Iraqi Election: Big Mistake!

[Draconias]

lol! Presidential election? You sir are misinformed. This has nothing to do with a president. This is an election to determine the 275 (?) people who will write a Constitution for Iraq and elect hundreds of people to different key positions. The turnout for Iraqi voters in registration is absolutely astounding. This is not "forced" on them. Although there are about 10,000 people running for all the offices combined, that doesn't matter. This is something too important to let misinformed judgements halt it.

[bcdemon]

I'm not saying elections arent good, just not good at this time. To much chaos right now. Plus it really does seem kind of pointless to vote in this election. It would seem that its only purpose is to "give the people the choice", not that it's going to matter.
Iraqi Interior Minister Falah Naqib summed it up nicely with “All Iraqis should take part in the elections as best they can. It is not crucial who they vote for , the important thing is that everyone participates.”.

''I will vote for number 169. That's who I am going to vote for. That for the Shiite people,'' ''I don't know the name of the group, I just know it's for the Shiites." First time voter Amir Al-Khafaji from Jacksonville Fl. He doesnt even know the name of the person he is voting for, but hes dead set on #169. I would think that knowig the person your voting for is sort of important, atleast kowing the persons name.

At 1/19/05 08:27 AM, Draconias wrote: The turnout for Iraqi voters in registration is absolutely astounding.

Astounding? Really? Out of approximately 1 million Iraqi expatriates who are eligable to vote worldwide, about 18,000 have registered.

[RedSkunk]

The elections are going to be a farce. Does that mean they shouldn't be happening? *shrug* The June "transfer of power" was a farce too, did that solve a whole lot? Up to you to decide I suppose.

[bombkangaroo]

The purpose of the elections is to take away reasons for insurgents and terrorists to be there and to cause problems.

Once the government is recognised as being legitimate they can tell the coalition forces to leave, which will [hopefully] result in less terrosim and insurgency.

169 is for the shiites? Sounds good if you're a shiite.
The problem with most political parties in the west is that people know the names, but aren't accutely aware of their policies. How do you think New labour got in for a second term?(asides from there being little viable opposition)

I think it's impressive that in a country where there has been one name on the ballot paper for the last couple of decades, that a there are people who are more interested in the policies, even if it is a generalised concept of what they stand for, than the person they're voting for.

[BeFell]

Judging by how much terrorists attacks have kicked up in the run up to the election I would say the terrorists are concerned the Iraqi people just might end up liking this democracy thing. Regardless of threats of attack they are projecting a 50-60% turnout. That may sound low but think about our voter turnout.

[cheshirepus]

Why doesn't the U.S. just fix this Iraq problem by inserting another dictator? We've done it numerous times before in Central and South America as well as Iran.
Besides that, I'm betting $20 that Iraqi elections will be the catalyst to a civil war there.
It's too bad "the time for diplomacy" wasn't realized before this fiasco though.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/19/05 11:36 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: Once the government is recognised as being legitimate they can tell the coalition forces to leave, which will [hopefully] result in less terrosim and insurgency.

First, I doubt this government will seem much more legitimate to anyone who doesn't think the current government is legitimate. The ability to safely vote is obviously going to vary widely from province to province. What's democratic about that? Additionally, even with a "legitimate" government, I don't see how they could maintain a single strand of order if they asked the coalition forces to leave.

[BeFell]

I'm curious does anyone support any of the extreme safety measures that have been discussed such as not letting anybody drive on election day?

[RedSkunk]

The US military has increased its strength from 135,000 to 150,000, but much of the protection work at voting places will be carried out by the Iraqi security forces, whose ability remains in doubt.

Officials have announced plans to seal Iraq's land borders for a three-day period around the vote - an apparent effort to stop insurgent infiltration.

Vehicles without permits will not be allowed onto the roads over the same period, and existing curfews will be extended in the hope of preventing bomb attacks.

The three days will be declared a public holiday, with all shops and offices staying shut.

However, it is hard to see how effective these measures will be in large parts of the country that are so insecure that voters have not even been able to register there.

Referencing befeel's post. I'd have to go along with the article, it depends on how effective the measures are. I have no particular problem with sealing the borders, or extending curfews. I don't know the direct consequences of disallowing vehicles on the roads, but it sounds a bit hard on the populace.

[ReiperX]

At 1/19/05 03:19 PM, BeFell wrote: I'm curious does anyone support any of the extreme safety measures that have been discussed such as not letting anybody drive on election day?

I could see them not being able to drive in cities, or within a half of a mile of any election offices, even though that might lower voter turn out some.

It might slow or prevent certain attacks on the voters, but then again there are other ways of blowing people up rather than driving up and boom.

[cheshirepus]

At 1/19/05 03:43 PM, red_skunk wrote: The US military has increased its strength from 135,000 to 150,000, but much of the protection work at voting places will be carried out by the Iraqi security forces, whose ability remains in doubt.

Officials have announced plans to seal Iraq's land borders for a three-day period around the vote - an apparent effort to stop insurgent infiltration.

Vehicles without permits will not be allowed onto the roads over the same period, and existing curfews will be extended in the hope of preventing bomb attacks.

The three days will be declared a public holiday, with all shops and offices staying shut.

However, it is hard to see how effective these measures will be in large parts of the country that are so insecure that voters have not even been able to register there.

And this is an example of the "freedom" that the U.S. is spreading throughout Iraq?! Curfews, moratoriams on driving, closed borders? What the fuck kind of freedom is that?
What about all the people outside the major cities who aren't going to be able vote because they can't get transportation to the polling places? Oh wait, I forgot, those are just the Sunnis who Bush doesn't want to vote anyway. Of course, he'd be an expert on getting rid of unwanted votes by now, wouldn't he?... :)

[BeFell]

At 1/19/05 03:55 PM, cheshirepus wrote: And this is an example of the "freedom" that the U.S. is spreading throughout Iraq?! Curfews, moratoriams on driving, closed borders? What the fuck kind of freedom is that?

How does closing the borders effect the freedom of Iraqi citizens? Actually borders should be closed right now anyways.

As far as the other stuff it is inconveniant but isn't it better than getting blown up?

What about all the people outside the major cities who aren't going to be able vote because they can't get transportation to the polling places? Oh wait, I forgot, those are just the Sunnis who Bush doesn't want to vote anyway. Of course, he'd be an expert on getting rid of unwanted votes by now, wouldn't he?... :)

Do you know that for sure? As I said I am sure they have or are in the process of working out some form of voter transportation.

[BeFell]

Forgot to paste:

At 1/19/05 03:43 PM, red_skunk wrote: The US military has increased its strength from 135,000 to 150,000, but much of the protection work at voting places will be carried out by the Iraqi security forces, whose ability remains in doubt.

Officials have announced plans to seal Iraq's land borders for a three-day period around the vote - an apparent effort to stop insurgent infiltration.

Vehicles without permits will not be allowed onto the roads over the same period, and existing curfews will be extended in the hope of preventing bomb attacks.

The three days will be declared a public holiday, with all shops and offices staying shut.

However, it is hard to see how effective these measures will be in large parts of the country that are so insecure that voters have not even been able to register there.

It sounds like they are really trying not to half ass it.

Referencing befeel's post. I'd have to go along with the article, it depends on how effective the measures are. I have no particular problem with sealing the borders, or extending curfews. I don't know the direct consequences of disallowing vehicles on the roads, but it sounds a bit hard on the populace.

I was just curious to see if anyone was whinning about the safety measures.

At 1/19/05 03:46 PM, ReiperX wrote: I could see them not being able to drive in cities, or within a half of a mile of any election offices, even though that might lower voter turn out some.

I'm sure they have worked out some kind of mass transit so people can vote. A simple call for a ride service would work nicely.

It might slow or prevent certain attacks on the voters, but then again there are other ways of blowing people up rather than driving up and boom.

Vehicles can cary a lot more explosives than a person on foot. It's not a perfect solution but it makes a smaller boom.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/19/05 03:55 PM, cheshirepus wrote: And this is an example of the "freedom" that the U.S. is spreading throughout Iraq?! Curfews, moratoriams on driving, closed borders? What the fuck kind of freedom is that?

Iraq's a warzone, if you didn't notice.

At 1/19/05 04:05 PM, BeFell wrote: I was just curious to see if anyone was whinning about the safety measures.

If it saves more lives than it impedes on them, then I'm for it. Large disturbances in these elections probably wouldn't be very helpful for the general Iraqi populace, would they?

I'm sure they have worked out some kind of mass transit so people can vote. A simple call for a ride service would work nicely.

Doubtful. It's shaping up to be a "anyone who can make it" scenario.

And I heard they were using the old "dye on the hand" to stop people from voting several times. Doesn't anyone else remember the dye during the Afghan elections, being easily wiped off? I'm not particularly worried about the dye, but it's just indicative of.. How half-ass it'll be.

[cheshirepus]

At 1/19/05 04:12 PM, red_skunk wrote: Iraq's a warzone, if you didn't notice.

So which is it going to be? Is Iraq going to be a Democratic nation capable of even holding elections, or is it just going to stay a warzone? Granted, that's just rhetoric, but maybe... just maybe, Iraq isn't quite ready for this.

[BeFell]

At 1/19/05 05:24 PM, cheshirepus wrote:

At 1/19/05 04:12 PM, red_skunk wrote: Iraq's a warzone, if you didn't notice.

So which is it going to be? Is Iraq going to be a Democratic nation capable of even holding elections, or is it just going to stay a warzone? Granted, that's just rhetoric, but maybe... just maybe, Iraq isn't quite ready for this.

How would you suggest getting them ready? I think it's pretty obvious by now that the status quo with the transitional government isn't going to stop the terrorism. The best they can do is start moving along and build up their nations regardless of the efforts of terrorists.

[cheshirepus]

BeFell, first of all I don't intend on debating anything with you considering my belief that people like yourself are what's wrong with the United States right now.
Secondly, I already stated the solution to Iraq... it needs a new dictator. Now, whether we need to send another 1500 Americans to needlessly die before we figure that out is, I suppose up to president Shrub and his "wonder squad".
Just because we like Democracy doesn't mean everyone else does... Y'know, it's kind of like when a couple of Mormons show up on your doorstep and you have to them to get the fuck off your property.

[BeFell]

At 1/19/05 07:11 PM, cheshirepus wrote: BeFell, first of all I don't intend on debating anything with you considering my belief that people like yourself are what's wrong with the United States right now.

Oh wow that really hurts comming from someone of your flowing intelligence maybe I should just concede the point because you obviously know what's best.

Secondly, I already stated the solution to Iraq... it needs a new dictator. Now, whether we need to send another 1500 Americans to needlessly die before we figure that out is, I suppose up to president Shrub and his "wonder squad".
Just because we like Democracy doesn't mean everyone else does... Y'know, it's kind of like when a couple of Mormons show up on your doorstep and you have to them to get the fuck off your property.

... Maybe not.

[Proteas]

At 1/19/05 04:12 PM, red_skunk wrote: Iraq's a warzone, if you didn't notice.

I'm curious... would the U.S. Government be carrying out the Iraqi elections if Iraq really was as unstable as it is said to be in the media?

[cheshirepus]

At 1/19/05 07:50 PM, BeFell wrote: Oh wow that really hurts comming from someone of your flowing intelligence maybe I should just concede the point because you obviously know what's best.

I'm glad you see things my way.

[TitusRevised]

At 1/19/05 08:27 AM, Draconias wrote: lol! Presidential election? You sir are misinformed. This has nothing to do with a president. This is an election to determine the 275 (?) people who will write a Constitution for Iraq and elect hundreds of people to different key positions. The turnout for Iraqi voters in registration is absolutely astounding. This is not "forced" on them. Although there are about 10,000 people running for all the offices combined, that doesn't matter. This is something too important to let misinformed judgements halt it.

Is Iraq going to have as much freedom on their constitution as we have reserved on our (our = America(n)) consitution?

[RedSkunk]

At 1/19/05 07:50 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm curious... would the U.S. Government be carrying out the Iraqi elections if Iraq really was as unstable as it is said to be in the media?

No, it's a giant left-wing conspiracy orchestrated to make Bush look bad. Put your tin hat on, monkey.

[Proteas]

At 1/19/05 08:59 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 1/19/05 07:50 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm curious... would the U.S. Government be carrying out the Iraqi elections if Iraq really was as unstable as it is said to be in the media?

No, it's a giant left-wing conspiracy orchestrated to make Bush look bad. Put your tin hat on, monkey.

Right after you.

Seriously though, Iraq is roughly the same size as the state of California in terms of square mileage, there is bound to be more going on there, so why are we only hearing about a few random attacks in one of five towns in that country?

[bcdemon]

At 1/19/05 09:37 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm curious... would the U.S. Government be carrying out the Iraqi elections if Iraq really was as unstable as it is said to be in the media?

I think so. Once these elections are staged, the new US-approved governing body will be responsible for things in Iraq. But more so, US will relinquish responsibilities. Then we can start blaming Allawi instead of Bush for the mess in Iraq. But atleast Allawi is
taking care of business himself. Good luck Iraq, you're going to need it.

[Nylo]

The January elections are a joke. It's not even a question of "should" the elections be held. The U.S. has preached so much in the name of democracy and freedom that we're screwed if we do and screwed if we don't.

On one hand, the U.S has a high capability of forcing restrictions on the elections making it completely undemocratic and bias, and on the other the masses have a high potential of putting too many wrong people in power that would be dangerous to the remaining cultural stability if restrictions aren't put on the elections; a blame that would easily fall on the U.S for screwing with their government in the first place.

*sigh* I fucking hate this war.

[Jimsween]

At 1/19/05 09:37 PM, Proteas wrote: Right after you.

Seriously though, Iraq is roughly the same size as the state of California in terms of square mileage, there is bound to be more going on there, so why are we only hearing about a few random attacks in one of five towns in that country?

I dunno, I dont hear about many car bombs going off in california.

Really though, square mileage? If your going to compare it to anything, it should be population.

And a seperate question;

Does anybody but terrorists still live in Fallujah? I see no reason to stay there unless you plan on fighting with the soldiers, and I heard that the population went down signifigantly before the attack.

[ReiperX]

At 1/19/05 09:37 PM, Proteas wrote:
Seriously though, Iraq is roughly the same size as the state of California in terms of square mileage, there is bound to be more going on there, so why are we only hearing about a few random attacks in one of five towns in that country?

Look at the population of it, also look at the most inhabited parts of it, on the Tigris river. Reason that is the most populated, it has water, and there is vegitation there. Most of the people probally live in the general areas of the river.

[Proteas]

At 1/20/05 12:33 AM, Jimsween wrote: I dunno, I dont hear about many car bombs going off in california.

We could compare crime rates and see which one is higher...

Really though, square mileage? If your going to compare it to anything, it should be population.

Iraq:
- Total.........................25,374,691
- Density....................59/km²

California
- Population..............33,871,648
- Density....................83.85 /km²

So Iraq is less dense than California, my point was that there has got to be more going on there than what we see on the news every night. For all we know it's a helluva lot better over there than we think.

And a seperate question;

Does anybody but terrorists still live in Fallujah? I see no reason to stay there unless you plan on fighting with the soldiers, and I heard that the population went down signifigantly before the attack.

Two words; LAKE FALLUJAH. Vietnam style carpet bombing... give the terrorists 24 hours to surrender or we start dropping MOABs and Daisy Cutters on them.

[RedSkunk]

Comparing Iraq to California is simply moronic Proteas.

[Proteas]

At 1/20/05 10:23 AM, red_skunk wrote: Comparing Iraq to California is simply moronic Proteas.

All right then, I'll drop it.

But I'll cut to the point; we here in America only know it as a "warzone" because it's what we hear on the news every evening. And it may very well be a warzone for all we know, but take a step back and look at it this way; what are they not telling us about what's going on in Iraq?