| Author | Message | ||
     notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1894 Registered: 5-2001  |
There are at least two things we can say with great certainty about these elections before they occur. One is that there will be a huge number of attacks and other efforts to disrupt these elections -- in fact, CNN reports that "hundreds" of attacks are expected. Another is that, regardless of how the election transpires, the Bush administration will crow about what a proud and triumphant day it is for Iraq, the region, and the world. Before the election occurs, it would be interesting to know what you all think about this. If half the country can't vote, could the election still be considered a success? If thousands of people are likely to be killed while trying to vote, is it appropriate to hold elections? If the power, or even the lives, of the elected officials cannot be reasonably secured, should elections be delayed? Would delaying the elections be a sign of weakness or an act of pragmatism? | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 320 Registered: 9-2004 |
Internal US poll shows Sunnis not likely to vote in Iraq election AFP: 1/6/2005 BAGHDAD, Jan 6 (AFP) - The preliminary findings of a new internal US State Department poll on Iraq obtained by AFP Thursday shows only 32 percent of Sunni Muslims are "very likely" to vote in landmark national elections this month and only 12 percent consider the event legitimate. The survey, conducted from December 12-16 by the State Department's Bureau of Research and Intelligence, revealed major concern among Sunnis about the security situation in Iraq, with many saying the threat of violence could keep them away from the polls. The poll, which has not been released publicly, found three-quarters of Iraq's influential Shiite majority, who make up 60 percent of the country, would boycott elections if called upon to do so by a respected religious leader. That said according to this report, and the increased violence in the past days, I just can't see the majority of Iraqi's voting in this election. How could anyone call this election legitimate? My guess, if someone is elected, how long will they last before the insurgent's get to them? | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1899 Registered: 5-2001 |
Right. Significant amounts of the populace are boycotting the election. Most of the rest are in considerable danger. And most of the electees have been to their last New Year's party. So, what the hell is the point of holding these elections on January 30?!! | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 445 Registered: 9-2004  |
The rationale is that by setting a date and keeping it, the Coalition and the Iraqi Government show that they are not subject to persuasion by terrorism To be honest, I can see why that would be important. It's easy to say that the U.S. shouldn't let its pride get the better of it, but consider this: The whole goal of these insurgent groups is to make it too difficult for the process to continue. By keeping the date, these groups effectively fail in their efforts, or so goes the theory. So, would it be a bigger victory for the date to be pushed, or for an earlier date to be disrupted? Pushing it back would be a win in theory, but an election with minimal disruption is a more concrete victory. I don't think that has been considered enough by the administration; they think that the theoretical, ideological victory will be the greater one. But the true victory would be a secure, legitimate election (how legitimate can an election be if a significant portion of the populace is cowed into not voting?) | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 325 Registered: 9-2004 |
So, what the hell is the point of holding these elections on January 30?!! A "cheap " way of slowly pulling out of Iraq in a "winless" war. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7295 Registered: 5-2001 |
Often lost in the discussions of the upcoming election is the fact that it will not result in an immediate change of government. The election is to choose delegates to what can be best called a constitutional convention. The interim government will, to my understanding, remain in place until real elections are held at the end of this year under the new constitution, assuming agreement can be reached on that very thorny subject. | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5034 Registered: 4-1998  |
We'd like to believe it's a real election, but what is a real election? It's the back and forth debate of issues among candidates -- a contest of ideas. Where is this in Iraq? It's nowhere. Candidates are either running on their religion (sound familiar?) or hiding in fear from reprisals of taking part. http://www.aina.org/news/20050119101600.htm
Nice PR blitz for us to thump our chest proudly about spreading democracy, but the reality is far different. Democracy is more than just tossing voting booths in neighborhoods. Without real public discourse and debate, elections are shams that will do little more than create more solid divisions among tribal areas. Can a civil war be far behind? | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 326 Registered: 9-2004 |
Democracy is more than just tossing voting booths in neighborhoods. Without real public discourse and debate, elections are shams that will do little more than create more solid divisions among tribal areas. Can a civil war be far behind? So on point Dave. I've had this discussion before. Iraq is basically a religious state. Pretty much like Iran (which Cheney & Company are threatening next). Regardless on who is in charge or whatever interim government is in place, religion plays a big part in dictating. Also, the misuse of religion seems to go hand in hand (US & Iraq). You have so-called muslim radicals as suicide bombers and dying in the name of Allah and killing innocents. You have Bush who talks about freedom for the Iraqi's, yet, look at how many innocent Iraqi's died at his cost, let alone American and coalition soldiers. Proclaiming Iraq has WMD's. When they didn't find any, it was "we're freeing the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator". For someone who's proclaims to be a "Born Again Christian" doesn't he realize the consequences of innocent people dying? Nah. My cynical side tells me the US is hoping for this election as a way of slowly pulling out the troops in order of "saving face". The polls now say that the majority of Americans are now questioning this war and "should we have gone into Iraq in the first place." I guess, not having the elections shows that the insurgents are winning. Again, it's all about "saving face". Something tells me the majority will not vote in fear of their safety. Therefore, the legitimacy of this election will be a farce. In determining it's leadership, civil war would not surprise me the least bit in the future for Iraq. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 497 Registered: 8-2004 |
Then again according to the Wash Post 80% of Iraqis say they will vote. BAGHDAD, Jan. 20 -- An overwhelming majority of Iraqis continue to say they intend to vote on Jan. 30 even as insurgents press attacks aimed at rendering the elections a failure, according to a new public opinion survey. The poll, conducted in late December and early January for the International Republican Institute, found 80 percent of respondents saying they were likely to vote, a rate that has held roughly steady for months. Western specialists involved with election preparations said they were struck by the determination and resilience of ordinary Iraqis as they anticipate their country's first free election in half a century. "Despite the efforts of the terrorists, Iraqis remain committed to casting their vote on election day," IRI President Lorne Craner said in a statement. The organization, which is funded by Congress through the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development, commissioned the poll, which surveyed 1,900 Iraqis in all but two of the country's 18 provinces. Poor security made two in the far north, Nineveh and Dohuk, inaccessible. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points. "I think people will be shocked," said an official of another international organization deeply involved in preparing Iraq's nascent political class for the ballot. The official, who insisted that neither he nor his organization could be identified because of security concerns, said most Iraqis remained intent on exercising their right to elect a government after decades of dictatorships. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 328 Registered: 9-2004 |
then again according to the Wash Post 80% of Iraqis say they will vote. The poll, conducted in late December and early January for the International Republican Institute, found 80 percent of respondents saying they were likely to vote, a rate that has held roughly steady for months. Conducted by the International Republican Institute ?  Come on now…a bit bias don't you think? | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5037 Registered: 4-1998 |
Even if 100% come out and vote, what are they basing their votes on? What issues or information other than tribal culture is out there for debate? We already know there's unanimity for getting the US out of the country among the majority, who will elect Iranian-backed mullahs. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 499 Registered: 8-2004 |
Dave , it is the actual acceptance of the democratic process that will make the simple act of voting very important. Phenix , you have a Republican survey reported in a Liberal newspaper. Basically a wash.  | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1902 Registered: 5-2001 |
Clearly, there will be face lost if the elections were postponed. But it is also ridiculous to hold the elections at this point, with conditions as they are. This is just another example of the Bush administration painting itself into a corner. They also said that there would be at least 125,000 trained Iraqis in security forces by the end of 2004. They were off by a factor of about 25 - DUH. | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5038 Registered: 4-1998 |
The Iraqis want to postpone elections, but hey, they're not in charge, are they? | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1907 Registered: 5-2001 |
Some observations in the San Francisco Gate from a Republican about the upcoming election... Stay the Course on Jan. 30 Iraq Election Ellen Tauscher Sunday, January 16, 2005 In two weeks, Iraq will conduct its first-ever democratic election. This moment marks a historic opportunity for a country that suffered under the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, but disappointingly, the Jan. 30 elections will be far from perfect. This week, I returned from a bipartisan trip as part of my role as co- chair of the congressional Iraqi Women's Caucus, where I met with 20 women running for office in Iraq. I went with three of my Republican colleagues to speak with these women in a meeting that was intended to share our political experiences and glean their insights about the upcoming election. Instead of talking about turnout rates and campaign advertising -- concepts that mean little in a country where electricity runs unreliably and death tolls are in the double digits each day -- we found ourselves questioning how to make this election legitimate in the eyes of the Iraqis and the international community. The women we met represented all walks of life: a wide array of political ideologies, religions, ethnicities and viewpoints met at the table to discuss what needs to happen in the next 14 days. And the answer? An extremely long list, topped by the most serious of all concerns: security. For two intense days in Jordan, I spoke with these women about the grave threats they've faced as publicly recognized candidates. Some have lost children to assassination attempts while others have faced kidnappings and death threats. Virtually all fear for the lives of themselves, their friends and their families, at a time when election workers are threatened and poll sites continue to be bombed. Their frustrations and fears put a very real face on my sentiments, after having traveled twice to Iraq. For months, I've questioned the process by which this election will take place -- without proper security and, because no census was conducted, the option of representative districts has fallen by the wayside. Now, the most immediate concerns are: Who will run the polling places? Who will count the ballots? How will we ensure the safety of voters as they head to the polls and wait in line? Americans live in a country where recounts and election workers scrutinizing ballot after ballot may soon become a way of life, so it is nearly impossible for us to fathom the Iraqi situation. An estimated 150,000 poll workers are needed to run the Jan. 30 election, but only 6,000 have been trained. There are a planned 7,000 polling sites across the country. How the necessary number of workers will be trained in the next few days and kept safe on election day remains an unanswered question. For months, I have prodded the White House and Pentagon to provide Congress with answers about how this election would be conducted and what would be done to eradicate the insurgency that threatens this burgeoning democratic process. The answers I've received, if any came at all, only indicate that President Bush's outlook on the Jan. 30 election is woefully out of touch with reality. We still have not recruited or trained nearly enough soldiers for an Iraqi National Guard, vital for security for the election and in the days after. The Iraq women I met were explicit: without improved security, vast portions of the Iraqi electorate won't vote (or even understand the process) and candidates will remain in danger, meaning the newly elected National Assembly will have only a meager shot at legitimacy in its task of crafting a constitution for the nation of Iraq. While these conditions are far from ideal and the White House can no longer stick its head in the sand about the policy failures that have landed us in this disaster, I reluctantly believe the elections must go forward. They remain our only chance to retain a shred of credibility and follow-through on a commitment to return autonomy to Iraqis. The women I met still perceive America -- not the coalition forces, but the Americans -- as an occupying force whose welcome ran out long ago. While I hope the election will begin to turn the tide in Iraq, I fear it will change desperately little. With a lack of basic security, a shortage of election workers and an uneducated public, this election will barely tip the scales against the running list of coalition and Iraqi casualties. But we don't have the option of turning our tail and running from this election -- we have to do it right or as close to right as possible. Elections should have been our opportunity to send a signal to the international community about Iraq's future and America's commitment to see the Middle East through this troubling time. Instead, elections have become the least bad of a host of disastrous options, and they rely far too much on the sheer hopefulness and bravery of 20 women I met in Jordan. Ellen O. Tauscher, co-chair of the congressional Iraqi Women's Caucus, serves on the House Armed Services Committee and represents California's 10th Congressional District. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 330 Registered: 9-2004 |
Phenix , you have a Republican survey reported in a Liberal newspaper. Basically a wash. Not quite. Exposes how uninformed this group is. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3041 Registered: 8-2003 |
You think there are problems holding elections now, I'd consider the problems of not holding them as more dire. Shia would be up in arms, the Kurds might follow, and the terrorists could claim victory. | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5039 Registered: 4-1998 |
The war begins after the election because that's when tribal divisions get displayed mathematically for all to see, everyone owns a gun, and people will have a number in mind of how many people they need to kill to win the next election. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1911 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cjc, I can see your point, but how could elections on the 30th be regarded as any kind of victory for democracy, given the lack of security, the expected boycotting, etc.? As Ms. Tauscher notes above, there are 7,000 expected polling stations, and only about 6,000 poll workers. Don't you think that setting the date of January 30th was terribly premature? It was the setting of the date that created a lose/lose situation. Even June 30 might have been overly optimistic. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 331 Registered: 9-2004 |
Just expect a war within a war. |
