Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on January 29, 2005, 05:59:29 pm
-
Iraqi elections (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/iraq.transition/)
t-4 hours
-
I think we're waiting for the crappy turnout, the series of massive truck bombs/shootings, and the no-brainer result in favour of the American-endorsed candidate..... ;) :blah:
Seriously though, I'm not at all confident in these elections. Most people will stay away for fear of high-explosive death, a large portion of Sunni (IIRC) Muslims are boycotting on the advice of some clerics, and the Iraqi equivalent of Hamad Karzai (sp?????) will inevitably win. It's not going to change anything. America will still be in "control", bombings and kidnappings will still occur, and the people won't see much difference...
-
These elections are totally unfair. The inhabitants of Falluja for example haven't received a word on where or how to vote. hell, most of the 350,000 people are living in refugee camps and haven't been given food aid for the last months. nd this is but one of the regions where there are no places to vote, no information on how to vote. And 'conviniently', all these places are were the non-Shiites live.
Also, Falluja citizens have been shot by American soldiers there while sleeping in their beds. A documentary showed footage of a father with his wife and kid lying in bed, shot. There hasn't been a gunfight at all, they were simply executed. they also showed the rotting carcass of a 90-year old man who was shot. And some more. and another bit more.
And precision bombing? Nope, almost no house is still standing in one piece. The houses that are still standing have been ransacked by American troops and on mirrors they wrote "F*ck Iraq and everyone in it!" and similar stuff. Litterally.
Seriously, I can see why those people are angry. And quite frankly, they have every reason to be.
In short, this election is as biased as it can be.
-
Madame Rictor will now predict the future:
Most Sunnis boycott the election. At best 40% of Shia turn out, the Kurds vote in reasonable numbers but only for their own party (or rather, list). The insurgency turns up the heat, the curfew does **** all to curb the violence. Major areas of resistance are not included in the vote, thus artificially boosting the pro-American average. Because of all this, the elections can in no reasonable way be called legitimate.
al Sistani/Chalabi "win" the election, democracy is celebrated. US troops are "asked to stay by the new sovereign Iraqi government, which without a doubt represents the wishes of the people." The insurgency continue, the troops stay. Nothing changes, except that all blame is shifted to the "new democratically chosen government" and the evil terrorists. Bush's apprival ratings soar.
The occupations changes from "one nation occupying another" to "one nation occupying another with the help and approval of a small number of local elites in the spirit of democracy and self-determination"
Ta-da I'm a clairvoyant.
-
Maybe it wasn't mentioned cause no one cares... :p
-
The names of the people on the lists you vote for havent even been published.
-
Nice election round-up ever at Lenin's Tomb ("http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_leninology_archive.html#110700021826682620"). Good read.
(Further) cynicism and disillusiontment lies ahead.
-
Lets hope this wasnt all for nothing.
-
This hasn't been mentioned because this forum has a mostly liberal populace who would rather not talk about it. And about what Tiara said, wouldn't that "documentary" be considered bias too?
Point and case, politics are teh sux0rs.
-
This hasn't been mentioned because this forum has a mostly liberal populace who would rather not talk about it.
A little rash, don't you think?
-
just checkin in, has anything blown up yet?
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
And about what Tiara said, wouldn't that "documentary" be considered bias too?
I have no doubt that it is. All documentaries are biased. But seeing practically the wole city bombed flat kinda speaks for itself. And almost all citizens (350,000) living in refugee camps outside the city with barely any food and water also kinda speaks for itself.
-
maybe its cause we're a bit more realistic and skeptical Deepblue. The belief that these elections are free and fair, or that they will bring about democracy is a bit naive.
First of all, you can't democracy with 150,000 foreign troops in your country which most of the population would like to see dead. That one fact makes the excercise of democracy nearly impossible. Secdonly, the election system is convoluted and unclear, not to mention being in favour of the established authorities. Then you have the fact that certain parts of the country will not be allowed to vote, which sort of ruins the intended effect of elections. Furthermore, none of the large parties are running on an explicitly anti-occupation platform, which doesn't seem to represent popular sentiment in Iraq. And then there's the low expected turnout, not nearly enough to validate the coming government...
I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4220551.stm
well surprise surprise
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
This hasn't been mentioned because this forum has a mostly liberal populace who would rather not talk about it.
Correction: Radical liberals.
-
Alright WTF?
They didn't even fight like this in friggin Iraq¬
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4220437.stm
-
Surprise surprise pessimists, high turnout even among violence (not much at that, this surprised me).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6874656/?GT1=6065
-
I'm impressed. However, the argument has mostly been that the future government will be a US puppet.
-
Everyone keep telling yourself that. If you try hard enough, you might believe you are right.
-
The only surprise has been the relatively low number of attacks, though that was hardly in US hands, now was it?
They asid 72% turn out, revised down to 60%, probably going to be revised down to 50% or lower in the end. Even the 60% figure is based only on a single elections official.
Just have to learn to distinguish between reality and jubilant White House press releases. Just becuase they say the elctions were fair, doesn't make it so. In fact, the reality is that they were anything but, regardless of who wins. All of the arguements put forward by Tiara, Gank, vyper, myself et. al. still stand.
But go ahead, have your fun. No one's buying it, but have your celebration anyway.
-
FFS, most sunni didn't even take part in this. I don't count the number of city who didn't have the infrastructure necessary to take part in the election. Oddly enough, most of these infrastucture were ready in pro-us city. I don't want to open a new debate on the reliability of the us in reconstructing a country so that the people can lead themselves, but I know enough to know that this isn't the way to go.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Everyone keep telling yourself that. If you try hard enough, you might believe you are right.
So can you with all honesty say that the whitehouse would have accepted the election results if it disagreed with their wishes?
-
We still don't know the election results, though you can make some educated guesses. The point is that the election is fradulent and illegitimate no matter who wins. Just putting that out now, before the results come in, so certain people don't start jumping up and down and claiming that the only reason anyone would see the elections as fraudulent is because their side didn't win. There are real and numerous issues which prevent this elections from being legit.
Unless something miraculous happens, anyone who wins will be more or less pro-US and pro occupation, despite the fact that it is the exact opposite of the popular sentiment. For the Iraqis, its a no win situation. Enormous investement has gone into Iraq, in terms of military bases, corporate contracts, media and everything else. If you think that the US is leaving in the next decade, you're a fool.
-
It's funny how much of the rest of the world, including most of the Iraqis themselves, see the events of today as a great accomplishment and a big step forward for Iraq. Yet you lot are still *****ing. Really says something about how bitter some of you are, doesn't it?
-
No it shows how realistic we are. Grow up.
-
And which part of the world is that? Do I see celebrations in the streets of Damascus, or Cairo or Beirut? How about London, New York and Toronto? Interesting.
As the Iraqis...take a look at the freaking blogosphere, the best indication that's avaiable. The Sunnis in efect boycotted the election, the Shia probably didn't turn out more than 45%, and the Kurds don't even want to be part of Iraq. Elections condicted in a police state, with several large areas denied their votes, a shifty electoral system and vigorous US interference in support of their stool pigeons. Yeah, real democratic elections. FFS, Iran had better elections just last year, and they're a de-facto theocracy.
-
if it gets us out of there faster it's a good thing though, yes?
-
Good for the US, yes. Good for Iraq and the middle-east in general ? no.
-
let me rephrase that, if it gets us totaly out of that country without rivers of blood were the streets once were, sooner then this is better than us staying there leveling cities every few months.
-
What do I see? I see Iraqi expatriates around the world crying tears of joy as they are finally able to vote for a new, democratic government in their home. I see coalition and Iraqi forces creating the conditions for a safe, stable election day. I see voters in Iraq dressing in burial shrouds, symbolizing their willingness to die in order to exercise their newfound right to vote. I see, by and large, an election much better than the doomsday predictions of a week ago. It's not me that has to grow up; it's the rest of you. Your hatred for Bush and any actions he has taken has completely blinded you to the good that has happened today. Iraq is now free, free to choose their own leaders, free to choose their own destiny. Isn't that worth the price of war? Apparently not; some of you equate coalition forces with the Nazi occupiers of much of Europe. And 45% doesn't represent a legitimate election? Last time I checked, we've had turnouts in the US worse than that, without the threat of death. Pretty sad, isn't it? If the Sunnis didn't vote, their loss. They had their chance. And, no matter what you might think, I'm sure that not every Kurd is ready to revolt; they turned out today as well. The Shi'ite majority, so long oppressed, turned out in droves and will finally regain political power. So, to you naysayers, cynics, and general wise***es, I say to you, close your damn mouths for once. Your anti-Bush circle jerk has gone on for far too long here.
-
was there a candidate with the position of kicking us out as soon as they got into office?
-
Ahuh.
You remind me of a brownshirt, but we'll address that another time.
This election will not help build a free and democratic Iraq. It will destroy whatever faith the Iraqi people had in democracy because no matter who wins, the people will not get what they want: No real withdrawal of US troops, and if there is they'll be replaced by CIA operatives. No real change in cultural freedoms. No control of their own natural resources. No control of.... ah ****it, just go read about the US's past conquests if you want a real lesson.
Please, don't sit there pretending everything is going to be ok and in the end it's been the neo-con fascists who saved the day.
I live safe in the knowledge that in a few years we're gonna go through this with China, and then the EU. Predictable world.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
was there a candidate with the position of kicking us out as soon as they got into office?
One Ayatolla (sp?) did campaign on that. However, he's also the Iraqi equivelant of the modern republican party.
Neo-Con Christians are bad, but restrained by the checks and balances we've managed to build into our civilization over the years.
Neo-Con Muslims = bad **** all round. Especially when they'll still sell oil to the highest bidder and ass **** their own people in the process (read: Saudi Arabia).
-
Actually Sadr isnt running. And I doubt hes what you'd a neo-con muslim, the Sadrist organisation gets its support base from poor areas, is Shia in makeup and is about as far from Wahabbi Saudi ideology as umm, well they arent really all that similar. He is a theocrat though, with all the good/bad that brings. Asia times did a good article on his turf a few weeks back:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA12Ak02.html
Seems like his wee part of Iraq is the only part that actually works right.
Btw hes not an Ayatollah, not even a cleric afaik.
-
Originally posted by vyper
I live safe in the knowledge that in a few years we're gonna go through this with China, and then the EU. Predictable world.
If China invades anyone we wont see anything like elections, democratic or not. Plus I think most of the EU has gone through its stage of forcing its will on others, and realised that it never works out the way you want it, and always leaves one hell of a mess.
-
he might not have been talking about Sadr,
didn't he select not to take part in the elections? (i.e. we didn't ban him he just gave the whole election thing the finger)
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050131/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
'Insurgents struck polling stations with a string of suicide bombings and mortar volleys, killing at least 44 people, including nine suicide bombers. '
Not quite as peaceful as all that :(
I still think Iraqs National Anthem is going to end up being the Thunderbirds theme, but I remain optomistic none the less ;)
-
I like how Iraq is a magical land of cupcakes and ponies now that people are voting.
It's the typical fallacy of looking at human affairs in programming values.
"If voting = yes, then situation = fine."
Just for the record, I would like very much for the optimists to be right, because it would mean that America might be able to remove its dick from Iraq's ass and we could get on with civilization.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
if it gets us out of there faster it's a good thing though, yes?
Well, that much we can agree on. The only question is whether the elections will expediate that, or delay it. It could be neither, and that the troops will leave when either they can force the insurgency out, which is unlikely, or when the insurgency can force them out, which is also unlikely. I don't see Iraqi opinion really improving on the matter, and both the US and the rebels have enough bodies to keep the fight going for a while.
Personally, I think Bush will keep them around for "nation-building" or "to provide security" until the end of his term, and then whoever comes after, probably a Democrat, gets stuck with not being able to withdraw them right away, if at all, for fear of looking like a coward.
-
I hope we can get out of there some time in the next year or two.
hope is a wonderful thing to have isn't it? even if it dosen't actualy help anything.
-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1292228.htm
...wait just one ****ing minute. The votes are being counted at a military base?!
:lol: :lol:
-----------------------------------
At the Al-Khazrajiya school in the city's old quarter, Najat Ridha, 48, was ushered into a classroom and handed two ballots, one for the national assembly and another for the local provincial council.
An election worker suggested she vote for list 285 headed by interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and a local list headed by governor Duraid Kashmula.
She ticked the boxes obligingly and walked out - just as Zahra Ibrahim, 60, did before her.
"I really just did what they asked me to do," she said as the Iraqi national anthem crackled on a loudspeaker in the background.
I remember the same thing happening in the Afghan elections, more or less.
-
At a polling station in the New Mosul neighbourhood, Mahasin Ahmed, 37, a school teacher, wanted to vote for Yawar, a tribal leader, but did not know that his list number was 255 and neither did the election worker helping her.
He suggested she vote for list 188 because it had "tribes" in the title.
oooh democracy in action :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Bobboau
he might not have been talking about Sadr,
didn't he select not to take part in the elections? (i.e. we didn't ban him he just gave the whole election thing the finger)
Sadrs pretty much the only one whos actually came out in public against the coalition, rest of the insurgency's been fought by nameless people. And yeah, but I think some of his people are running on the big united shi'ite list.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1292228.htm
...wait just one ****ing minute. The votes are being counted at a military base?!
:lol: :lol:
I remember the same thing happening in the Afghan elections, more or less.
Wait...
...you got this from ABC?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
They're a mainstream American news source, can't get much more credible (at least in the eyes of Americans) than that. Or are we talking about the scary liberal bias again?
In any case, that's not even what the article is about. The military base thing is a peripheral comment made. Thats like doing a story about the election and lying about the colour of the ballot box...it makes no sense.
...you're doing this on purpose, aren't you?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Wait...
...you got this from ABC?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh no. He get it from a reasonably unbiased source as opposed to the Bush administration spewhole that is Fox news. Fox may as well be based in a sewage works for the amount of pure **** it reports.
I wish that all the journalists in the US that actually had a ****ing spine and reported the TRUTH as opposed to towing the party line form their own media company. Imagine that, a true free press that can actually criticise your government rather than pander to the sexually repressed, morally bankrupt, cash grabbing hypocrites that are ****ing everyone earning under $330,000 a year royally in the ass, then turning you round to stick their ****ty cock in your mouths for the cumshot.
-
the prodigal son returns
(might want to throw an "as" in that first sentence, unless you actually meant that ABC is opposed to Bush)
...alright, I'll stop being an asshole now.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
the prodigal son returns
(might want to throw an "as" in that first sentence, unless you actually meant that ABC is opposed to Bush)
...alright, I'll stop being an asshole now.
Good call. My liberal "society must die" anger obviously made me miss that one. :lol:
I've been away, playing Halo 2 for some 120 hours easily since I bought it, which is nice. I've also been trying to get my hands on as much information as I can about how the world got to be as ****ed up as it is. Which is also nice.
Also turned 22 yesterday, which is the reason I'm not at work today. Ha ha.
-
Happy birthday 01010
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6906895/
(http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050131/capt.sge.gkx95.310105163308.photo00.photo.default-256x384.jpg)
-
hmm...
-
All I'll say is, I'd actually be glad if America proves me wrong to be honest :) It'll be a step in the right direction for everyone.
It would certainly be one time where I could say that I'd be glad to be wrong :)
-
SCIRI's list winning? What a surprise.
On Dec. 22, 2004, Iraqi Finance Minister Abdel Mahdi told a handful of reporters and industry insiders at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. that Iraq wants to issue a new oil law that would open Iraq's national oil company to private foreign investment. As Mahdi explained: "So I think this is very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies." In other words, Mahdi is proposing to privatize Iraq's oil and put it into American corporate hands. According to the finance minister, foreigners would gain access both to "downstream" and "maybe even upstream" oil investment. This means foreigners can sell Iraqi oil and own it under the ground - the very thing for which many argue the U.S. went to war in the first place. As Vice President Dick Cheney's Defense Policy Guidance report explained back in 1992, "Our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the [Middle East] region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil." While few in the American media other than Emad Mckay of Inter Press Service reported on - or even attended - Mahdi's press conference, the announcement was made with U.S. Undersecretary of State Alan Larson at Mahdi's side. It was intended to send a message - but to whom? It turns out that Abdel Mahdi is running in the Jan. 30 elections on the ticket of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIR), the leading Shiite political party. While announcing the selling-off of the resource which provides 95 percent of all Iraqi revenue may not garner Mahdi many Iraqi votes, but it will unquestionably win him tremendous support from the U.S. government and U.S. corporations. Mahdi's SCIR is far and away the front-runner in the upcoming elections, particularly as it becomes increasingly less possible for Sunnis to vote because the regions where they live are spiraling into deadly chaos. If Bush were to suggest to Iraq's Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi that elections should be called off, Mahdi and the SCIR's ultimate chances of victory will likely decline./
I'll add that the list of political parties Mahdi's SCIR belongs to, The United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), includes the Iraqi National Council, which is led by an old friend of the Bush Administration who provided the faulty information they needed to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq, none other than Ahmed Chalabi.
It should also be noted that interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi also fed the Bush Administration cooked information used to justify the invasion, but he heads a different Shia list which will most likely be getting nearly as many votes as the UIA list.
And The UIA has the blessing of Iranian born revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Sistani issued a fatwa which instructed his huge number of followers to vote in the election, or they would risk going to hell.
Thus, one might argue that the Bush administration has made a deal with the SCIR: Iraq's oil for guaranteed political power. The Americans are able to put forward such a bargain because Bush still holds the strings in Iraq. Regardless of what happens in the elections, for at least the next year during which the newly elected National Assembly writes a constitution and Iraqis vote for a new government, the Bush administration is going to control the largest pot of money available in Iraq (the $24 billion in U.S. taxpayer money allocated for the reconstruction), the largest military and the rules governing Iraq's economy. Both the money and the rules will, in turn, be overseen by U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals who sit in every Iraqi ministry with five-year terms and sweeping authority over contracts and regulations. However, the one thing which the administration has not been unable to confer upon itself is guaranteed access to Iraqi oil - that is, until now.