Politics The Iraqi Elections

[Brooker]

On January 30, 2005, the people of Iraq will hold their country?fs first open, direct, multiparty legislative elections in more than 50 years. The elections mark the beginning of a process that will lead to the drafting of a new Iraqi Constitution and the election of a democratic constitutional government by December 2005.

More than 100 parties, coalitions and individuals will vie for seats in a 275-member Transitional National Assembly. In addition, each governorate will be voting for a governorate council. An estimated 13.9 million Iraqis are eligible to cast ballots in the January 30 elections.

In a January 6 statement, President Bush said, "Like every nation that has made the journey to democracy, Iraqis will raise up a government that reflects their own culture and values...Iraqis will write their own history, and find their own way."

It's great that the Iraqi people are finally getting to vote, but is it merely a symbolic gesture or truly a step towards democracy and freedom?

the names of those standing for election are not widely publicized, many names are indeed unknown and little or no manifestos have been published.

Since Iraqi voters know little or nothing about the people they're voting for, are they really able to make informed decisions and choose what kind of leadership they want?

Also, is America getting into the business of promoting democracy? Americans think democracy is good, but maybe other people around the world don't. How is, America's spreading of democracy, any different from Russia spreading communism?

It's like someone trying to push their religion on you. They want you to believe what they believe because they think they're right and want you to "see the light" as they do, which is well intentioned, but maybe the answers they've reached won't work for you.

 

[Shooter452]

I have too little data to be sure, but...

A single election may do more to promote violence than to end it.

As many nations of multi-cultures, Iraq has been ruled by an oppressive minority for a long and brutally viscious period. The Sunni minority has already run the numbers and they know that the seats they will need to control the legislature and maintain their long abused power is beyond their reach. They fear for decades of reprisal from their excess--with some reason. They have nothing to gain from participation in the electoral process, and everything to gain by short-circuiting the procedure.

The Shi'ite and Kurd majority may wrest control of their nation, but that will not stop the violence, and I believe may instead exacerbate it greatly.

Lastly, in a nation that has higher levels of literacy than most Middle Eastern countries, the news still mostly flows through the pulpit in Iraq. The clerics of Islam (all factions) have one uniting quality. They distrust and generally loathe the US presence there.

I cannot see how this is a good thing for my people on the ground in Iraq. And about anyone but them, I could give a damn less.

 

[goto]

Is this another Japanese discussion foruym that bashes America?

Actually, the election was a big success. And if you researched it instead of being fashionable" you would know it wasn't about electing certain politicians but political parties that will write a constitution.
People were dancing in the street and the terorist lost by not interupting it.
By your same standards was it right for America to liberate France and Germany? Same logic, different Countries.

 

[mad pierrot]

"Being fashionable?"

And then a threat after your second post?
Come on', man.

Learn to spell, take a deep breath, and come back and post when you're not being emotional.

 

[Shooter452]

"Being fashionable?"

And then a threat after your second post?
Come on', man.

Learn to spell, take a deep breath, and come back and post when you're not being emotional.

Relax, my mad friend! If he had any real power, we'd both be in chains now!

Since when is it USA bashing to speak your mind? He who fails to fall into step may be marching to the rhythm of a more distant drummer!

I defy for anyone to call me unpatriotic! I have left bits and pieces of my ass on three continents, not counting North America. I have killed people on foreign soil in the defense of my country (I sure hope it was in defense of my country!!!!). If I do not have the right to dissent, who does?

I stand behind my brothers in the field in Iraq, but I am nonetheless against this war. Make of it what you will!

 

[No-name]

Relax, my mad friend! If he had any real power, we'd both be in chains now!

Since when is it USA bashing to speak your mind? He who fails to fall into step may be marching to the rhythm of a more distant drummer!

I defy for anyone to call me unpatriotic! I have left bits and pieces of my ass on three continents, not counting North America. I have killed people on foreign soil in the defense of my country (I sure hope it was in defense of my country!!!!). If I do not have the right to dissent, who does?

I stand behind my brothers in the field in Iraq, but I am nonetheless against this war. Make of it what you will!

I certainly will give your opinion more weight, especially in dealing with the US Military or US foreign policy. (When John Kerry spoke out against Vietnam in the 1970's, the Bronze Star and purple hearts definitely mattered) Certainly people with real experience should be given more respect than bookish arm chair quaterbacks like me who only in theory may know what they are talking about. Thank you.

 

[Brooker]

Although everyone is saying that the election was "successful" they seem to skim over the fact that there was some violence.

Forty four people died in a various attacks and eight suicide bombings on Sunday, but the absence of any catastrophic single attack Sunday seemed at least partly a result of the heavy security measures, including a ban on most private cars.

Iraq?fs interior minister said insurgents used a handicapped child for one of Sunday?fs suicide bombings. He added that 38 attacks were carried out against polling stations across the country.

Attacks were expected, but I think it kind of disrespects the people who died to say that the election went off without a hitch.

Shooter wrote...

I cannot see how this is a good thing for my people on the ground in Iraq. And about anyone but them, I could give a damn less.

I respect that you're speaking your mind, but that doesn't show a whole lot of compassion for your fellow man. We should wish the best for the Iraqi people. Whenever I hear in the news that there was an attack and 3 US SERVICEMEN DIED (oh, and 48 Iraqis) it makes me a little angry. Why don't they say 51 people died? All people are the same, right? The only difference between us and the Iraqis is being born on the opposite side of the fence. I believe I could have just as easily been born to any other country in the world and it's just a coincidence that I was born American. Therein lies my compassion for others. If circumstances were different, I would BE them. I'll stop preaching now, but it's something I feel strongly about.

 

[No-name]

It is an unfortunate reality. According to the proximity principal: You care more about people from your own block than from one street down. From your town, than one far away. From your country than from another. You care more about those you identify with than those you don't. We focus as Americans on Iraq because we are there. We don't report on Sudan, even though far more people are dying there each day, or do we mention a half dozen other small wars in Africa (unless one American dies) in which dozens are killed every day. We don't even know what goes on in some former Soviet republics unless dozens of hostages are killed.

 

[Censport]

Ah yes, another divisive thread. This place does remind me of Japantoday sometimes!

A single election may do more to promote violence than to end it.

Maybe, maybe not. But a series of elections would make for a better end to the violence than the carpet-bombing some on this forum have suggested. King Hussein of Jordan recently expressed his doubts that democracy will work in Iraq (Wow - a king doubtful of democracy, who'da thunk it?). His main reason was that there is a distinct lack of a middle class in Iraq.

Well gee, which is the best enviroment for a middle class to grow in?

a) Tyrannical dictatorship
b) Monarchy
c) Democracy

(Hint: If anybody is having trouble picking one, take a history course.)

Shooter452, I know you've expressed your doubts about us being in Iraq. I'm sure that, in the early days of WWII, there were soldiers who died in Europe doubtful that they were doing the right thing. Only history will be able to tell us for certain. Have you not heard from your friends in the service about how elated they were yesterday? I have. As for the reasons we invaded Iraq, most of the Iraqi citizens I've heard couldn't care less about WMDs. They're just happy to finally be rid of Saddam and his sons.

Attacks were expected, but I think it kind of disrespects the people who died to say that the election went off without a hitch.

I don't think anyone is saying that the elections went off without a hitch. In fact, I think there were a number of people in the media (not to mention U.S. politicians) that were hoping for more attacks. From what I've heard from Kennedy and Kerry, that's exactly what they were hoping for. They've both proven in the past that they don't care who gets hurt in their quest for political significance, and they're showing their partisan colors again. Nothing but criticism of Bush, and not one postive word for the Iraqi people. The fact that there were less attacks than predicted (or feared) is probably why the attacks that did happen didn't garner as much attention.

 

[No-name]

Commies and traitiors! Do you really think Kennedy or Kerry like to see more dead American Soldiers or Iraqi civillians. Please...Democrats want Bush to articulate (if he could articulate anything) his exit strategy and give a time table. Do you honestly think that the sinless and angelic GOP would not use the situation for political capital if the shoe was on the other foot?

But the elections did go better than I expected. Significant number participated, and the violence was minimal. They had a higher turn out than we did, and no one is threatening to kill us on the way to the polls.

 

[Shooter452]

Family has significance over compassion for strangers

Although everyone is saying that the election was "successful" they seem to skim over the fact that there was some violence.



Attacks were expected, but I think it kind of disrespects the people who died to say that the election went off without a hitch.

Shooter wrote...


I respect that you're speaking your mind, but that doesn't show a whole lot of compassion for your fellow man. We should wish the best for the Iraqi people. Whenever I hear in the news that there was an attack and 3 US SERVICEMEN DIED (oh, and 48 Iraqis) it makes me a little angry. Why don't they say 51 people died? All people are the same, right? The only difference between us and the Iraqis is being born on the opposite side of the fence. I believe I could have just as easily been born to any other country in the world and it's just a coincidence that I was born American. Therein lies my compassion for others. If circumstances were different, I would BE them. I'll stop preaching now, but it's something I feel strongly about.

There is a differnce between the loss of family and casualties to strangers. The US Marines who die and are maimed in Iraq are not strangers. Some of them from 2d Marine Division who are on the ground there now and who will be fully deployed in coming days are close personal friends and all are the equivilent to family relatives.

Your vast compassion for the Iraqi citizens is commendable, but I suggest that such a broad brand of concern is closer to simple sympathy in comparison.

I am concerned for those whom I know and love. This goes beyond wearing a lapel ribbon on my lapel or attending a trendy fund raiser. Yes, my people go in harm's way of their own accord in performance of their duties, but these are still my people. Like it or lump it, my friend, it is what it is. Picture your parents and siblings in a threatening situation where death or serious injury is not only possible but likely. Does that not call up more emotion than the shallow compassion one would spread across an entire nation of total strangers?


Veritas vos liberabit ex mea sententia

 

[Censport]

Commies and traitiors! Do you really think Kennedy or Kerry like to see more dead American Soldiers or Iraqi civillians. Please...Democrats want Bush to articulate (if he could articulate anything) his exit strategy and give a time table. Do you honestly think that the sinless and angelic GOP would not use the situation for political capital if the shoe was on the other foot?

But the elections did go better than I expected. Significant number participated, and the violence was minimal. They had a higher turn out than we did, and no one is threatening to kill us on the way to the polls.

I think Kennedy or Kerry couldn't care less. That's a difference from actually wanting people to die for their political gain. Remember, Kennedy was the guy who was talking to his attorney about saving his political career when he could've been putting his swimming skills to work to save a woman drowning in his car. What I think is that Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer and such are looking for anything that they can blame Bush for, anything they can use to call the Iraqi invasion a failure.

And of course Democrats want Bush to state an exit strategy and a time table. But was the same ever expected of FDR, Truman, JFK of LBJ? They want Bush to give himself a deadline so they can blame him if those deadlines aren't met. And I suspect that they're not above undermining our county's efforts so they can blame him later. War is fluid, which is something professional protestors don't understand. How about an exit strategy and a timeline for the war on poverty?

The GOP, sinless and angelic? I believe that we worked together to get through WWII. The GOP that I'm a part of might question tactics, but never undermine a U.S. victory here or abroad.

 

[mad pierrot]

This thread is starting to give me a headache.......

Kudos to everyone for keeping it civil!
(Jref gives me hope for humanity.)
(sort of)

 

[senseiman]

Maybe, maybe not. But a series of elections would make for a better end to the violence than the carpet-bombing some on this forum have suggested.

Excuse me, but is this in response to my post in which I specifically and repeatedly advocated the withdrawal of US troops as the best way to end the violence and only mentioned carpet bombing as a means of illustrating the dangerous logical conclusion to the constant escallation of violence that can be attributed to the commitment to reaching a military solution? Misunderstandings I can forgive, but as it was abundantly clear from the context that I was not suggesting this option I would appreciate it if in the future you would not deliberately misrepresent what I write.

Well gee, which is the best enviroment for a middle class to grow in?

a) Tyrannical dictatorship
b) Monarchy
c) Democracy

(Hint: If anybody is having trouble picking one, take a history course.)

And of course I would also be interested to learn how a middle class is going to emerge in a "democracy" which has a 70% unemployment rate, uncontrollable crime and an active, violent and growing insurgency that nobody seems capable of stopping. Hardly seems like the ideal "environment" has been reached.

As for the reasons we invaded Iraq, most of the Iraqi citizens I've heard couldn't care less about WMDs. They're just happy to finally be rid of Saddam and his sons.

And they are probably considerably less enthused about the destruction of their national economy, the doubling of infant mortality rates and the spiralling violence that has claimed about 100,000 lives in less than 2 years.

I don't think anyone is saying that the elections went off without a hitch. In fact, I think there were a number of people in the media (not to mention U.S. politicians) that were hoping for more attacks. From what I've heard from Kennedy and Kerry, that's exactly what they were hoping for.

So Kerry and Kennedy have now gone over to the insurgent's side? That certainly is a stunning allegation, exactly where have they expressed hope that more attacks would occur? For someone with so much righteous indignation against the irrational conspiracy theories of Michael Moore you certainly seem to harbor a few yourself.

They've both proven in the past that they don't care who gets hurt in their quest for political significance,

Exactly how many US troops have these two men sent off to "get hurt" in their quest for political significance? Certainly less than the 12,000 troops Bush sent off to get killed or wounded in his quest to establish the humbly named "Bush doctrine".

and they're showing their partisan colors again.

And this is bad because....? Would you prefer the US to be a one party state like China or something? I don't understand the point of this criticism.

Nothing but criticism of Bush, and not one postive word for the Iraqi people.

It wouldn't be too hard to find Kerry and Kennedy saying "positive words for the Iraqi people", would you care to alter this statement?

The fact that there were less attacks than predicted (or feared) is probably why the attacks that did happen didn't garner as much attention.

I'm afraid this is about the only thing you've said in this post that I can even remotely agree with.

 

[Censport]

Whoa... easy there, big fella!

Excuse me, but is this in response to my post in which...

No, it wasn't a response to your post at all. It was a response to Shooter452's post which I had quoted immediately above. I've already responded to your theory in another thread.

And of course I would also be interested to learn how a middle class is going to emerge in a "democracy" which has a 70% unemployment rate, uncontrollable crime and an active, violent and growing insurgency that nobody seems capable of stopping. Hardly seems like the ideal "environment" has been reached.

Patience, grasshopper. It will take time, but it now stands a chance of happening whereas it wouldn't have at all under the other two systems listed.

And they are probably considerably less enthused about the destruction of their national economy, the doubling of infant mortality rates and the spiralling violence that has claimed about 100,000 lives in less than 2 years.

Ah, the mythical, unsubstantiated figure of 100,000 dead. Even the people at Lancet, the source for that oft-quoted number, weren't able to explain how they arrived at that number (which hasn't changed in months, interestingly) when challenged. As sabro and I have discussed before, surveys can be targeted to get the desired results. If you look closely at the Lancet survey, the pre-invasion survey period was shorter than the post-invasion survey period. Count longer, get more deaths.

And yes, the 70% of the Iraqi population I saw dancing in the streets this weekend looked pretty enthused to have their country back. You see, those people understand something that the pampered, enlightened armchair quarterbacks of the world apparently can't comprehend: Life isn't easy. It ain't fair. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. And sometimes, sacrifices are made. For crying out loud people, this was a WAR, not a sit-in, that happened. What the &%*# did you think was going to happen? The U.S. military went to great extremes, especially early on, to prevent civilian deaths. So much so that they put themselves at risk and we lost many good soldiers.

By the way, that growing insurgency doesn't seem to have done a lot of growing since we gained control of Fallujah, does it?

So Kerry and Kennedy have now gone over to the insurgent's side? That certainly is a stunning allegation, exactly where have they expressed hope that more attacks would occur? For someone with so much righteous indignation against the irrational conspiracy theories of Michael Moore you certainly seem to harbor a few yourself.

Kennedy and Kerry are on their own side. If they can't defeat President Bush, they want to undermine his administration and they'll use every thing they can to do so. Three days before the Iraqi election, Kennedy pulled an Osama bin Laden and gave a speech in an effort to delegitimize the Iraqi elections. Does that sound like someone who has Iraq's or America's best interests at heart?

Exactly how many US troops have these two men sent off to "get hurt" in their quest for political significance? Certainly less than the 12,000 troops Bush sent off to get killed or wounded in his quest to establish the humbly named "Bush doctrine".

Both Kennedy and Kerry voted for this war, so you're wrong.

And this is bad because....? Would you prefer the US to be a one party state like China or something? I don't understand the point of this criticism.

These clowns are putting their party before their country. And no, I don't want the US to be a one-party state. What you're doing is called projection.

It wouldn't be too hard to find Kerry and Kennedy saying "positive words for the Iraqi people", would you care to alter this statement?

Then find such, and post it here.

I'm afraid this is about the only thing you've said in this post that I can even remotely agree with.

See? Now you're being progressive. Just kidding! Don't shoot! :relief:

 

[No-name]

Random thoughts:
I got very little sleep last night and I'm trying to convince the kids in my class that I am awake...

Haliburton says they need an extra $10 million per day for Iraq operations.
Bush requests an additional $80 billion.
Pentagon wants to raise the combat death benefit retroactive to October 2001.
Although most branches are meeting recruitment quotas, they are also raising incentives to keep certain skilled individuals from leaving when their term is up. Guard units are having an especially tough time retaining and re-upping.

I remember some candidate warning about the dangers of "nation building" and criticizing the Clinton/Bush the Elder Somalia escapade. I thought one lesson from Vietnam was to have an exit strategy- to say what victory looks like and to work toward it with a definite time table.

Why does the deficit go up with every Republican Administration? Where is my tax cut? Where is the economy? I keep seeing program cut after cut...Can't these guys BALANCE a budget? With the Whitehouse, Congress and the Supreme court... why don't we have that tax free, homogeneous, everybody happy, abortion free, homosexual free, Orange County utopia? I think someone needs to take responsibility for getting the job done. I'm so glad we de-regulated the savings and loans, utilities, phone companies and airlines because when the bills come in the mail...hey wait a minute, they are as high as ever!

But...Now that I know that Kerry and Kennedy are really pinko al-Qaeda sympathizers, I'm switching party affiliations to the more macho, my country right or wrong party. Thanks, Censport.

The truth has indeed set me free.

 

[Censport]

:lol: This is sleep deprivation? On an almost-related topic, I hear Starbucks has a new hot-chocolate drink. Might be just the thing for you. I can't wait to try it myself.

Halliburton (sp?) seems to be a response-trigger for some. Funny how it wasn't when Ladybird Johnson owned most of the stock...

So else is going to do the work, Johnson & Johnson?

Yes, I remember Dubya saying that, and I disagreed with him then. The world changed a little over three years ago. And I thought the lesson from Vietnam was that the purpose of going to war was to WIN.

As for the deficits, Reagan and Bush 41 had Democrat-controlled congresses which would not curtail their spending. How does one balance a budget without controlling spending? Bush 43 has only recently started to curtail his own spending. Appraently, it's not easy to look like a moderate, nor is it cheap. Also, keep in mind that a) the recession started under Clinton and b) that the 9/11 attacks accounted for 40% of the econmic downturn.

Where is your tax cut? You yourself said that as a government employee, you don't pay taxes. Now you're wanting a tax cut on what you don't pay? Liberals, SHEESH! As for the homosexual free, what would we do for all those makeover shows? Talk about a cultural loss! Man, that Kim Jong Il just doesn't know what he's missing out on...

That's what I like about you sabro: Never a dull post!

 

[No-name]

mmmm coffee...chocolate....

I though we won in Vietnam. We won every battle, every skirmish, every day. We won the hearts and minds. We just lost the...war?

I was just rambling. No opinion on Haliburton's request for a raise except geeesh- $10 miillion a day? Just an observation on the death benefit think- it's only a bit above $12,000 right now and everyone wants it raised to about $250,000. Dems and the pentagon want it to apply to all soldiers, the WH, only to those in combat zones.

I pay taxes like everyone else. (I don't know why though considering the money was from taxes to begin with...seems like a game, the public giveth, the public taketh away.) I also pay into medicare and some social security-- even though ...we pay into a separate system. (thanks)

I like the fact that Democratic surpluses are due to outside forces, and republican deficits are not their faults either. No one is responsible for their own actions, it is all due to outside influences...sounds pretty "liberal" to me. Whatever happened to "The Buck Stops Here?"

Saddam was offered the chance to vote on Sunday, but he declined. ("Vote? I'm still in charge here!")

 

[Censport]

Wow, you ARE sleepy! Go back and finish that paragraph, laddie!

 

[No-name]

I think we owe something to all the brave Iraqi's with purple fingers. Thanks guys.