghanistan has a greater chance to become more like Vietnam than Iraq ever did.
The current administration is now committing more troops to that effort.
Without any viable industry (poppy cultivation excluded), with infrastructure that is so far behind (not in need of repair but never there to begin with) where Iraq was, where tribal loyalties and local chiefdoms have so much more power and influence over the population than in Iraq, that unless tens of trillions of dollars and dozens of years are committed a viable central government will probably not succeed. And until there is a viable central government that can support itself both financially and politically, the Al-Qaeda and Taliban will eventually return possibly with even greater influence over the local population.
 
Successful ... says who?

Despite the apparent 'success' of parties in the Shia areas that are "centralizers," in practice Iraq is still a fragmented country in which Sunni areas vote for Sunni parties, Shia regions vote for Shia parties, and Kurdish areas vote for Kurdish parties. There is still no national party that cuts across ethno-sectarian lines.

Also, looking back at Iraqi history, both the Kurds and the Shia have repeatedly revolted against Sunni-dominated governments.

Although the government is now Shia-dominated, the recent, dramatic sectarian violence between Arab Sunnis and Shia has left deep suspicions between the communities and has resulted in ethnically cleansed and walled-off enclaves for each sect.

In the north, provincial elections in the volatile and oil-rich province of Kirkuk had to be postponed because the area has been a powder keg of rival Kurds, Arab Sunnis, and Turkomen.

So don't live in a 'fool's paradise' because this election has done nothing to wipe away deep historical fissures nor an artificial country physically divided among ethno-sectarian groups.

Although Saddam was a despot, during his 'reign' he managed to keep the 'hornets in the hive' and Iraq 'worked' as a fairly successful country for the majority of its citizens ... Bush's interference destroyed the 'hive' and unfortunately, not withstanding this supposedly 'successful' election, the 'hornets' are still at large ... with the probability of death and destruction still in their sights.
 
democracy in iraq does not fit the left-wing narrative; after all, harry reid surrendered to the insurgency well over a year ago-but it does make one wonder: what does the left hate more-the fact that our military has been successful, or the creation of another democratic nation? their hero che must be rolling in his grave
 
Unfortunately, we have evolved into a purely political motive nation. Nothing that isn't favorable to one side or the other will be presented. Success in Iraq would mean they couldn't incessantly b itch about something as a platform by which to demonize the other side. Sadly, roughly 52% of people bought into the nonsense, and now the rest of us have to pay.
 
I tend to agree. The administration does not want anything positive coming from Iraq...although we will not know until our troops are withdrawn whether or not the efforts have been a success. If it is done to soon (like Obama wants to do), it is likely that the insurrectionists will cause a lot of problems and possibly topple the new government. Iraq has stated that they want us out by 2011...and frankly, I think we should stick to that. I do think however that it would be wise for us to pull our troops away from the most dangerous areas and let the Iraquis themselves do the policing of those areas. After all, they will ultimately have to assume the full responsibility so why not give them some practice. I know that some areas are already under total Iraqui control...but if we want to pull our troops within 16 months, it is better to pull them no further than what is necessary so they will be available if the insurrents make a bid for the country.
 
Yep, their agenda is different, and has little to do with truth. Truth be known our failure in Vietnam was a media event also.
Please note: be careful of the liberal slant on more than just the war!
Glad to see someone who thinks!
 
Back
Top