Iraqi Election Exceeds Expectations

[cbacon 0]

"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."

- New York Times, September 4, 1967

by gawd, what are you implying?

That he lacks little knowledge of what Vietnam actually was, apparently. I guess fighting an actual country is the same as fighting an insurgency, considering that the NVA caused far more damage than the VC ever could have hoped for.

Actually, I was drawing a parallel between ideologies, rather than comparing military aspects.

 

As evident by Deon's reply, many view the elections as a turning point for the end of the war/occupation, which is clearly not true. Nor should this be seen as point for war apologists to claim "See! The war was worth it after all!", considering Iraqi liberation wasn't even a reason for going to war, but that's a different argument, yada yada.

 

The elections were a watered down version of democracy. No international observers were allowed so the legitimacy will be in question, there were large parts of the country that could not vote, the election wasn't without it's casulties (44 I believe) and many of the candidates were unknown as not only could they not campaign, but some were encouraged not to reveal their identities.

 

That said, it is good Iraq is now able to have some semblance of democracy in a post-Saddam society and it's better that they had them then not (by comparison to the previous regieme). Although it's unlikely that true democracy can flourish in such a heterogenous society, but that remains to be seen. Iraq will still remain a war torn nation for the rest of the year, the body count on both sides will continue to mount, and the 'threat' of terrorism will still linger in the minds of many, which will continue to complement the need for the past 2 years of reckless chaos.

[The Robfather 0]

"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."

- New York Times, September 4, 1967

 

Christopher Hitchens responds to this:

 

Beating a Dead Parrot

[Justice 0]

Actually, I was drawing a parallel between ideologies, rather than comparing military aspects.

Why? The ideologies hinge directly on the war itself, so I don't see how you can still draw the parallel. It's still the same old ignorant hype that "Vietnam is similar to Iraq" when there isn't anything similar about one country (NV) invading another (SV) and one country fighting off an insurgency.

 

No, it's not done. Not by a long shot. But watching you continually try to undercut it (I really do love the 'impossibility' of a democracy in a hetrogenous society, since you really have a basis for that assumption) is quite humorous, to say the least.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

No international observers were allowed so the legitimacy will be in question, there were large parts of the country that could not vote, the election wasn't without it's casulties (44 I believe) and many of the candidates were unknown as not only could they not campaign, but some were encouraged not to reveal their identities.

 

Here's a question. From the 44 dead, are the sub-human monkeys with Downs Syndrome that blew themselves up counted? Some yahoo on RIGHT WING RADIO this morning said that there were nine homicide bombers and 35 people they killed. When reporting on those dead from a homicide bomber, do the media usually include the murderer?...

[Guest goodhelmet]

Here's a question: When reporting on civilian casualties in general, why does RIGHT WING RADIO refuse to give actual numbers and dismiss it when it does not reflect favorably on the war?

 

As for the election... what were the people of Iraq voting for? Does anyone here know? More importantly, do the Iraqis even know?

[Justice 0]

Here's a question: When reporting on civilian casualties in general, why does RIGHT WING RADIO refuse to give actual numbers and dismiss it when it does not reflect favorably on the war?

 

As for the election... what were the people of Iraq voting for? Does anyone here know? More importantly, do the Iraqis even know?

They were voting for a 275 person parliment that would have an 11-month term, in addition to a President and two Vice Presidents, I believe. This parliment would go about creating a Constitution for ratifying in one year, which the Iraqis will vote on. If it passes, then it is ratified as the new Constitution. If not, then the Iraqis will have another year to create one and so and so on...

 

And yes, they most likely did. They aren't as ignorant as you would all like to believe.

[Guest goodhelmet]

And yes, they most likely did. They aren't as ignorant as you would all like to believe.

Um.. how do you know they were well-informed?

 

And by all accounts (liberal and fascist), candidates campaigned in secret or not at all. Is this really democracy?

 

And once the leader of the country is determined and the Constitution is ratified and the Inaugural ball gets under the way, does the U.S. remain to "protect" Iraq?

 

Who enforces the laws of the new govt. -U.S. forces or a new Iraqi police force and military?

 

When does the U.S. finally withdraw?

 

How do we react when the Iraqis elect an anti-American candidate? Do we start up the tanks again?

[Guest MikeSC]

No international observers were allowed so the legitimacy will be in question, there were large parts of the country that could not vote, the election wasn't without it's casulties (44 I believe) and many of the candidates were unknown as not only could they not campaign, but some were encouraged not to reveal their identities.

 

Here's a question. From the 44 dead, are the sub-human monkeys with Downs Syndrome that blew themselves up counted? Some yahoo on RIGHT WING RADIO this morning said that there were nine homicide bombers and 35 people they killed. When reporting on those dead from a homicide bomber, do the media usually include the murderer?...

You know what's ironic? One of the suicide bombers --- actually HAD Down's Syndrome.

 

"A very disturbing report to tell you about. Iraqi police and witnesses at the scene of one suicide bomber said the suicide bomber appeared to have Downs Syndrome and whether or not he actually detonated the device himself, whether someone else detonated it for him is not known at this point, but it is just a very disturbing detail, someone believed to have Downs Syndrome being used as a suicide bomber. It is something shocking, even in this city, which has become used to seeing slaughter, to seeing brutality on a scale that is hard to comprehend."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0501/30/sm.01.html

 

Yeah, I imagine the minutemen here did the EXACT same thing during our Revolution. Michael Moore is so wise.

The elections were a watered down version of democracy. No international observers were allowed so the legitimacy will be in question, there were large parts of the country that could not vote, the election wasn't without it's casulties (44 I believe) and many of the candidates were unknown as not only could they not campaign, but some were encouraged not to reveal their identities.

Blame the Carter Center for refusing to be there. I suppose that unless a dictatorial thug is "running", they have no interest in actually being there.

 

Of course, nobody is ACTUALLY claiming that there was any fraud, well outside of certain fringe leftists who actually want to see Iraq fail because it will make Bush look bad and make their protests of the action seem like it's something more than just blind hatred of Pres. Bush.

Although it's unlikely that true democracy can flourish in such a heterogenous society

Yup, a heterogenous (sic) society can't POSSIBLY pull off a representative republic or democracy.

 

Absolutely bloody impossible.

Iraq will still remain a war torn nation for the rest of the year, the body count on both sides will continue to mount, and the 'threat' of terrorism will still linger in the minds of many, which will continue to complement the need for the past 2 years of reckless chaos.

So far, Bush has brought elections to Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

What, precisely, is the good thing YOUR ideology has brought to the world?

Here's a question: When reporting on civilian casualties in general, why does RIGHT WING RADIO refuse to give actual numbers and dismiss it when it does not reflect favorably on the war?

Because it's pointless. Why focus on the casualties all of the time?

 

Didn't Vietnam demonstrate the pointlessness of keeping track of body counts?

 

And doesn't a 60%+ voting rate indicate that the insurgents are not the majority view in that country by any stretch of the imagination?

As for the election... what were the people of Iraq voting for? Does anyone here know? More importantly, do the Iraqis even know?

I could pull up quotes from DailyKos, DU, pandagon.net, Eschaton, etc. and ask the same question about the left in America.

And once the leader of the country is determined and the Constitution is ratified and the Inaugural ball gets under the way, does the U.S. remain to "protect" Iraq?

Yup. It'd be downright evil to let them fall right now when they're trying to build a country. We had the benefit of a big-ass OCEAN between us and the countries that might wish to destroy our country after our revolution, so we didn't need as much outside interference to protect our fledgling country.

 

Iraq doesn't have that advantage.

Who enforces the laws of the new govt. -U.S. forces or a new Iraqi police force and military?

The Iraqis would police themselves. We'd simply help them with terrorist attacks.

When does the U.S. finally withdraw?

When Iraq can protect itself.

 

To give you a hint, the moment we state "We'll leave by (this date)", the terrorists will simply wait us out --- then attack when we leave.

 

So you think the VC didn't do exactly that when we announced our decision to leave SV?

How do we react when the Iraqis elect an anti-American candidate? Do we start up the tanks again?

Have we done so to Germany?

 

Then that's your answer.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

And here come the Mike BJs...

[Guest MikeSC]

And here come the Mike BJs...

Man, such bitterness out of you.

 

If I cared more, I'd feel for you.

 

But I don't, so I'll just laugh at your asinine comments.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

And here come the Mike BJs...

Man, such bitterness out of you.

 

If I cared more, I'd feel for you.

 

But I don't, so I'll just laugh at your asinine comments.

-=Mike

[Guest goodhelmet]

I could pull up quotes from DailyKos, DU, pandagon.net, Eschaton, etc. and ask the same question about the left in America.

 

Well, do it.

 

 

Because it's pointless. Why focus on the casualties all of the time?

 

Didn't Vietnam demonstrate the pointlessness of keeping track of body counts?

 

Not quite... unless of course, dead bodies piling up are of little consequence to you.

 

Yup. It'd be downright evil to let them fall right now when they're trying to build a country. We had the benefit of a big-ass OCEAN between us and the countries that might wish to destroy our country after our revolution, so we didn't need as much outside interference to protect our fledgling country.

 

Iraq doesn't have that advantage.

 

First off, Iraq wasn't involved in a revolution... or a civil war... or a fight for independence. That will come later when we withdraw our troops.

 

I'm glad you fully admit that the U.S. is in the process of nation-building.

 

And to clarify, you just said that Bush bought the elections to Iraq and Afghanistan, therefore, your words are a little misleading when you say THEY (the Iraqis) are trying to build a country. We are building their country for them.

 

 

The Iraqis would police themselves. We'd simply help them with terrorist attacks.

 

For how long?

 

 

When Iraq can protect itself.

 

To give you a hint, the moment we state "We'll leave by (this date)", the terrorists will simply wait us out --- then attack when we leave.

 

So you think the VC didn't do exactly that when we announced our decision to leave SV?

 

I fully agree that the terrorists or insurgents or resistance groups or whatever will wait until we withdraw.

 

Where I disagree is that Iraq will ever truly be united under a "democracy". I am still waiting for the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds to start holding hands singing "We Ae the World".

 

Have we done so to Germany?

 

Then that's your answer.

 

In what historical context are you referring to? After Hitler? Recently?

 

And why would the U.S. "protect" Iraq if they elect a leader hostile to U.S. intentions?

[Guest Cerebus]

This is a dumb argument. The Iraqis need our help, but in the end its ultimately up to them to unite their country. I think the elections are a solid sign, but the coming months will be more indicative of whether or not they will actually be able to unite. It may become a situation that the problems that splitting the country into three (which are, to quote Morbo from Futurama, "belligerent and numerous") would pale compared to the problem of keeping the artificially created country of Iraq together as the British and French drew it on a map almost a hundred years ago.

[NoCalMike 0]

"why focus on casualties all the time"

 

ALL THE TIME? WTF....when was the last time the networks even sought after an accurate account of Iraqi casualties?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You know what's ironic? One of the suicide bombers --- actually HAD Down's Syndrome.

 

I know. That's why I said it, hippie.

 

And I'm not in the mood to give a bj today -- can I just perform a rimjob?...

[Dr. Tom 0]

And by all accounts (liberal and fascist)...

That's repugnant. Conservative =/= Fascist.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

HERE is a pretty good primer on the soon to be post-election landscape of Iraqi politics, particularly the role reversal of Shia and Sunni, and the "numerous and belligerent" Kurds. And yes, we're in there too.

 

I can put in it's own topic if this thread contiues to be a clusterfuck. (Forecast looks good!)

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

And by all accounts (liberal and fascist)...

That's repugnant. Conservative =/= Fascist.

Just like liberal =/= "commie"

 

Mike, do you say things like "so I'll just laugh at your asinine comments." and then laugh in real life? Don't be offended by this question.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I've never referred to anyone here as a "commie" in a serious manner.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I've never referred to anyone here as a "commie" in a serious manner.

Hence the wink.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NoCalMike 0]

Here is a not so positive opinion on the Iraqi elections and the occupation by a retired Iraqi engineer. He was interviewed in his home on Democracy Now, by Amy Goodman. If you get Free Speech network, you can watch it when it comes on.

AMY GOODMAN: And this is Democracy Now! democracynow.org as we move from Kurdistan back to Baghdad, to get response from retired Iraqi engineer Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar. Throughout key points of the invasion and occupation we have checked in with him on the first anniversary of the invasion, on the siege of Fallujah, the so-called transfer of sovereignty on June 28. Today we get his thoughts on the elections. We reached him just before the program. This is Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar at his home in Baghdad.

 

GHAZWAN AL-MUKHTAR: I do not believe that the election is legitimate, the election is held under the occupation. The occupying power has modified the basic rules in Iraq as to who is an Iraqi and who is not. The election was shoved down our throat because all the major parties, including Allawi's party, requested that the election be postponed. That was in November. And before even the independent electoral commission could decide on the request, that President Bush said he does not want the election to be postponed and Ambassador Negroponte said, oddly enough, it came from Fallujah. He was in Fallujah, and declared that the elections will be held on the January 30. It is an Iraqi election, it is not a U.S. election, it is not Negroponte's election, it is the Iraqi people's election. So, if the Iraqi parties wanted to postpone the election, they should have been able to do so without the interference of the United States government.

 

Anyway, having done the election now, it was forced down our throat, a lot of people have boycotted it. The Sunnis have boycotted the elections. Some of the Shias boycotted it. Muktadar Al Sadr faction boycotted the election. Al Khalaf faction boycotted the election. There is a resistance to the occupation in Iraq. This resistance stems from the fact that our life has been, for the last 22 months, deteriorating day and night and we have not seen any improvement in our condition for the last 22 months, nor that anything has been reconstructed. The telephone system is bad, the electricity is worse, the security condition is worse. A lot of people are saying, why do I vote? What does the government do for me? They did absolutely nothing. The shocking thing is that the conditions after 22 months of occupation is a lot worse in every single aspect of life than with Saddam Hussein, after 12 years of sanction.

 

While I'm talking to you I just heard two bombs exploding not too far from here. I did not vote and I will not vote to any one of those people who came on the back of the American banks. I do not see any change because there is no will to reconstruct anything. There is no will to improve the life of the Iraqis. It is going to take another two years and a lot of will. Mind you, in 1991, with the huge destruction in Iraq, we, the Iraqi people, despite the sanctions and with no help from anybody, we were able to restore the electricity, we were able to restore the water, the sewage and in six months we were able to rebuild the country in less than a year. Now that time has gone. The U.S. had 22 months occupation and they have not fixed a single thing in Iraq. We are still getting 2,000 to 2,200 calories on the ration system. We were told that Saddam Hussein was stealing our money both in the palaces and keeping us poor and hungry. But now after 22 months, we are still getting 2200 calories or sometimes less.

 

Halliburton -- we have added crisis right now of petrol, Iraq was an exporting country of diesel fuel and refined oil products. Since the occupation, we have been importing oil from Turkey. No one fixes the refineries. There is a huge queue of cars waiting to get oil or petrol. And the Congress, the U.S. Congress said in 2003, May 2003, seven out of 18 governmentals had more than 16 hours of electricity. Now we are getting two hours of electricity right in Baghdad. I am lucky today, I have electricity from 7:00 to 9:00 and that is going to be all. Until late in the evening, maybe, I don't know when, I'll get the electricity.

 

So, all those factors will indicate that the people are discontent, the people are resentful of the presence of the American forces, that the people are dissatisfied with the occupation, because they have not seen any improvement in their life. Unemployment is very high; it's at about 60%. People are starving. This is the basis for the resistance. It's not the Mussabu Al Zarqawi and Abu, I don't know who, or the terrorists coming from the outside of Iraq. It is the indigenous Iraqi resistance. While we were told that Saddam Hussein was torturing us, we are finding after 22 months that the Americans are torturing us, the British are torturing us, the Danish are torturing us and now we discover that the Iraqi forces, the ING is torturing us. So, instead of one having one torturer, now we have four torturers. And you want us to be happy with the election.

 

This reminds me of a story when Mary Antoinette, when she was told that the people did not have bread to eat. She said why don't they eat cake? We don't have anything and they tell us here it is democracy. Take democracy. What do I do with democracy? Does it allow me to walk across right the street without being feared of being kidnapped or being shot at or being mugged or being stolen? Would democracy feed my children? Would democracy allow me to quench my thirst? The U.S. has not done anything at all to improve the life of Iraqi people. And that is one of the reasons why you are seeing all those attacks.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar, a retired Iraqi engineer speaking from his home in Baghdad.

 

[Guest MikeSC]

Hmmmm. Free Speech Network, eh?

 

I shall now summarize my opinion of this interview:

 

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!

 

Gee, why would ANYBODY with an IQ in the positive numbers region NOT trust the left with national security?

 

They seem so level-headed and serious.

 

A COMPLETE mystery.

 

Free Speech Network? We're STILL over-paying for this pablum. They manage to drag some anonymous guy out of nowhere and have him spout off liberal cliches. Ooooh, THAT is damning.

 

Up there with Gorbachev calling the elections a joke and commenting that he supports elections (a support, mind you, he managed to keep in check just fine for his years as the leader of the Soviet Fucking Union)

 

Yeah, the left is a bunch of people one can take seriously. And the Democrats are letting these assorted twats run the party FURTHER down the toilet. I actually love it --- a real, legitimate opposition party is in everybody's best interests and the Dems ain't it --- but I must admit it's bizarre to watch a group happily commit suicide like this.

Mike, do you say things like "so I'll just laugh at your asinine comments." and then laugh in real life? Don't be offended by this question.

Absolutely. A guy who is legitimately bitter over a guy who posts on a message board is sad on so many levels. When confronted with this, you can either laugh or cry.

 

"Don't fellate MikeSC" or whatever the hell he posted in HD a while back (yup, I noticed that one) --- it's almost touching to see that I am such a cause celebre in the apparently otherwise rather empty life o' Cerebus. I've never really had a need to tell people to not fellate Cerebus --- but I imagine that's not exactly a problem for him as is.

ALL THE TIME? WTF....when was the last time the networks even sought after an accurate account of Iraqi casualties?

Um, the press showed REMARKABLE restraint for them in not having the casualties be the lead in stories on the elections. You know they wanted to do that.

 

BTW, is anybody going to make a thread based on CNN Chief Executive Eason Jordan's comments in Davos, Switzerland? If one knows HIS infamous history in regards to Iraq, his comments cross from just the usual left-wing shit to some real psychotic bullshit

-=Mike