PDA

View Full Version : Is it possible to have 'free' elections in an occupied country?


Volcana
Jan 30th, 2005, 06:00 AM
In considering Iraq, I think partucularly of the example of Afghanistan. When the Soviets invaded, it was to fight virtually the same enemy the United States invaded to fight. We (the USA) called the elections the Soviets held a sham, but called the elections WE held, 'free'.

Certainly these ARE elections, as near as I can tell. But when your country is conquered and occupied, and those occupying forces are out in force at every polling station, it's difficult to take the use of the word 'free' seriously. Potential opposition political figures are being jailed by the hundreds. People are to be searched and in some cases arrested at poliing stations. I do understand people's politics don't always agree with mine, but, just for laughs, assume a rational argument might sway me.

What, OTHER THAN, a belief in the ultimate good will of the American forces, is the evidence that these ARE 'free' elections, and not elections held to put a puppet government in place? Certainly historically, when countries who opposed us did similiar things, we discounted the legitemacy of the elected governements.

Oleh
Jan 30th, 2005, 06:16 AM
I think being realistic here, the elections will be freer now than if the US wernt there, it for my opinion comes down to a simple equation, the insergents/terrorists who are ultimately fighting for personal rule for one sheikh, group or another have no qualms now about killing many civilians to scare them of voting for anyone else (Since thursay the number of dead Iraqi civilians murdered by terrorists stands at 48) and I think ive the elections the US can give the Iraqi voters a sense of security which they otherwise might be intimidated into voting in someone who holds a gun to their head (The threats etc by the terror groups suggest this).
So, while we wont see a strongly anti american government sworn in (The ones who are are either neo-sadams or racist groups possesed on opressing the Sh'ote or the Sunni or the Kurd etc and i honestly dont belive the majority of Iraqi people want another Sadam or extremist regime which they have had in one way or another since day one) we will I believe see the freest government democraticaly elected as possible.
US presence + Terrorist threats = Sense of freedom of vote for Iraqi people, thus a more free and fair election.

I will not speculate on to whether or not the results will not be tampered with/ molested by EITHER Americans or Terrorists/ Miscl Elements as nothing suggests this is happening yet-the votes havnt been cast so we are not psycic. :)

flyingmachine
Jan 30th, 2005, 09:22 AM
In considering Iraq, I think partucularly of the example of Afghanistan. When the Soviets invaded, it was to fight virtually the same enemy the United States invaded to fight. We (the USA) called the elections the Soviets held a sham, but called the elections WE held, 'free'.

Certainly these ARE elections, as near as I can tell. But when your country is conquered and occupied, and those occupying forces are out in force at every polling station, it's difficult to take the use of the word 'free' seriously. Potential opposition political figures are being jailed by the hundreds. People are to be searched and in some cases arrested at poliing stations. I do understand people's politics don't always agree with mine, but, just for laughs, assume a rational argument might sway me.

What, OTHER THAN, a belief in the ultimate good will of the American forces, is the evidence that these ARE 'free' elections, and not elections held to put a puppet government in place? Certainly historically, when countries who opposed us did similiar things, we discounted the legitemacy of the elected governements.
Good point Volcana. I think this is depends on the "results". Since there is no modators to see the election is hard to know. Because as the result of the insurgence it's very difficult to campaign so lots of people will likely to vote base on eithic/ religous lines.
Anyway we have to wait and see.

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 30th, 2005, 09:56 AM
The results will be distorted by many factors. But there are doubtless some senses in which they are "free" or at least a lot more so than in many other places.

Hulet
Jan 30th, 2005, 10:03 AM
LOL, Volcana and I must be surfing on the same brain wave b/c I was going to start a similar thread when I came here.

For what is worth, the words "independence" and "freedom" give me such a hard time because they mean exactly the same thing in my native tongue and are represented by the same word. So, I don't understand how a person/country can be free without independent and independent without being free. :confused:

cheesestix
Jan 30th, 2005, 02:48 PM
In considering Iraq, I think partucularly of the example of Afghanistan. When the Soviets invaded, it was to fight virtually the same enemy the United States invaded to fight. We (the USA) called the elections the Soviets held a sham, but called the elections WE held, 'free'.

Certainly these ARE elections, as near as I can tell. But when your country is conquered and occupied, and those occupying forces are out in force at every polling station, it's difficult to take the use of the word 'free' seriously. Potential opposition political figures are being jailed by the hundreds. People are to be searched and in some cases arrested at poliing stations. I do understand people's politics don't always agree with mine, but, just for laughs, assume a rational argument might sway me.

What, OTHER THAN, a belief in the ultimate good will of the American forces, is the evidence that these ARE 'free' elections, and not elections held to put a puppet government in place? Certainly historically, when countries who opposed us did similiar things, we discounted the legitemacy of the elected governements.

If the US wasn't in Iraq, there would probably be NO election. There would either be anarchy, or someone would step up and TAKE the leadership. I suppose those 2 scenarios are better than an election? :rolleyes: It ain't perfect, but it's better than any alternative, isn't it?

Lord Nelson
Jan 30th, 2005, 03:09 PM
also contrary to what you may read in the news, the majority of Iraqis want these elections to take place. Majority of shiites (60% of Iraq population) who can vote will do so as will the kurds (20% of total population). The Arab sunnis who previously donainated Iraq consisted only around 20-25% of population.
Also West Germany after WW2 was occupied by U.S., French & British troops. I think that country has done fine. :D
Japan was occupied by U.S. troops post WW2. I think that nation is democratic. ;)
Even Afghanistan is in better shape now than under the Taliban.
Iraq is in poor shape because many Sunni Arabs outside of Iraq are financing the insurgency. But it's great for the nation to have elections.
Final point. The conservative group of which Ayatollah Sistani is part of will probably be the biggest winner. It will triumph over Allawi's group which has the favors of Washington. So proves that elections were more or less valid.

Scotso
Jan 30th, 2005, 04:00 PM
The fact that there were VERY few international observers makes me worry about how this election will turn out.

If the U.S. backed puppet wins the election, we know it was rigged.

"Sluggy"
Jan 30th, 2005, 05:35 PM
All of this talk about a US puppert is starting to appeal to me. Why cant we just instal a good puppet and everyone will be happy?

Infiniti2001
Jan 30th, 2005, 06:29 PM
http://img146.exs.cx/img146/9388/bo0501292ay.jpg

This pic actually describes the election. What a big, fat joke. Kinda like the one in Ohio, but with bombs :o :tape:

kiwifan
Jan 30th, 2005, 07:56 PM
Well, we gotta give that fucking place to somebody. :shrug:

I don't want it. :devil:

JustineTime
Jan 30th, 2005, 08:28 PM
With patriots like Volcana, who needs Bin Laden? :hehehe:

:tape:

:lol:

JustineTime
Jan 30th, 2005, 08:30 PM
Uh oh, more bad news from Iraq...:unsure: (for America-hating liberals ;) )

:scared: Voters were seen singing and dancing at the polling places! :bigcry:

:tears:

Justeenium
Jan 30th, 2005, 09:11 PM
The fact that there were VERY few international observers makes me worry about how this election will turn out.

If the U.S. backed puppet wins the election, we know it was rigged.

:retard: you obviously don't know anything about the elections.

Hulet
Jan 30th, 2005, 10:52 PM
From the "high turnout" of the Iraqi's and the enthusiasm of the voters, it's clear to see that this elections means a lot to the Iraqis - atleast to those CNN chose to show. This really makes me question my opinion about Iraq, Iraqis and the U.S. invasion there. May be I was wrong all along. May be Bush was correcto. May be people don't mind to be bombed and shelled by outside force and become colonized as long as they were given the right to vote at the end of an occupation that totally disintegrated their infrastructure, security, sovergnty and dignity.

Justeenium
Jan 30th, 2005, 11:10 PM
http://img146.exs.cx/img146/9388/bo0501292ay.jpg

This pic actually describes the election. What a big, fat joke. Kinda like the one in Ohio, but with bombs :o :tape:

look, there's a smilie just for you .....




:retard:

flyingmachine
Jan 30th, 2005, 11:11 PM
From the "high turnout" of the Iraqi's and the enthusiasm of the voters, it's clear to see that this elections means a lot to the Iraqis - atleast to those CNN chose to show. This really makes me question my opinion about Iraq, Iraqis and the U.S. invasion there. May be I was wrong all along. May be Bush was correcto. May be people don't mind to be bombed and shelled by outside force and become colonized as long as they were given the right to vote at the end of an occupation that totally disintegrated their infrastructure, security, sovergnty and dignity.
Look wait and see what will happened. This is not the end of the story yet. Running an election is a other thing but who's really running the country is tolally a different matter all together. Anyway wait and see who's winning and how they handling the country in the next few months. Anyway one thing for sure it will not stop the violence.

Justeenium
Jan 30th, 2005, 11:11 PM
also contrary to what you may read in the news, the majority of Iraqis want these elections to take place. Majority of shiites (60% of Iraq population) who can vote will do so as will the kurds (20% of total population). The Arab sunnis who previously donainated Iraq consisted only around 20-25% of population.
Also West Germany after WW2 was occupied by U.S., French & British troops. I think that country has done fine. :D
Japan was occupied by U.S. troops post WW2. I think that nation is democratic. ;)
Even Afghanistan is in better shape now than under the Taliban.
Iraq is in poor shape because many Sunni Arabs outside of Iraq are financing the insurgency. But it's great for the nation to have elections.
Final point. The conservative group of which Ayatollah Sistani is part of will probably be the biggest winner. It will triumph over Allawi's group which has the favors of Washington. So proves that elections were more or less valid.


well i'll be damned, a European on this board who can actually think for himself. that's a first.

In a few years all the "Bush is an evil terrorist" idiots like LucasArg and JigglyPuff will realize how dumb they really were.

Justeenium
Jan 30th, 2005, 11:18 PM
The other day on CNN I saw an article about a study done on the US elections and why the exit polls were incorrect and said it found NO indication of voter fraud.

A few weeks ago a study came out that it found no correlation between gun control and a reduction in gun crimes.

No one posted either here. what a surprise :rolleyes:

Scotso
Jan 31st, 2005, 01:35 AM
Justeenium, explain why I know nothing. Exactly what did I say that was uninformed or untrue?

Kiwi, if we're giving away Iraq, I'll take it. I'll rule from here, though. Thanks.

kiwifan
Jan 31st, 2005, 04:21 AM
Kiwi, if we're giving away Iraq, I'll take it. I'll rule from here, though. Thanks.
If it could be ruled, I'm sure we'd rule it - but I look forward to the day when the oil is all gone. :devil:

I've always been in favor of taking out Saddam, but not in favor of the occupation.

Let the Iraqis do what they will in Iraq.

If we like the final result cool, if we don't we destroy whatever "offends us".

Democracy can only happen by the will of the people; if they want some religious bullshit running thier lives, fine.

But if they're leaders are a threat to us...

...kill them...

...and kill their replacements...

...and kill their replacements...

...I don't care about oil and the rest of that shit...

...I just wanna walk down the street in my town and have a beer without thinking about anything other that the price of the next beer. :drink:

Justeenium
Jan 31st, 2005, 04:46 AM
Justeenium, explain why I know nothing. Exactly what did I say that was uninformed or untrue?

Kiwi, if we're giving away Iraq, I'll take it. I'll rule from here, though. Thanks.
well let's revisit.

The fact that there were VERY few international observers makes me worry about how this election will turn out.

If the U.S. backed puppet wins the election, we know it was rigged.

The Iraqis were not voting for a leader/prime minister/president whatever. do some research.

Justeenium
Jan 31st, 2005, 04:47 AM
oh to those that are badrepping me, feel free to actually add something to these threads. and no I don't care about your badreps cause I also get good reps for these posts too. :devil:

JustineTime
Jan 31st, 2005, 04:49 AM
Iraqis Defy Threats to Vote for Assembly

6 minutes ago
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/my/addtomyyahoo3.gif (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6084&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story2%26u=/ap/20050131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote) Middle East - AP (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6084&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story2%26u=/ap/20050131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote)



By SALLY BUZBEE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqis embraced democracy in large numbers Sunday, standing in long lines to vote in defiance of mortar attacks, suicide bombers and boycott calls. Pushed in wheelchairs or carts if they couldn't walk, the elderly, the young and women in veils cast ballots in Iraq (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote/14147221/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Iraq%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote/14147221/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=Iraq))'s first free election in a half-century.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050130/thumb.lon11501301126.iraq_elections_lon115.jpg (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050130/481/lon11501301126)
AP Photo (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050130/481/lon11501301126)
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050131/thumb.sge.gfe94.310105032903.photo05.photo.default-380x253.jpg (javascript: rs()
AFP (javascript: rs() http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/auctions/cam.gifSlideshow: Iraq Elections (javascript: rs()
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap_av/20050130/vidsthumb.0130iraqvote.jpg (javascript:rs()Iraqis Brave Violence; Voter Turnout High (javascript:rs()
(AP Video)
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/th/postiraq_158x38.jpg (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/iraq/2/*http://news.yahoo.com/iraq) Latest headlines: ·President Hails Election As a Success And a Signal (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/iraq/export/top2/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050131/pl_washpost/a49115_2005jan30&cid=1803&ncid=1480)
washingtonpost.com - 3 minutes ago ·Iraqis Defy Threats to Vote for Assembly (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/iraq/export/top2/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote&cid=540&ncid=1480)
AP - 6 minutes ago ·Iraqis Defy Threats as Millions Vote (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/iraq/export/top2/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050131/ts_washpost/a48454_2005jan30&cid=1802&ncid=1480)
washingtonpost.com - 16 minutes ago Special Coverage (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/iraq/2/*http://news.yahoo.com/iraq)


The electoral commission said it believed, based on that anecdotal information, that turnout among the estimated 14 million eligible Iraqi voters appeared higher than the 57 percent that had been predicted, although it would be some time before any precise turnout figure was confirmed.



The ticket endorsed by the Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was the pre-voting favorite, while Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's slate was also considered strong. But officials said it might take 10 days to determine the vote's winner.



"We broke a barrier of fear," said Mijm Towirish, an election official.



Uncertain Sunni turnout, a string of insurgent attacks that killed 44 and the crash of a British military plane drove home that chaos in Iraq isn't over yet.



Yet the mere fact the vote went off seemed to ricochet instantly around a world hoping for Arab democracy and fearing Islamic extremism.



"I am doing this because I love my country, and I love the sons of my nation," said Shamal Hekeib, 53, who walked with his wife 20 minutes to a polling station near his Baghdad home.



"We are Arabs, we are not scared and we are not cowards," Hekeib said.



With helicopters flying low and gunfire close by, at least 200 voters stood calmly in line at midday outside one polling station in the heart of Baghdad. Inside, the tight security included at least four body searches, and a ban on lighters, cell phone batteries, cigarette packs and even pens.



The feeling was sometimes festive. One election volunteer escorted a blind man back to his home after he cast his vote. A woman too frail to walk by herself arrived on a cart pushed by a young relative. Entire families showed up in their finest clothes.



But for the country's minority Sunni Arabs, who held a privileged position under Saddam Hussein (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote/14147221/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Saddam%20Hussein%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote/14147221/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=Saddam%20Hussein)), the day was not as welcome.



No more than 400 people voted in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, and in the heavily Sunni northern Baghdad neighborhood of Azamiyah, where Saddam made his last known public appearance in early April 2003, the four polling places never even opened.



"The world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East," said President Bush (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote/14147221/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22President%20Bush%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote/14147221/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=President%20Bush)), who called the election a success. He promised the United States would continue training Iraqi soldiers, hoping they can soon secure a country America invaded nearly two years ago to topple Saddam.



Iraqis, the U.S. president said, had "firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology" of terrorists.



The vote to elect a 275-National Assembly and 18 provincial legislatures was only the first step on Iraq's road to self-rule and stability. Once results are in, it could take weeks of backroom deals before a prime minister and government are picked by the new assembly.



If that government proves successful by drawing in the minority Sunni Arabs who partly shunned the election, the country could stabilize, hastening the day when 150,000 U.S. troops can go home.



With the polls just closed, international debate immediately turned to just that issue. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid plans to call Monday for President Bush's administration to outline an exit strategy for Iraq. And Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said his country will keep troops only if the country's newly elected government wants them.







Iraqi interior minister, Falah al-Naqib, told Britain's Channel 4 News he expected there would be no need for U.S. troops any longer than 18 months because that's when he anticipates Iraq's security forces will be trained well enough to handle the job themselves.

But in comments to CBS' "Face The Nation," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote/14147221/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Condoleezza%20Rice%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote/14147221/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=Condoleezza%20Rice)) would not say whether U.S. forces would leave the country in great numbers now that the vote is complete, and Bush did not mention any U.S. military withdrawals in his statement.

On Sunday, coalition soldiers raced through Baghdad's streets in Humvees and tried to coax people to vote with loudspeakers in Ramadi, a Sunni city where anti-U.S. attacks are frequent. Iraqi police served as guards at most polling stations and U.S. troops had strict orders to stay away unless Iraqi security forces called for help.

At the Louisiana National Guard headquarters near Baghdad, nervous U.S. officers paced the halls, muttering, "So far, so good," after the first 30 minutes of polling passed without attacks.

But the violence soon broke out.

While a driving ban seemed to discourage car bombs, the insurgents improvised, strapping on belts of explosives to launch their suicide missions.

At least 44 died in the suicide and mortar attacks on polling stations, including nine suicide bombers. The al-Qaida affiliate led by Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi claimed responsibility for at least four attacks.

Most attacks were in Baghdad, but one of the deadliest came in Hillah to the south, when a bomber got onto a minibus carrying voters and detonated his explosives, killing himself and at least four others.

In another reminder of the dangers that persist in Iraq, a British C-130 Hercules transport plane crashed north of Baghdad. The wreckage was strewn over a large area. No cause was given, but Britain's Press Association, quoting military sources, said about 10 British troops were believed to have died. Elsewhere, one U.S. serviceman died in fighting in the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province west of Baghdad.

Despite the string of attacks and mortars that boomed first in the morning and then after dark, a people steeled to violence by years of war, sanctions, the brutality of Saddam's regime and U.S. military occupation were not deterred from the polls.

In the so-called "triangle of death" south of Baghdad, a whiskery, stooped Abed Hunni walked an hour with his wife to reach a polling site in Musayyib. "God is generous to give us this day," he said.

And in heavily Shiite areas in the far south and mostly Kurdish regions in the north, some saw the vote as settling a score with the former dictator, Saddam.

"Now I feel that Saddam is really gone," said Fatima Ibrahim, smiling as she headed home after voting in Irbil. She was 14 and a bride of just three months when her husband, father and brother were rounded up in a campaign of ethnic cleansing under Saddam. None have ever been found.

Many cities in the Sunni triangle north and west of the capital, particularly Fallujah, Ramadi and Beiji, were virtually empty of voters also.

A low Sunni turnout, if that turns out to be the case, could undermine the new government that will emerge from the vote and worsen tensions among the country's ethnic, religious and cultural groups.

Adnan Pachachi, a Sunni elder statesman and candidate for the National Assembly, said he believes the best hope for harmony lies in giving Sunnis a significant role in drafting the country's new constitution.

"The main thing, I think, is we should really have a constitution written by representatives of all segments of Iraq's population," Pachachi said. "I think it would improve the security situation."

Across the largely authoritarian-ruled Arab world, where dislike and distrust of U.S. power and American intentions dominates the public debate, some dismissed the poll as a U.S.-orchestrated sham. Others hoped it might prove a catalyst for a region-wide democratic push.

Iraq's elections are a "good omen for getting rid of dictatorship," said Yemeni political science student Fathi al-Uraiqi.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote/14147221/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Hosni%20Mubarak%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote/14147221/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=Hosni%20Mubarak)) — sure to win his own country's much-less-democratic vote later this year — telephoned Allawi to congratulate him on the smooth election, saying he hoped it would "open the way for the restoration of calm and stability" in Iraq.

____

Associated Press writers Bassem Mroue, Hamza Hendawi, Sameer N. Yacoub and Jason Keyser contributed to this report.

Roddicksgaylover
Jan 31st, 2005, 04:56 AM
oh to those that are badrepping me, feel free to actually add something to these threads. and no I don't care about your badreps cause I also get good reps for these posts too. :devil:

Yes but a certain amount of rednees indicates you have more bad than good. :eek: :lol:

Justeenium
Jan 31st, 2005, 05:15 AM
Yes but a certain amount of rednees indicates you have more bad than good. :eek: :lol:

I have red dots because of some comments I made about Serena, not because of my non-tennis posts.

Volcana
Jan 31st, 2005, 06:56 AM
I think being realistic here, the elections will be freer now than if the US wernt there, it for my opinion comes down to a simple equation, the insergents/terrorists who are ultimately fighting for personal rule for one sheikh, group or another have no qualms now about killing many civilians to scare them of voting for anyone else (Since thursay the number of dead Iraqi civilians murdered by terrorists stands at 48) and I think ive the elections the US can give the Iraqi voters a sense of security which they otherwise might be intimidated into voting in someone who holds a gun to their head (The threats etc by the terror groups suggest this).I'm not sure there'd be elections AT ALL if the USA weren't there. I think this is the best the situation has to offer. I just don't really think 'free' is a real accurate characterization.

Volcana
Jan 31st, 2005, 07:01 AM
Uh oh, more bad news from Iraq...:unsure: (for America-hating liberals ;) )

:scared: Voters were seen singing and dancing at the polling places! :bigcry:

:tears:Kurdish voters were seen singing and dancing in the polling places. This is not a surprise. To many of them, this is one more step on the road to Kurdistan.

I should also point out, if you recall from the last election in the USA, it's liberals who try to encourage voting. It's conservatives who try to supress voting. I've seen this scene before. American Black voters dancing in the streets after being able to vote, for the first time, in MY lifetime, in the United States. And guess what, it took the deployment of thousands of amred troops HERE so Blacks could vote. The difference was those troops were American, not foreign.

But American Conservatives have a loud and proud tradition of trying to deny people the vote. It was 'America-hating liberals' who stood up for the vote, and died for the vote at the hands of Conservative death squads.

Justeenium
Jan 31st, 2005, 07:15 AM
Kurdish voters were seen singing and dancing in the polling places. This is not a surprise. To many of them, this is one more step on the road to Kurdistan.

I should also point out, if you recall from the last election in the USA, it's liberals who try to encourage voting. It's conservatives who try to supress voting. I've seen this scene before. American Black voters dancing in the streets after being able to vote, for the first time, in MY lifetime, in the United States. And guess what, it took the deployment of thousands of amred troops HERE so Blacks could vote. The difference was those troops were American, not foreign.

But American Conservatives have a loud and proud tradition of trying to deny people the vote. It was 'America-hating liberals' who stood up for the vote, and died for the vote at the hands of Conservtive death squads.

and it was those same liberals in the 1800s who turned the USA into a two party dictatorship with no dissent at the state level. Liberals never seem to realize how they can be a big step back for freedom.

Volcana
Jan 31st, 2005, 07:42 AM
and it was those same liberals in the 1800s who turned the USA into a two party dictatorship with no dissent at the state level. Liberals never seem to realize how they can be a big step back for freedom.I could say something here, but I think that statement calls for at least temporary restraint. For the benefit of readers who aren't the children of history professors, could you explain exactly what you're referring to, and how it cam about? You will otherwise leave your readers with the impression you think the North prosecuting the 'War Between the States', was a bad thing.

Oleh
Jan 31st, 2005, 08:06 AM
I'm not sure there'd be elections AT ALL if the USA weren't there. I think this is the best the situation has to offer. I just don't really think 'free' is a real accurate characterization.

Exactly;)
But given the situation its a "Free" as your gonna get, no point sayin "But if it was not occupied the results would be free and fair" because that just wouldnt be happening. (I know your not sayin that too!) I think we agree anyhow. :cool:

Im positive at least 60% of the Iraqi population is glad to be getting democracy regardless of how they got it so instead of philanthraphizing (Is that the word or similar :confused: ) about how they got it and etc etc etc political correct bullshit, just remember we all live in democracies and 60% is a landslide amount of people to be in favor of something. And we are lucky at this point its something good! Also we aint the ones who have been denied democracy ourselves (In most cases here) and badly opressed- so we have no right to foo foo their right to it at last. (If anyone is that is). :)




:secret: Volcana just ignore it, it likes to badger with one sentence remarks to get a response knowing full well what it implies, like a brightly colored baboon butt (Full of alsorts of reds yellows and blues but has no brains of its own and the brains that do controll it can do nothing more than make ugly screeching sounds and yap like a chihuahua) it likes drawing attention to itself, Ive given up on it. :)

Halardfan
Jan 31st, 2005, 09:56 AM
I think now we are in this mess, we have to leave Iraq in as good a state as possible, and that the elections had to take place. The prime reason allied troops were guarding the polling places is becuse otherwise the various insurgent groups would have had free reign to blow voters to bits.

That said, the allies have to play it fair and for real...for example not 'helping' favoured candidates with western election expertise, and not using smoke an mirros to retain bases in the country.

The Soviets in Afghanistan used to use the old "we were invited to stay" ruse, lets not do the same...so if and when the country gets settled must leave, whether we are 'asked' to go or not.

Then instead of the US looking for someone else to invade (place your bets now), lets hope we can return to sanity and war used only as a last resort.

Lord Nelson
Jan 31st, 2005, 01:50 PM
I should also point out, if you recall from the last election in the USA, it's liberals who try to encourage voting. It's conservatives who try to supress voting. I've seen this scene before. American Black voters dancing in the streets after being able to vote, for the first <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=time&v=56">time</a>, in MY lifetime, in the United States. And guess what, it took the deployment of thousands of amred troops HERE so Blacks could vote. The difference was those troops were American, not foreign.
But American Conservatives have a loud and proud tradition of trying to deny <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=56">people</a> the vote. It was 'America-hating liberals' who stood up for the vote, and died for the vote at the hands of Conservative death squads.

How shallow can you be? Liberals support voting, conservatives supress voting. You just proved yourself being a leftist extremist if not someone who does not know what she is talking about. You also seem to concentrate only on Iraq despite your thread being labelled 'can elections be staged in occupied countries.' What is your response to what happened to other occupied nations such as Japan and Germany?

I don't agree with you on what you said about blacks. Blacks and hispanics and other minority groups have their rights. Stop portaying them as being victims. There is indeed inequality but I won't put that on the shouldiers of the tight.

I would like to remind you that there was controversy in the elections in Washington State which for now has been won by a Democrat.....Try to view general situations with a more anaytical mind.

I agree with you though. It's great to see the kurds as well as shiites celebrating in the streets. The kurds want to have their own homeland, good for them.

Scotso
Jan 31st, 2005, 06:06 PM
well let's revisit.



The Iraqis were not voting for a leader/prime minister/president whatever. do some research.


Pray tell, then, what were they voting for? Ice cream on Fridays?

Justeenium
Jan 31st, 2005, 09:51 PM
Pray tell, then, what were they voting for? Ice cream on Fridays?
What an imbecile. This doesn't even deserve a reply you MORON.

Volcana
Jan 31st, 2005, 10:44 PM
Pray tell, then, what were they voting for? Ice cream on Fridays?They're voting for members of a national assembly to write a constitution.

Volcana
Jan 31st, 2005, 10:49 PM
How shallow can you be?Pretty shallow, or was that a rhetorical question?
You also seem to concentrate only on Iraq despite your thread being labelled 'can elections be staged in occupied countries.'I have relatives being shot at there. I make no apologies for my focus.What is your response to what happened to other occupied nations such as Japan and Germany?I used the example of Afghanistan because it was a nice example of elections in occupied countries not always working out, but often being called 'free'. Usually by the people doing the occupying.I don't agree with you on what you said about blacks.Really. Where was I inaccurate?Blacks and hispanics and other minority groups have their rights. Stop portaying them as being victims.I didn't.There is indeed inequality but I won't put that on the shouldiers of the tight.Who then? The 'loose'?:)

Scotso
Feb 1st, 2005, 04:17 AM
"Iraqis were electing a 275-member transitional national assembly, which will draft a new constitution and pick the country's next president and two vice presidents. The president will select a prime minister." http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/31/iraq.main/index.html

So yes, they are electing their leaders. There are coalitions formed already as in parliamentary systems. Allawi's group is one of these.

So yes, you may apologize to me now.

Justeenium, you need some anger management courses.

Volcana
Feb 1st, 2005, 05:23 AM
So yes, they are electing their leaders.actually no. The group that writes the constitution does not rule the country, or legislate. It's more a matter of electing representatives to a constitutional convention. The names of the candidates aren't even on the ballot, only party names.

You really can't call it electing 'leaders'.

That happens two elections from now, after the constitution is ratified.

Scotso
Feb 1st, 2005, 05:32 AM
I post again:

"Iraqis were electing a 275-member transitional national assembly, which will draft a new constitution and pick the country's next president and two vice presidents. The president will select a prime minister."

Whatever you want to call them, until there are more elections these people WILL be ruling the country.

So to call me a moron (Justeenium) or say I am uninformed is completely wrong and just trying to sweat the details.

Scotso
Feb 1st, 2005, 05:34 AM
And we call the people that wrote the American constitution "founding fathers," and consider them the most important people in our history, pretty much.

So if the U.S.-backed party wins, it is still obviously a rigged election, as Sistani's hand-picked group was slated to win overwhelmingly.

So if you guys want to attack me and call me uneducated, whatever. The fact of the matter is that nothing that I said is incorrect.

Volcana
Feb 1st, 2005, 06:17 AM
Whatever you want to call them, until there are more elections these people WILL be ruling the country.No my friend, the USA will be ruling the country, as it does now. And certainly I am no fellow-traveler of Justeenium.
And we call the people that wrote the American constitution "founding fathers," and consider them the most important people in our history, pretty much.I must admit, 'slave-owning hypocritical purveyours of evil, and mortal enemies of my people' is what I consider quite a few of them, but that isn't to say I don't see your point. I simply feel you could stand to add an appreciation of falicitous nuance.