Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Swamp_Thing on February 14, 2005, 03:28:41 am
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6965081/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6965081/)
I hate to say i told you so, but i told you so.
:rolleyes:
-
realy? I thought you told me that the election was a sham and that Alawy was going to win despite what the majority of Iraqis 'wanted'.
-
Am I the only one that finds the Bush government (which is conservative IIRC) wanting that a secular liberal government took place, funny?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
realy? I thought you told me that the election was a sham and that Alawy was going to win despite what the majority of Iraqis 'wanted'.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Am I the only one that finds the Bush government (which is conservative IIRC) wanting that a secular liberal government took place, funny?
no, your not the only one.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
realy? I thought you told me that the election was a sham and that Alawy was going to win despite what the majority of Iraqis 'wanted'.
???
Can you please quote me on that? Or are you just saying what you think i said?
The elections were a sham, that much is correct. That Alawy was going to win is completelly false.
-
my mistake you did indeed predict this, I must have been thinking of someone else,
but you did say that this turn of events was somehow what what the US wanted, and now it seems as though you have reversed that position.
-
I am not sure he knows what he thinks.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
my mistake you did indeed predict this, I must have been thinking of someone else,
but you did say that this turn of events was somehow what what the US wanted, and now it seems as though you have reversed that position.
I didn´t say it was what the US wanted, i said it COULD be used by the US to act on Iran. The shiite victory was pretty much a sure thing, long before the elections took place. The shiites comprize 60% of the population. It was logical to expect they would win. Why the US went ahead and "allowed" it to be so, is yet open to discussion. They could have just let their puppet rule for a few years, before they even considered allowing a vote to take place. Sure, we know they were pressed to hold elections as soon as possible, they had to hold elections or risk the public opinion turn on them because they had promised democracy for Iraq.
The question now is, will the shiites be allowed to rule, and will the US comply with the new govt.´s wishes? There is a heavy possibility that the new govt asks the US to leave. Will they comply? We don´t know. What we do know is that the US holds Iran as an axis of evil nation, and that the new iraqi govt. shares the same views as Iran. Some would say it´s more than just sharing. They are 2 sides of one coin.
The religious leader of 60% of iraqis is iranian, afterall. I doubt he would just let the americans invade his home country from Iraq, without doing the impossible to stop it.
And if you think the US is not invading Iran, i just say this:
They already have.
The US is flying drones into Iran almost daily. There are special forces operating inside Iran as we speak. Ergo...
:doubt:
EDIT: Article on the drones flying in Iran.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6523495/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6523495/)
-
I wonder how much executive power Bush administration members hold over any administration that comes to power in Iraq. Or it could just be the case that they actually don't give a **** now they have the oil they were after.
-
It would somewhat hypocritical were a government elected thanks to religion to criticise the election of a government based on religion, wouldn't it?
-
Hypocrisy, in this day and age, with our steadfast and truthful politcal leaders, never, I refuse to believe it.
;)
-
Originally posted by 01010
I wonder how much executive power Bush administration members hold over any administration that comes to power in Iraq. Or it could just be the case that they actually don't give a **** now they have the oil they were after.
Yup, it was all about TEH OILZ!!!1!1 :rolleyes:
-
Course it was, what else?
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.
Also interesting:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB15Ak02.html
Not sure how accurate it is but atimes is pretty impartial.
-
They did not win a majority, only a plurality.
-
Of course, were I in his position, I'd charge them the bloody Earth for the Oil Fields in the first place.
Fact is, there still only 20 odd years of supplies under there, so what good ar empty holes in the ground going to do Iraq? Better to take as much of the greedy bastards money as possible, and let them worry about Terrorist attacks on Oil wells etc they'll lose interest once it runs out, but you'll at least have the money.
Quite frankly, it's going to be the only way to get America off his back, and the closest thiing they are going to get to compromise.
-
Aye but 20 years of oil at increasing prices and demand equals a hell of a lot of money
They won enough that a government cannot be formed without them, so basically they have all the power.
Edit, actually they did win a majority, 51%
-
Well, someone's making a few bob (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/01_january/31/file.shtml), anyways
-
On one occasion, $1.4bn had to be transported to a bank in three helicopters, as it weighed 14 tons, but no deposit slip was obtained when it was paid in.
Jesus Christ
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=693&e=6&u=/ap/20050213/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_loose_cash
More on it
Oh and look he wants more tax money:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20050214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq
-
Bwhahaha!
8 billion out of 20 total is missing. They'de do better to just throw it out of airplanes over Bahgdad.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Aye but 20 years of oil at increasing prices and demand equals a hell of a lot of money
They won enough that a government cannot be formed without them, so basically they have all the power.
Edit, actually they did win a majority, 51%
umm not according to CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/13/iraq.main/index.html
-
CNNs wrong.
http://www.juancole.com/
The UIA has in the end received 51 percent of seats in parliament, because of the electoral method being used, which added percentages from parties that did not quite pass the threshold for being seated to the parties that did, in a sort of second round. Second, the UIA may still be able to pick up some allies from small Shiite parties that ran separately but have similar goals (they are more theocratic than the UIA)-- which suggests that they may actually have 52 or 53 percent.
-
Originally posted by Gank
CNNs wrong.
http://www.juancole.com/
Lebanese Broadcasting Co. vs Cnn
Which has more credibility?
Although both could be right. The shiites would need a 2/3 super majority to get anything done.
-
wikipedia states about 48%... :nervous:
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4263087.stm
BBC also says 48%
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40826000/gif/_40826041_iraqi2_results_pie203.gif)
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
???
Can you please quote me on that? Or are you just saying what you think i said?
The elections were a sham, that much is correct. That Alawy was going to win is completelly false.
Im sure the US wants a new government leader that has the potential to totally f**k them over...
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Im sure the US wants a new government leader that has the potential to totally f**k them over...
Actually, swamp_thing is possibly referring to the complete lack of elected Sunni Muslim (~20% of the population) officials, due to a combination of the security problems and also the limiting of which towns can vote (as a result of the former problems); given that the Sunnis are the most anti-American group there is in Iraq (particularly as the former ruling group), I'm sure the US isn't too unhappy at that.
-
Not only did the sunnis boycott the elections, but there were countless situations where certain towns did not receive their ballots, other towns got their polling stations closed before voting started, etc etc. These elections were rampant with irregularities. That´s why it was a sham.
And then there´s a simple fact that most people fail to pay enough atention to: Because of the boycott, the new govt is not a representation of all iraqi minorities. Lots of people will feel left out, wich will cause a lot of friction between them. With the current security chaos, and the fact that sunnis and shiites are at eachother´s throat everytime they can, these results are liable to throw another proverbial logg in the fire. Civil war is a definitelly possibility. Some would say that not only it´s a possibility, it´s already happening. Mosques are getting blown in a weekly basis, assassinations, vendettas, etc etc. A real cauldron of hatread.
-
Why would they feel left out? True the threat of violence is a potent one. But many Sunnis loved Saddam. Mainly because he took care of them at the expense of the Shiite and Kurds. I think it is not the fact that they will feel left out that will be a problem. I think they simply resent being no longer in power.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Why would they feel left out? True the threat of violence is a potent one. But many Sunnis loved Saddam. Mainly because he took care of them at the expense of the Shiite and Kurds. I think it is not the fact that they will feel left out that will be a problem. I think they simply resent being no longer in power.
no doubt they'll (or many of them) resent the loss of power and protection of Saddams regime - but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given democratic representation, does it? And if the situation dictates that they aren't - be it through intimidation owing to the poor security, or the lack of polling booths in their area - then clearly it cannot be fair.
Yes, the Shi'ite/Kurd coalition will likely have Sunni representation (they'll be told to do so by the US), but that representation will be picked by them, not the Sunni population, and likely will be picked to serve their own (the new governments' / US') agenda.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Lebanese Broadcasting Co. vs Cnn
Which has more credibility?
Although both could be right. The shiites would need a 2/3 super majority to get anything done.
When it comes to middle east probably the Lebanese channel. Seems both they and BBC are ignorant of the fact that the tallyings not finished:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=1&u=/nm/20050215/wl_nm/iraq_dc_355
While the Shi'ite bloc won slightly less than half the vote, it could end up with about 140 seats in the assembly -- two more than a majority -- once those votes that went to candidates who did not get enough to secure a seat are redistributed.
That could happen by the end of the week, provided the final tally is certified Wednesday as scheduled.
Lebanese broad co. could be a bit premature but seeing how the leader of the UIA is saying this I'm inclined to believe its been confirmed.
And a 2/3 majority is only needed to form a government by themselves, a 51% majority of the vote means they can pass laws by themselves.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Not only did the sunnis boycott the elections, but there were countless situations where certain towns did not receive their ballots, other towns got their polling stations closed before voting started, etc etc. These elections were rampant with irregularities. That´s why it was a sham.
I agree 100%. Still you've got to love the irony that this sham election organised by the USA has ended up electing a goverment who not only did they not want to win but who will also no doubt cosy up with Iran against their wishes :D
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Am I the only one that finds the Bush government (which is conservative IIRC) wanting that a secular liberal government took place, funny?
Bush would be quite liberal by Middle Eastern standards.
-
Well, considering that its the Sunnis who have been the core of the resistance, I would think that a Shia government would be preferable, especially considering that Chalabi seems to have played a pretty major part in it.
For my money, the election is not legimate for the simple fact that it was held under occupation by a hostile foreign army, and that no major party offered an explicit anti-occupation platform, though admitedlly some attempted to kind of sort of imply that maybe it didn't sit with them too well.
-
Thing is, people who don't want the Americans there are hardly going to go and say so at a polling booth surrounded by armed American Soldiers.
It's a step in the right direction, as it were, but until Iraq can hold it's own elections, arranged and overseen by Iraqi authorities only, theres always going to be a pall over these elctions.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
no doubt they'll (or many of them) resent the loss of power and protection of Saddams regime - but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given democratic representation, does it? And if the situation dictates that they aren't - be it through intimidation owing to the poor security, or the lack of polling booths in their area - then clearly it cannot be fair.
Yes, the Shi'ite/Kurd coalition will likely have Sunni representation (they'll be told to do so by the US), but that representation will be picked by them, not the Sunni population, and likely will be picked to serve their own (the new governments' / US') agenda.
The only reason there is a security problem is the fact that there are many Sunnis helping the terrorists in places like Bagdad, Mosul, etc. There are neighborhoods out there that coalition and iraqi forces cannot enter because they come under immediate fire. The inhabitants of those neighborhoods won't cooperate with coalition or iraqi forces becuase they support the terrorists. The point is that even if security were not a concern, they would not be supporting the "sham" elections. This is especially evident by the Sunni clerics. The Sunni clerics fiercly denounced the election while the Shiite clerics fiercly supported the election.
Originally posted by karajorma
I agree 100%. Still you've got to love the irony that this sham election organised by the USA has ended up electing a goverment who not only did they not want to win but who will also no doubt cosy up with Iran against their wishes :D
Why is it that regaurdless of who ever was elected you were going to call it a sham. Frankly, the Sunnis that didn't, didn't vote because they didn't want to vote as stated above. :thepimp:
Originally posted by Flipside
Thing is, people who don't want the Americans there are hardly going to go and say so at a polling booth surrounded by armed American Soldiers.
It's a step in the right direction, as it were, but until Iraq can hold it's own elections, arranged and overseen by Iraqi authorities only, theres always going to be a pall over these elctions.
Actually, from what I saw on CNN in the Sunni areas, they had Iraqi forces guarding the polls.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, considering that its the Sunnis who have been the core of the resistance, I would think that a Shia government would be preferable, especially considering that Chalabi seems to have played a pretty major part in it.
For my money, the election is not legimate for the simple fact that it was held under occupation by a hostile foreign army, and that no major party offered an explicit anti-occupation platform, though admitedlly some attempted to kind of sort of imply that maybe it didn't sit with them too well.
Hostile Foreign Army :lol:
Hey if the new government wants the US to leave I have no problem with that. Frankly, the sooner the better. :yes:
-
Originally posted by redmenace
The only reason there is a security problem is the fact that there are many Sunnis helping the terrorists in places like Bagdad, Mosul, etc. There are neighborhoods out there that coalition and iraqi forces cannot enter because they come under immediate fire. The inhabitants of those neighborhoods won't cooperate with coalition or iraqi forces becuase they support the terrorists. The point is that even if security were not a concern, they would not be supporting the "sham" elections. This is especially evident by the Sunni clerics. The Sunni clerics fiercly denounced the election while the Shiite clerics fiercly supported the election.
I never said that it wasn't also an irony that the terrorist have been actively preventing people from voting who would largely vote for their own parties :D
The Terrorists have their own fair share of stupidity.
Originally posted by redmenace
Why is it that regaurdless of who ever was elected you were going to call it a sham. Frankly, the Sunnis that didn't, didn't vote because they didn't want to vote as stated above. :thepimp:
Because if the election isn't representative then it is a sham by definition. Does it matter who was preventing the Sunnis from voting? The fact that they couldn't means that the whole election wasn't representative of the wishes of the people of Iraq.
-
unless they decided, that they didn't want to vote period. That was one of the points I was making. But if you are saying that it is not representative simply because Sunnis didn't vote, that is an over simplification. By the same standard, any election that doesn't have full turn out is a sham, even when people decide they don't want to vote.
-
I suppose it depends really, if 20% of a population didn't vote in an election, no biggy, but if, for example, nearly all of those 20% were from a single group in Society, be it religious or a sub-society, then it suggests to me that that particular section of society has no faith whatsoever in the Election and that there are problems to be addressed.
-
The question I am asking is if they don't want to vote. is it s a sham?
-
Hmmmm... I suppose it depends why they don't want to vote though. Was it because of distrust of the system, whether justified or not?
I don't think the elections were a 'Sham' as such, but I don't doubt the US forces presence in the country had an infuence on the outcome, it makes it a lot lot easier to believe that the thing was a sham.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
The question I am asking is if they don't want to vote. is it s a sham?
Did they even have a choice?
-
Exactly Aldo. RedMenace appears to be treating the entire Sunni population as if they are all clones who did exactly what was asked of them.
How many people did want to vote but didn't want to risk being shot or blown up to do it?
-
no, I contend that a vast majority of them would not have voted had the sunni triangle area been secure, mostly due to before mentioned facts, they are resentful of no longer being in power, they were told to boycot the elections by Sunni Clerics and terrorists, mainly consisting of Sunnis, were threatening to cut off their heads if they did vote.
-
If it had been secure your terrorists beheading folk wouldn't be a problem... :wtf:
-
timewarp :lol:
no I was listing reasons they didn't show up. when i argue something I try and be honest about the causes.
-
redmenace: choosing not to vote grants the elections even less legitimacy than not voting due to feat of attacks. See, when a sizeable portion of the population boycotts a vote, that means they see no one who represents their interests and rejects the authority and legitimacy of the government that is to take power.
It a different thing if I vote and then have to live with a government I didn't pick. In that case, I "played the game" and lost, so now I must bow to the will of the majority. If however, I choose not the vote, that means I didn't "play the game" and want nothing to do with it. A similar thing happened in Kosovo recently, when the Serb population chose to boycott the vote so as not to grant legitimacy to the government which would almost inevitably work against their welfare.
-
But why are they choosing not to? Is it plain and simple resentment? Their motives are in question here as well. If I sizeable portion of the US population decided to boycott an election for simply stupid and selfish reasons. Would that make it illigitamite. I will be honest, I can't read the minds if the individual Sunnis but my suspicions is that at least half of sunnis and pissed about not being able to repress the majority. The pther half are worried about the other half cutting off their heads.
Very stimulating conversation but I must finish my exam for my uber finance axam tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
redmenace: choosing not to vote grants the elections even less legitimacy than not voting due to feat of attacks. See, when a sizeable portion of the population boycotts a vote, that means they see no one who represents their interests and rejects the authority and legitimacy of the government that is to take power.
It a different thing if I vote and then have to live with a government I didn't pick. In that case, I "played the game" and lost, so now I must bow to the will of the majority. If however, I choose not the vote, that means I didn't "play the game" and want nothing to do with it. A similar thing happened in Kosovo recently, when the Serb population chose to boycott the vote so as not to grant legitimacy to the government which would almost inevitably work against their welfare.
That's not the way it works.
By not voting, you forfeit your right to have any participation in your own government whatsoever. Boycotting a vote is stupid and senseless, for it only insures that your voice will not be heard. The government is there: whether it is legitimate or not is rather a moot point unless you posess the means to change it. By boycotting a democratic vote, you deny yourself one of those means. Perhaps, as you say, there is no canidate that represents their interests. Regardless, the Sunnis have even denied themselves the right to choose the lesser of the evils they are presented with.
The vote has been made, the government elected, and it rules the Sunnis whether they voted or not. The Sunnis must still bow to the will of the majority, regardless. That is the reality of things, there is no escaping it at present.
-
Do you understand the word democracy? Saying that people should be ruled, whether they like it or not, is in direct contradiction to the principle of freedom. If you preach democracy, you must accept that people can choose to simply take themselves out of the system. After all, if you accept that the Sunnis are subject to the authority of the new government, even though they didn't elect it, how is that different from Saddam?
Unelected governments are illegitmate. No two ways about it..
-
Originally posted by redmenace
But why are they choosing not to? Is it plain and simple resentment? Their motives are in question here as well. If I sizeable portion of the US population decided to boycott an election for simply stupid and selfish reasons. Would that make it illigitamite. I will be honest, I can't read the minds if the individual Sunnis but my suspicions is that at least half of sunnis and pissed about not being able to repress the majority. The pther half are worried about the other half cutting off their heads.
Very stimulating conversation but I must finish my exam for my uber finance axam tomorrow.
a) because they live in what are effectively lawless regions where death is a real possibility for those who turn up at a voting station (again, remember some places were simply left off the voting list as being too unsafe anyways)
b) their representative parties had already boycotted the election as taking place in too poor a security situation. Whilst there was probably a degree of self interest in that move for the parties, it means there was no natural sunni representative to vote for.
Youre making a dangerous assumption that the boycott was for stupid and selfish reasons. And, again, you have to note that it's not just a sizeable propoprtion, it's a complete ethnic group. It's roughly equivalent, I think, to the entire population of Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland* not voting in a general election at least partly due to a lack of parties, security and/or polling stations.
*technically, that's still less than 20%.
Originally posted by ngtm1r
That's not the way it works.
By not voting, you forfeit your right to have any participation in your own government whatsoever. Boycotting a vote is stupid and senseless, for it only insures that your voice will not be heard. The government is there: whether it is legitimate or not is rather a moot point unless you posess the means to change it. By boycotting a democratic vote, you deny yourself one of those means. Perhaps, as you say, there is no canidate that represents their interests. Regardless, the Sunnis have even denied themselves the right to choose the lesser of the evils they are presented with.
The vote has been made, the government elected, and it rules the Sunnis whether they voted or not. The Sunnis must still bow to the will of the majority, regardless. That is the reality of things, there is no escaping it at present.
Democracy requires a free and fair vote; the security circumstances in the Sunni areas of Iraq prevented either taking place there. Also, democracy is not about choosing the 'lesser of evils' - it's about choosing a representative who matches your views and values. UK / US democracy is about that now, yes, but that doesn't make it good.
Again, what you should be remembering is that the choice to boycott was not a free choice to make - we don't call elections legitimate if armed men are telling you who to vote for, so why should we call them legit if armed men are telling you not to vote. (and the more Sunnis feel marginalised politcally, the more support for armed insurgency may grow).
As it stands, all / any Sunni representation will be solely determined by Shi'ite and Kurdish elected parties; and this is the 'government' which will draft the constitution of the country - surely the one of all which has to have equal and fair representation?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
redmenace: choosing not to vote grants the elections even less legitimacy than not voting due to feat of attacks.
I 100% disagree with you there. And I'm the first to say that the election is a sham.
What made the election a sham is the fact the fact that certain people couldn't vote even if they had wanted to because there were no polling stations in their region because it was too dangerous. The fact that voters were intimidated into not voting is what makes it a sham.
Originally posted by Rictor
See, when a sizeable portion of the population boycotts a vote, that means they see no one who represents their interests and rejects the authority and legitimacy of the government that is to take power.
I wouldn't deny that. However lets take a look at the voter turn out for western elections. Hmmmm. Not that good either. Millions of people don't vote in the west either because they see all the canditates as a bunch of w**kers who don't represent their interests.
If you follow your logic then democracy is a sham in any modern election. Iraq wasn't a special case.
Originally posted by Rictor
It a different thing if I vote and then have to live with a government I didn't pick. In that case, I "played the game" and lost, so now I must bow to the will of the majority. If however, I choose not the vote, that means I didn't "play the game" and want nothing to do with it. A similar thing happened in Kosovo recently, when the Serb population chose to boycott the vote so as not to grant legitimacy to the government which would almost inevitably work against their welfare.
Well they made a bad choice then. The decision not to vote is the same as an actual vote. Deciding not to vote for the reasons you gave above is exactly the same as making a protest vote for another party. Like it or not by abstaining you have played the game.
If you really think that there is a chance that your point of view has any chance of gaining the support of a signifcant number of people put up a candidate and get them to run on your platform.
What you can't do is fail to put up a candidate who wouldn't have won anyway and then spit out your dummy and complain that the election is unfair because you didn't participate in an election you never would have won anyway.
-
I'm not saying that there was no intimidation and no security problems, obviously there were a hell of a lot of both. I will also admit that, assuming no major "irregularities" come to light, which is not at all certain, the election went quite a bit better than I thought it would.
However, I don't believe that a viable democracy can exist under occupation. And I'm not just wailing against the US, the same applies to for example Lebanon. I don't think even the some ardent hawks can claim that the US presence is welcome by even a significant minority of the population. The election was essentially the triumph of the United Shia List and the Kurds, with almost no representation going to the Sunnis. I think we can agree that regardless of the reasons for this happening, this is no way to run a representative democracy. I'm a skeptic, but we'll see how this turns out.
-
Rictor, I have an honest question. This is the first attempt at democracy in Iraq, which, as we all know, is not exactly the most stable region on the planet. Under these conditions, can you or anyone else honestly expect things to go anywhere near swimmingly? Of course there were areas that are too hostile to vote; there are assholes blowing up innocent civilians every day in certain sections of the country, and the coalition troops can't protect everyone. Of course you're going to have resentment from Sunnis; their minority held a massively disproportionate amount of power under Saddam, and now that he's gone, I'm sure that many of them are still bitter. The point is, all of this is inevitable. It's their first attempt at a democracy; these things won't go perfectly the first time around. If I remember correctly, our own first attempt at democracy, under the Articles of Confederation, didn't turn out so well. Let me put it to you this way: can you, with a straight face, say that living under Saddam's dictatorship is better than getting the chance to vote, no matter what the specific issues are surrounding the vote?
I also disagree with your statements about the elections. There were regions unable or unwilling to vote due to security concerns, but there were also many who refused to go out of bitterness, resentment, etc. I agree with some earlier statements: that's their own problem. They had their chance, and they didn't vote; now, they have to live with the consequences.
As for the "oilers," I respect anyone's right to disagree with the Iraqi war, but only if they have an informed reason. Tossing around left-wing catch-phrases doesn't apply as "intelligent."
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
I also disagree with your statements about the elections. There were regions unable or unwilling to vote due to security concerns, but there were also many who refused to go out of bitterness, resentment, etc. I agree with some earlier statements: that's their own problem. They had their chance, and they didn't vote; now, they have to live with the consequences.
That doesn't matter; if one single region doesn't have the choice to vote, then it invalidates the legitimacy of the election. You're saying many refused to vote out of some petty reason - how many? Do you have proof of that, numbers, statements, in short anything to prove it was a legitamte unforced decision not to vote. Because you can't make guesses or assumptions about what peoples voting intentions were in order to claim fairness.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That doesn't matter; if one single region doesn't have the choice to vote, then it invalidates the legitimacy of the election. You're saying many refused to vote out of some petty reason - how many? Do you have proof of that, numbers, statements, in short anything to prove it was a legitamte unforced decision not to vote. Because you can't make guesses or assumptions about what peoples voting intentions were in order to claim fairness.
Exactly Aldo. The people who claim that the election isn't a sham claim that those regions don't matter because the people in them would have refused to vote anyway.
That's what makes the entire election a sham.
-
Score one for the Lebanese Brodcasting Company
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=1&u=/ap/20050217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_1
-
So the beebs 48% figure was right, then? Go figure.
-
Nobody said it was wrong :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Gank
Nobody said it was wrong :rolleyes:
You did - you said CNNs 48% figure was wrong, and by extension the beebs. minor thing, but worth noting
-
No I said that CNN saying they didnt get a majority is wrong. The reasons why it was wrong have already been explained. Stop twisting what I've said in order to have a go at me.
-
My apologies; i interpreted one of your quotes wrongly (mixed up 51% of seats with 51% of votes).
Oh, and if I ever want to 'have a go at someone', you'd know it - I'm not subtle at it. Which is why i don't.
-
It's still had to go to a private ballot within the party to decide who actually gets to be the leader of the gang though...
-
Get yer chibs oot lads, clean fight nae buckie bottles...
-
My apols, bit defensive at the minute due to peoples lack of reading skills.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Get yer chibs oot lads, clean fight nae buckie bottles...
Nae belts? bolt, ya rocket!
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Exactly Aldo. The people who claim that the election isn't a sham claim that those regions don't matter because the people in them would have refused to vote anyway.
That's what makes the entire election a sham.
You both seem to have missed the point of the rest of my post. As I said, it was inevitable that certain sections of the country would not be able to participate in this first election, due to the security issues. Does this mean that the rest of the election, which meant much better than expected, is suddenly a "sham"? I think not. Like I said above, change like this doesn't occur overnight. They've already been freed from a murderous dictator; I'd say that's a step up.
Also, last time I checked, not everyone in the United States can participate in certain aspects of national elections. In particular, the District of Columbia does not have any voting representation in Congress, or any electoral votes. Does this make our elections a "sham," as well?
-
No, but it does make it incomplete. Not that it would have had any bearing on this election, but think of the influence it might have had in Bush vs Gore?
-
We can't hold elections everywhere at the present stage of reconstruction. But this is an important step forward (the majority Iraqis are Shiites and Kurds anyway, so they probably won't complain about Shiites and Kurds holding many of the assembly seats. Reconstruction is not complete, and may last several more years. But one day, we will be able to step back and move on to new things...like maybe invading Syria and bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.:drevil:
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
You both seem to have missed the point of the rest of my post. As I said, it was inevitable that certain sections of the country would not be able to participate in this first election, due to the security issues. Does this mean that the rest of the election, which meant much better than expected, is suddenly a "sham"? I think not. Like I said above, change like this doesn't occur overnight. They've already been freed from a murderous dictator; I'd say that's a step up.
The question is not whether it is better for Iraqis now than under Saddam (in some parts - Sunni mostly - it's probably much worse), but whether or not the democratic elections which will shape the future of the country (by drawing up the constitution) are truly fair and representative.
Remember, this is the constitution of Iraq; this group is drawing up the document that will dictate the future structure of Iraqi democracy and thus the future of democracy itself. How can it be fair if a large section (20%) of the population - and a single ethnic group at that - has been disenfranchised either by intimidation or the denial of the ballot?
you have a representative Iraqi government (I think the term is different to government in actuality, as it's only drawing up the constitution for further elections, but ne'ermind - fine. But that government only represents at most 80% of the population, and only 2 out of the 3 main ethnic groups.
If you were told you could not vote because of local crime, or couldn't because your neighbourhood was rioting, would you consider it 'fair'?
Is it ok to have democracy for the majority and not for the minority? And is not part of democracy the right to choose to abstain, not have that choice pre-determined for you or removed?
Originally posted by Mongoose
Also, last time I checked, not everyone in the United States can participate in certain aspects of national elections. In particular, the District of Columbia does not have any voting representation in Congress, or any electoral votes. Does this make our elections a "sham," as well?
If you exclude an entire district from governmental representation (not being familiar with the Us system of politics, I don't know how it works per se), then yes. Democracy has to cover all individuals to be valid.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
You both seem to have missed the point of the rest of my post.
Nope. I got it. I just completely disagreed with it.
Originally posted by Mongoose
As I said, it was inevitable that certain sections of the country would not be able to participate in this first election, due to the security issues. Does this mean that the rest of the election, which meant much better than expected, is suddenly a "sham"? I think not. Like I said above, change like this doesn't occur overnight.
Yes. It's still a sham. The whole of Iraq couldn't vote. Therefore the election is not representative of the wishes of the people of Iraq. It's better than the interim government but it's still not a democracy.
Originally posted by Mongoose
Also, last time I checked, not everyone in the United States can participate in certain aspects of national elections. In particular, the District of Columbia does not have any voting representation in Congress, or any electoral votes. Does this make our elections a "sham," as well?
If I were you I'd think twice before holding up the US presidential elections and saying the word sham. That's just asking for trouble :lol:
-
Mongoose, you're a bit off there. DC gets electoral votes as if it was a state (3 votes, if you want to know the exact number).
-
I was unaware of that fact. Were they granted the electoral votes relatively recently? I know that some people there have always been very vocal about not being represented in Congress.
As for the rest of you...I have to say that, reading your posts, the distinct impression I'm getting is of people ignoring/blinding themselves to the good that has come out of the Iraqi elections in favor of the unfavorable aspects of them. Yes, there were unfavorable aspects. Yes, some regions didn't get to vote. But let me ask you this: what could have happened differently? What could anyone have done differently to make the election "not a sham"? What are your brilliant ideas? By all means, if you think you know the answer, please share it. (And don't give me the "not invade" line. I'm talking about the present, not the past.) I know mine: there wasn't anything that could be done differently. Things went as best as they could under the circumstances, and indeed, the overall turnout of the vote was better than many people predicted. Again, I ask you to please tell me what should/could have been done differently. It's pretty stupid to keep *****ing about a situation without offering any way to improve it.
-
They aren't present in Congress, but it has received electoral votes since it's establishment, I believe.
-
It is also not as simple as no representation. The District of Columbia recieves alot of support from the federal Gov't. Basically they gave up alot of costs that normal states have to pay for instead recieving statehood. So it is not as simple as the US repressing the voters in DC. Although I will point out the DC has a huge black population.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
What could anyone have done differently to make the election "not a sham"?
Bugger all. Which is why it needs to stop being presented as being a true election where Iraq's people choose a leader in a manner which represented the country.
For a start they need to keep calling the current goverment an interim government. Acting as if it's anything else is just asking for trouble.
-
I think the issue is sovereignty. Whichever government is in power, if they want to look even half-way legitimate, need to have the power to:
-kick occupation troops out. There's no such thing as independence under occupation and I would like to hear anyone argue otherwise.
-prosecute any and all criminals who commit violent acts within Iraq. This goes for both sides, so no Status of Forces bull****.
-have the ability to make laws, even those that run counter to or negate the edicts put in place by Paul Bremer (such as, oh, I don't know, not banning labour unions).
-have full control of the government, without the current "advisors" (read: agents) present in every Iraqi ministry.
I don't think any of that sounds particularly unreasonable. Its the same freedoms every normal government around the world has.
-
as I understand it they current 'technicly' have that power it's just none of the people on the top want to use it for what ever reason you might want to say (like there pupets or whatever). if certan large groups of certan people with certan views had decided not to boycot a certan election than maybe these certan polocies would not be the way they are today.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
I was unaware of that fact. Were they granted the electoral votes relatively recently? I know that some people there have always been very vocal about not being represented in Congress.
As for the rest of you...I have to say that, reading your posts, the distinct impression I'm getting is of people ignoring/blinding themselves to the good that has come out of the Iraqi elections in favor of the unfavorable aspects of them. Yes, there were unfavorable aspects. Yes, some regions didn't get to vote. But let me ask you this: what could have happened differently? What could anyone have done differently to make the election "not a sham"? What are your brilliant ideas?
On the most basic level - wait until it was secure enough to hold elections across the entire country. At the very least, don't go ahead when the main Sunni parties are saying it's unfair to. I don't see how you can claim democracy when a large proportion are disenfranchised; yes, it was good for the Sunnis and Kurds. But not all Iraq, and that's what the decisions of the winning parties will be affecting.
On a further, more unlikely level, eventually it'd be needed to have some form of UN presence - preferably a peace-keeping force - as the presence of US troops on Arab soil is like a red rag to a bull to many people..... obviously, this is a pipe dream - very few nations would be stupid enough to get voluntarily involved in the Iraq quagmire for one thing.
-
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1029805,00.html
-
Interestingly enough, I've been hearing news reports that Sunni leaders are meeting to discuss having a role in the creation of the Iraqi constitution and the new government. Regardless of who did or did not vote, this is an idea that I fully support; having all sides represented will not only make the new government more legitimate in the eyes of the world, but more importantly, it will be for the benefit of all Iraqis.