[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Nearly half (47%) of the 3,444 Iraqis interviewed volunteered a desire for stability and security... or the 16% who wish for a democratic form of government... Somewhat smaller percentages of Iraqis referred to their desire for coalition forces to leave Iraq (13%)

Aha. So what they really want is a US military dictatorship. They plainly have less desire for democratic government, in that translation of the survey.

And I thought Iraq had to be shoved into chaos on behalf of Iraqis who secretly crave democracy, silly me.


But we could play with these statistics 'till Armageddon, especially as neither of us know the true phrasing or structure of the surveys, and then we're reading someone's selective interpretation of the results. I remember there was a much cited survey last year that had asked Iraqis if they felt more secure then or at the end of March (while Saddam's regime was still in power). Of course most Iraqis would think mainly of the bombing, power outages, etc. when recalling the end of March, but their answer was taken to mean relief the Ba'ath party had been abolished by the Coalition Authority. Likewise you could get sharply different answers from me by asking if I approve of "the Saddam regime", or, "Iraq's Ba'ath party", yet most westerners would think that the same question.

I'm confident the vast majority of Iraqis would like the occupiers to start leaving today. Pollsters can insert all sorts of conditions in that like, "even if you blow up?", "even if you starve?", or "even if that makes everything worse?" and so forth, but the basic sentiment is still true, I believe. For some reasons you believe most Iraqis want US troops there. They have to like it. I think that vision will grow eventually ridiculous (as have previous visions of Iraq), but by then we'll have yet another "unforeseeable" crisis unfolding, so Iraqi consent of US military/political intervention can be a moot point and you may avoid embarrassment.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Bush won honestly in both the electoral collage and the popular vote. This is not disputed in the US or Internationally.

Barring international monitors from the states of key interest did raise some eyebrows.

Let's take a rude gauge of controversy:
Google "Yanukovych election fraud" = 72,100 results
Google "Bush election fraud" = 1,300,000 results
Now, even admitting some pages in the second search happen to mention Bush but are really about Yanukovych, we still have 1,227,900 pages with just "Bush" and "election fraud" to account for. That's a lot of people behind all those unique pages. I'm surprised by the volume. We haven't even considered like-minded readership. You sure it's "not disputed"?

My own opinion is that election fraud in the US is unthinkable. I don't question the fact of your President winning a second term.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

He did earn some political capital that normally happens when any elected politician wins; I fail to see the equivalence.

"When any" and no "equivalence" in the same sentence? You contradict yourself neatly.

Yanukovych won with a better margin than Bush. Now Yanukovych is saying there should be new elections, but neither he nor Yushenko should run in them. He says neither can unify the country, and the unity of Ukraine is paramount. Contrast Bush saying that Americans "stand behind" him, "determined", even that they "embrace (his) point of view", and so on. Again, just imagine Yanukovych declaring Ukrainians stand behind him while riot police and road blocks break the protester's siege of government buildings. Imagine Bush offering to step down because his election is too divisive. There can be no equivalence in your mind? Why not?