Election in Iraq

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 04:34 PM

You got sucked into the sentimentalism too, eh Little Hawk?

Do you feel sentimental about those sham elections in Vietnam too? In El Salvador? In Palestine?

Why exactly is it a good thing to hold elections and vote, just because you can pull it off, so long as it is done under martial law?

That's right folks. The Iraqis are being forced to vote under martial law. You don't think that a whole lot of Iraqis are voting today, because they fear paying a price with the occupation authorities if they DON'T vote?

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 04:39 PM

I haven't actually noticed the martial law forcing my friends to vote in Manchester. Perhaps our anonymous friend will explain how that works..

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 04:41 PM

Martial law? You don't know how martial law works, greg stephens? Seriously?

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST,Tom in Tennessee
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:42 PM

So many sad, lonely, angry, people on this and other threads, shrieking at each other about things they know nothing about. Some are so frightened they can't even sign in with a screen name. I'd pity y'all if y'all weren't so disgusting.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:45 PM

Yawn.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:49 AM

Yes, GUEST at 4:34 PM, I fully understand your reaction to my post...believe me, I do.

It amazes me that people in the USA are still naive enough to vote for either the Democrats or Republicans, as far as that goes. Will they EVER learn? Seemingly not. They still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

This is all somewhat new to the Iraqis, though, so I'm sure some of them will be fooled too. We'll see.

Mr Bush is rearranging the curtains on their prison windows, but certainly not for their benefit.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Boab
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:12 AM

No ---I don't think the elections in Iraq were a complete sham. They certainly weren't democratic --an impossibility under occupation---but I am willing to believe that the people who voted did so according to what they thought would be best under the circumstances.
As the Nicaraguan people did after having suffered a US blockade for as long as they were able. I think I said on another thread something to the effect that I hoped something good comes from this election, for if so Bush and co WONT be pleased. I note one probably-elected candidate already voicing his opinion that the occupiers should leave as soon as possible. A form of legitimate democracy may well develop in the mid-to-far term; I think that Tony [or his successor] and G.W. [or HIS successor] will then find they have a tiger by the tail.....

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:18 AM

Not sham, rabid anonymous Guest. Sixty per cent (according to my newsfeed, anyway) of the population went out and said "Screw you" to the terror int heir streets and voted in spite of hell and high water.

I say that this is a major advance over where the nation was just after the invasion.

The war in Iraq is lunatic and ill-conceived; but the voting in Iraq is the vest thing since dictatorship.

A

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 08:19 AM

As I said, you have no way of knowing what the intentions were of the Iraqi voters Amos, you are just mouthing what you've heard in the mainstream media.

As someone pointed out above, there can never be transparent and free elections in these circumstances. As others have noted, elections do not a democracy make. But the US citizenry has been bamboozled into believing that where there are elections, there is "freedom" or "democracy" when nothing could be further from the truth.

Freedom and democracy requires the presence of certain particular democratic institutions, like an independent judiciary, progressive penal and police systems, uncorrupted legislative and governing institutions, a free press, that sort of thing.

Having elections doesn't even create a climate for democracy. Banana republics and dictators have known this for quite some time.

Americans are getting sucked into the "let freedom ring" propaganda and spin they are being bombarded with through their media outlets. It really is that simple.

What the intentions are of the people voting in war zones who are forced to participate in elections (and putting an indelible mark on them so that they can be easily identified in the coming days is a means of coercing people to vote out of fear) is impossible for anyone to know. But that doesn't stop the US propaganda machine from spitting out this "they voted in defiance of the terrorists because they love freedom and want democracy" crap, when the reality on the ground seems to be that people went out to vote for many reasons, most of which aren't being reported by the US media.

So the attempts to project these intentions on the Iraqi voters SHOULD be the warning flag. We can't even figure out the whys and wherefores of American voters, much less the Iraqis. So all this "isn't it a fine, proud day for Iraq's fledgling democracy" is nothing more than a propaganda victory for Bush. That is why we make the countries we invade have sham elections. To give the appearance that we aren't really an occupation force, dictating the terms to the conquered. We are. Elections don't change that, and intelligent, thinking, discerning people can easily figure that out.

If you believe the Iraqis are all enthusiastic (and weren't paid to dance like monkeys for the US news cameras) about this election, then it's because you WANT to believe it. But you should at least understand that you are believing it because it makes you feel better about what horrific things your government is doing in your name, and NOT because that is actually the truth of the matter.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 08:41 AM

Let's assume, "rabid anonymous guest," that the Iraqis really did go to the polls out of fear. They had plenty of candidates to choose from, and they could leave their ballot blank if they wished to. So unless the count shows millions and millions of blank ballots, the election still shows support for democracy.

Some voted out of fear, but most undoubtedly voted out of a combination of pride, faith in the Coalition, and in defiance of the Saddamite torturers, nationalist revenge seekers, and brainwashed suicide bombers and terrorists who are the authors of all the current violence in Iraq.

Any decent Iraqi who served in Saddam's military, and any member of their families, knows what it meant when the Coalition let the soldiers go home without parole or supervision rather than do what all nations usually do: demand an official surrender and put all the POWs in cages for weeks or months until they can be ID'd and released.

War is always hideous, but the United States and its allies have waged this one with a level of restraint that is unparalleled in history.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:31 AM

When I listen to the iraqis who voted they say:
I voted to replace the US chosen council.
I voted to to get electricity and water.
I voted to get religion out of politics.

The US welcomes those who want religion out of politics as long as it is not Americans at home.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:03 AM

I reread all the threads from the beginning.   Starting with "do you think a 10% vote would be considered a victory for the Bush people?" Do any of you feel guilty about how wrong you were? Especially Bev and Jerry?   My guess is no.    You have been wrong on everything for 50 straight years.   Why stop now.

And who are the "bush people".   Since he is the president of the USA, than all USA residents are "bush people".   For those of you who say that Bush isn't your president, than you are clearly living in the wrong country and get the hell out.   Nunavut is lovely this time of year.

Despite the threats, over 60% voted.   Some had to be carried to the polls to vote.   There was dancing in the streets.   Polls indicated that Iraq's think their country is headed in the right direction.

This was a vote for freedom.    And "black sunday" for all democrats, liberals, progressives, and haters of America.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:15 AM

To paraprhase that, Larry...

"For those of you who say that Hitler isn't your chancellor, then you are clearly living in the wrong country and get the hell out!"

- Joseph Goebbels, 1935 (or thereabouts)

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:41 AM

I am a liberal. Always have been, always will be.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:49 AM

LarryK

Screw you and your arrogance. Do you think I have no right to celebrate the courage of the Iraq people because I thought Bush; was an idiot and a warmonger? My dissent from Bush is part of the freedom he is sworn to protect. Don't forget that with your fistful of condescending labels.

A

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Nerd
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:51 AM

There is no reasonable estimate available for how many voted. The interim government said 72%, let the media declare them geniuses for doing such a good job, then admitted they only "guessed" 72% a day later. So new media reports say "early reports of 72% are unconfirmed, so we really don't know whether it was less than 72% or more than 72%; all we know is that 72% figure may not be entirely right.

By the time the media is finished, everyone has heard 72% about a thousand times, and Larry K sounds modest when he says "over 60." But the fact is, no one knows yet!

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: kendall
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:41 PM

Can you say "Puppet government"?

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:04 PM

The main reasons why Iraqis would vote out of fear, is because everyone who voted had their hands marked with an indelible ink that won't wash off for a couple days.

So imagine you live in Sadr City in Baghdad. You have business in the City Centre today, and so leave Sadr City to go towards the Green Zone to take care of your business. You did not vote, because of threats and intimidation from the insurgents in your neighborhood, despite the fatwa from al Sistani.

You of course are stopped by US occupation forces on your way to the City Centre, to have your papers checked, etc. The soldier sees you don't have the election mark on your hands, asks you to step over to the side. Upon examination of your papers, he sees you are from Sadr City. He is immediately suspicious of you because your address is in Sadr City, and because you obviously haven't voted. The soldier immediately suspects you are associated with the insurgency, and has you arrested on the spot.

You are taken to a jail on the outskirts of the city, but no one in your family knows this.

Does that help any of you understand why this might matter to an Iraqi?

In El Salvador, the citizens were required by law to vote in the sham elections. If they didn't have the proper party stamp proving they had voted for the leaders of the death squads running for office on their identity papers, the death squads would kill them on the spot.
At the polling place where you voted in El Salvador, the "election officials" made you put your paper ballot into a see through box, so they could see how you voted, and tell the death squads if you voted wrong. Not exactly a secret ballot, like we expect in a proper democracy!

In the El Salvador elections, there were also many members of the death squads working as election officials, so many people who "voted wrong" (ie not for the party of the repressive regime, but the reform parties) were identified, and later murdered.

So who were the election officials in Iraq?

Now, it isn't

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:04 PM

Some people might have believed there would be reprisals for not voting, but everyone knew that savage execution was promised by the insurgents to those who did vote.

The inky finger reduced the turnout of voters.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:13 PM

Reduced the turnout? What are you shooting for, 70%? 80%? The actual turnout was terrific, and those of you who think otherwise just have your heads up your wazooo!

DougR

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:36 PM

I mentioned this on another thread. The rest of the Arab world saw a determined Iraqui people voting on TV news.

What is their reaction?

"Freedom's just another way of saying's nothing's left to lose?"

I don't think so.

C'mon Arab world. Who else is willing to make sacrifices for freedom and democracy?

Get ready for a great state of the union address, whiners.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:18 PM

I don't think I will take the word of Bush or Alawi as to how many turned out to vote. Nor will I accept the images I saw on t.v. because I know how easy it is to stage events and manipulate people. I am trying to find out what the independent observers are saying.

I mean who really knows when the borders were closed, martial law was the state of the day and no international observers were present? Seems to me that alot of people are willing to believe just about anything from an administration that has lied and decieved the public over and over again.

Why would anyone believe them now?

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:39 PM

Larry K:

Please state what you think we said that was wrong. The answer is nothing and we demand that you apologize to us forthwith for your demeaning post of 31 January at 10:03 AM in which you said, "I reread all the threads from the beginning.   Starting with "do you think a 10% vote would be considered a victory for the Bush people?" Do any of you feel guilty about how wrong you were? Especially Bev and Jerry?   My guess is no.    You have been wrong on everything for 50 straight years. Why stop now."

We have posted three times on this thread. Once we said that Bush would consider the election a success no matter what the turnout, once with a direct quote from Bush proving the previous post, and once to say that Bush cannot pronounce Abu Graib. All three of these statements are absolutely true.

Do not post on this thread again until you apologize.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:41 PM

Got this in an e-mail today:

"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of the turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."
- Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 12:48 AM

Oh, that is droll... :-)

What short memories people have.

Yup. I can definitely say "puppet government". It's a familiar scenario.

I would say that people in Iraq are in peril regardless of what they did. If they voted, they're in peril from one set of people. If they didn't they're in peril from the other set. Just like it was in Vietnam. The vote, in any case, is a rubber stamp for a puppet government, imposed by an invading foreign power, with an "election" as a Pr exercise.

Who do you think okays who gets to run in such an election? Who do you think decides who gets the funding and media coverage to win a seat? Who do you think controls the whole business afterward?

The occupying foreign invaders, that's who.   Dead simple and dead obvious. And lots more dead Iraqis and young American soldiers too.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 01:11 AM

From Zeyed, an Iraqi in-country:

"unday, January 30, 2005


Hold Your Head Up High, You Are Iraqi 

I chose to cast my vote in Amman this very day, even though Iraqi exiles have been voting here since Friday. Voter turnout in Jordan was exceptionally lower than in other countries and I was quite surprised to hear some of the same rumours that infest Baghdad repeated over here in Amman.

One problem was the special ink that voters have to dab their fingers with. Many Iraqis were concerned that insurgents would catch them on their way back to Baghdad and recognise people who had voted.

Some resourceful Iraqis had already devised several methods to get rid of the stain. One of these is to paint your fingers with skin lotion before you enter the polling station, wipe your finger clean immediately after voting and before the ink dries, on returning home dip your finger in boiling detergent and rub it repeatedly.

The turnout in Iraq was really like nothing that I had expected. I was glued in front of tv for most of the day. My mother was in tears watching the scenes from all over the country. Iraqis had voted for peace and for a better future, despite the surrounding madness. I sincerely hope this small step would be the start of much bolder ones, and that the minority which insists on enslaving the majority of Iraqis would soon realise that all that they have accomplished till now is in vain.

Another surprise was to see some Iraqis who had fled the country in fear of reprisals, such as the families of ex-regime figures and ex-Ba'athists, actually voting and encouraging others to vote! I know some of those from school and college and I imagined they would be bitter about the whole process, but many were not.

Jordanians were wishing Iraqis luck these few days everywhere on the streets. One young man at a mall, on recognising my Iraqi accent, asked me who I would be voting for. I politely told him that I would vote for who I believe is sincere. Strangely, he said that he personally preferred Allawi and hoped most Iraqis would be voting for him. I wished his country luck as well since the King had promised direct elections for municipal councils as a first step. He dismissed that as nothing much and said that "One should start from the 'Head' down, not the other way around". This last remark played on my survival instincts, even though the fellow looked far from being a Jordanian Mukhabarat agent, so I left the man in peace.

I really want to write much much more but I have to run for now. I promise I will post again soon. In the mean time: Hold your head up high, Remember that you are Iraqi."

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 01:16 AM

A perfectly understandable reaction from someone who has had his first chance to vote.

You recall the tremendous public enthusiasm in Eastern Europe after Communism fell? You see the cynicism and disappointment now? It takes people a while to catch on to the charade that has been played on them by a wealthy and powerful few who promised them "freedom", but gave them oligarchies, organized crime, and corruption.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 03:17 AM

I know people are suspicious of news reports, but you can trust the BBC on this. They never miss an opportunity to rub Blair and Bush's noses in any mess.
In the second city, Basra, journalists can still move about the city.
They showed us lines outside polling stations. There were no casualties in Basra at all. British troops kept off the streetes all day.
Basra is not Iraq, but it still tells a story.
The election was popular.
When you speak against it remember that you are opposing what the people wanted.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:50 AM

The BBC is no different than the other major news outlets. That is blatantly obvious when you read Google News, and see virtually the same stories, most of them identical word for word, being circulated as "the news".

Never, ever confuse the news with the facts or the truth. News is seductive, the facts and truth are much harder to live with.

Little Hawk is right. Coming around aren't you Little Hawk ;-) There were video images of happy Iraqis. There were the man on the street interviews of happy Iraqis. Anyone recall seeing ANYWHERE on the news an Iraqi voter being interviewed saying they were voting for their own safety, because they feared reprisals from the occupation authorities if they didn't? Not a ONE.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:17 AM

And did I mention, the same stock footage was being used by every single tv news outlet for this election? Without mentioning they were escorted to the occupation authority approved locations by occupation authority approved "guides" and shot video of only happy, dancing Iraqis or inspirationally crippled Iraqis walking miles to the polling places?

Happy dancing Iraqi voters. Inspirational, crippled Iraqi voters. Cute wee Iraqi babies accompanying gramps to the polls.

All it was missing was the red, white and blue bunting, and the red and blue provinces.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:35 AM

A puppet government does the bidding of someone else. The elected government of RVN was notorious for tolerating internal corruption that the US State Department insisted they eliminate and for throwing up roadblocks to both the peace talks and to the 1973 agreement. Some puppets!

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:40 AM

Yes, and former Reagan ambassador to the UN, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, had a saying about those sorts of despots the US was supporting and propping up. "They might be bastards, but they are our bastards".

Of course the puppets try to flex their muscle now and then, especially when it comes to the corruption they benefit from mightily. They always do. It doesn't mean they aren't puppets, with the strings being pulled by Washington. It just means they are wealthy puppets who can do anything they want, so long as they don't mess with Uncle Sam's imperial mission.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:43 AM

BTW Guy Who Thinks He Thinks, to which "elected government of RVN" are you referring. There were so many of the Golden Elected Ones who were being assassinated, you could even say they were disposable, as far as the US was concerned.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:58 AM

Larry K, Doug R. et al.---


It's obvious that the Iraqi election is a good first step. I'm sure everybody on this forum wishes the Iraqis (and the Americans) well.

However, it is just a first step. As I said in my post of 7:02 29 Jan 2005 on the Good News in Iraq thread, there are still many unanswered questions.

Will al Sistani, who sets the tone for many of his followers, continue in his quietist strain of Islam?

Will the Kurds be satisfied with the degree of autonomy granted them by the central Iraqi government now to be constituted?

Will the Iraqis have the patience needed when 24 hour electricity, water, etc doesn't magically materialize as a result of the election?

Will the Sunnis consider themselves included in the new government?

Etc.

Euphoria should be tempered.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:23 AM

Actually Ron, in case you hadn't noticed (or were simply choosing to conveniently edit out the opinions being expressed here with which you disagree), some of us don't believe the sham election is a first step towards anything but a cliff with a precipitous drop.

Maybe the $9 billion that disappeared in the Iraq budget (according to the latest US government audit) went to bribes? Or maybe it went to "independent contractors"? Or maybe it was used to buy the election, and the Anglo American occupation authority just forgot to write down the actual cost of the election? God knows, the $9 billion wouldn't begin to cover the "security costs" (spit).

Hmmmmm...hard to know, when there is no transparency in government or the fourth estate media charged with critically examining the government, isn't it?

But hey, you "free" election cheerleaders be sure to write your congressional representatives today, and tell them you are SO inspired by these "free" elections (spit), that you would just love Uncle Sam to burn up some more taxpayers bucks--to the tune of $80 to $100 billion, just like our Fearful Leader asked for--so we can watch it disappear in the desert again like the last barrel o'bucks we sent over to the "free" Iraqis.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:31 AM

Ok, Guest. You don't bother to address the issue of RVN obstructionism when it came to talks with the VC and the North. Was that following Uncle Sam's orders? Wait, I think I know.

Please provide us with your long long list of assassinated RVN presidents. Messrs. Thieu and Ky took office in '67 and were still alive and kicking in 1975 when the peace-loving North blithely violated the 1973 accords and crushed the South with military force.

It's only tangential to the situation in Iraq today, but people need to learn some history before they can learn from it. Comparisons with the war in Indochina are facile and superficial at best. If civil war breaks out, and it could, it'll have little to do with conditions in Viet Nam nearly 40 years ago.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:53 AM

Oh joy, the conspiracy theorists are back.


I just wanted to say that we wish the British well also--didn't mean to leave that out. Any honest observer would have to say it's been a UK-US show so far---all other members of the so-called coalition have been also-rans.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST,bflat
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 09:47 AM

I suppose some of the above posters think it was better when the Iraqis had 100% turnout and one name on the ballot. I have nothing but admiration for the brave Iraqui voters, who have endured so much and have a long and uncertain road ahead. My wish is that they someday know the same freedoms I enjoy. My politics will not taint my post.

Ellen

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Dewey
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 12:45 PM

How utterly pathethic that mudcatters are so immersed in politics, as to not rejoice in the liberation of another group of human beings, every bit as smart, every bit as intelligent, and and every bit as deserving of their freedom the rest of you are here on thuis board, that already have it and deserve it.

So you didn't like Bush's invasion of the country, So you didn't think it was right to destroy and rebuild so much of the country's infra-structure. So you thought the Amercian government was a bit a of nosey, ignorant, imperialistic bully. So be it! Those things are your God given right! and be it far from me to tell you that you are wrong to believe as you wish to believe.

But the follow is terrible and unforgivable to anyone living under Tyranny whoever they might be throughout this world:

to actually make fun of and scoff at the first free election in modern middle-east history, merely because you do not agree with the sitting U.S. President, and the means by which this miracle came into being. Despite the war and occupation, I doubt if the Iraqi people, would share your sentiments at all, (at least concerning the elections)

After all, If you, yourself lived in such a country,you would want a vote, especially after being half gased to death, tourtured, imprisoned without cause, mutilated. etc.

There were far worse gorvernments in the past that have emerged than the one that is imerging now. Or are Mudcatter noststalgic for the days of Saddam,

In truth, It can be said that any form of government, even the fragile one that is emerging now is better than the one that was and is now thankfully over. (I already know many of you do not like the current U.S. President, but that is not the issue we are facing today, Yesterday was about the free election in Iraq, it is about the Iraqu people)

The Iraqi people might have not liked the protracted and obviously continued occupation of their country. I seriously doubt, however, that they would not like the right to vote and choose their own destiny and future. FOR THEMSELVES BY THEMSELVES.

The Iragi people are every bit as smart, every bit as capable and every bit as deserving of freedom as any other group of human beings on this existing planet.

Freedom is for EVERYONE! Not just opinionated Spoiled rotten mudcatters (from free nations by the way) that have NEVER had the wieght of tyranny at their throats, nor the threat of death and/or torture in their lives.

Even if you don't respect the Bush Policies over-all, at least have the respect to rejoice in this first ever free election, a clean election which generated more turn outs than the recent U.S. election.

A 60 percent voter turn out in a dangerous country is an amazingly admirable feat, and should make even the most caloused left winger out there understand the power and potential of freedom.

Surprise! Surprise! Folks! Guess what! The Iraq's like their freedom and to think and choose just as much mudcatter's do.

Freedom for any group of people is not an ordinary desire. It is a BURNING desire, and is as natural in its postive energy as is running water.

And I gurantee you that if (I mean WHEN) the Iragi's do get their freedom they'll hold on to it for dear life, And they will never forfeit it to anyone who wants to take it away again.


Dewey

(who had an awesome day yesterday watching fellow human beings get the same previleges I enjoy every day)


P.S.

I am sorry that many of the rest of your DO take your freedoms for granted, Fortunately/Unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't share your view!)

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:15 PM

And thank you all for voting for the status quo, voting for your favorite Bush/Berry in November, and for paying for the liberation of the Iraqi people. I know they really appreciate everything the Anglo American occupation forces have done, and will continue to do for them in the future.

And for blowing hundreds of billions of MY US tax dollars on the liberation of the Iraqis, and of course, running up my grandchildren's debt to play war games in the desert.

Thanks so very much.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:44 PM

Some reactions from the Arab press:

"The Iraq wins the elections" (al-Dustur, Jordan)
Arab News (SA) praises the courage of the Iraqis. "Real patriotic heoes" have gone to vote despite being threatened with death.
Abd al-Wahhab Badr Kahn (in al-Hayat) speaks of a "historic opportunity" and that the elections are a beginning and not the end of a road.

There are several more pessimistic voices too, but I thought I'd bring a bit of a balance into this thread with some more optimistic voices.

The turnout seems to be higher than many had expected. The expatriate voters interviewed in Germany have been mostly contented (the others may not have voted, perhaps). Of course, it is possible to make a solid guess of a turnout before the final result. You count some samples. That's how easy it is.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 03:38 PM

"It was only a personal threat of violence that motivated some people to go to the polls." They came "only because of the gun at their backs".

How many would that be? Six million? Fourteen thousand? Couple of dozen? Hard to tell from McGeough's report. Perhaps he's just confused. Isn't it Australia where you're forced to vote whether you want to or not?

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Charley Noble
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 04:51 PM

I have to agree with Little Hawk. The election while demonstrating great courage on the part of Iraqi voters are likely to prove a sham as a step toward "democracy." A good friend reminded me of what the New York Times had to say about an election in Vietnam some time ago:

The New York Times -- 09-04-1967

"U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote

Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror


by Peter Grose, Special to The New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

Significance Not Diminished

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon."

NYT. 9/4/1967: p. 2.


Deja vu all over again.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:18 PM

This election unfortunately is not valid. It was held at the point of an occupier's gun. It is illegal.

What we saw on TV was a Potemkin. It was an effort to make it look good but not reflective of what's really going on there.

The Iraqi people are being exploited by assuming that American soldiers will pull out soon. It's not in the master plan which is to remake Iraq into a Neo-con image.

The Bush Neo-cons want a submissive Iraq that's indebted to the interests of the Bush Administration. The New World Order agenda is to take over the Middle East. if you don't believe this, wait for the invasion of Iran.

Domino theory. Then Syria and other Mid-East countries.

It follows the "Manifest Destiny" of American history and is incorporated into a Manichean view of fundamental Christianty which doesn't allow for Muslims or any other religion.

The Iraqi people are being mislead. Their good intentions are subverted by the Bush political agenda which is to exploit and create an economic indebtedness.

It's not just about oil.

Frank

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:48 PM

Absolutely correct, Frank. It's about oil, and political and regional control, and maintaining a certain chronic level of war and insecurity in the World...which maintains lucrative military contracts and arms sales...and jockeying for power against western Europe, Russia, and China to see who gets to control the World. The Iraqis are among the little regional mice that get eaten while the big cats play.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:56 PM

And of course, part of that "global reach" plan includes bankrupting the US social welfare institutions to fund the military industrial complex and Wall Street instead.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:06 PM

Just to clarify Frank's very pithy description:

anicheanism


Mani was its founder who had taught in Persia, and had met there a martyr's death by crucifixion in 276 or 277. The fundamental belief of the religion pictured the universe as the scene of an eternal conflict of two powers, the one good, the other evil. Man, as we know him, is a mixed product, the spiritual part of his nature consists of the good element, the physical of the evil. His task, therefore, is to free the good in him from the evil; and this can be accomplished by prayer, but especially by abstinence from all the enjoyments of evil: riches, lust, wine, meats, luxurious houses and the like. Like Gnosticism, taught that the true spiritual Jesus had no material body and did not actually die. Augustine was a Manichean for nine years, from 372-383, before dissatisfaction with its teachings arose in his mind.


http://tatumweb.com

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:10 PM

A very familiar story, isn't it? :-)

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:17 PM

The high turnout in Shia and Kurdish areas had nothing to do with democracy.

Are you people on the right really thick, or are you just trying to wind up the rest of us?
I know some of you have a genetic excuse, but there are at least two who are quite capable of joined-up thinking.

The Iraqi election was to do with power,just like the pretend elections we have.
The power once gained is always stolen by those who pull the strings.
Sistani and the Shia clerics want power to consolidate their position and ultimately to impose an Islamic republic.   Is that what you mean by freedom?
The Kurds are hoping to grab as much of the oil rich areas to the North as they can.   If they succeed, the wealth will go to tribal leaders and warlords not to the people. Is that what you mean by freedom?
The Sunnis of course didn't vote, oreven wish the election to take place, as they knew they had no hope of retaining power. Is that freedom?

We have no real democracy in the West, just a facade. Capital determines all policy regardless of which part is "in power", so how can we expect democracy in a tribal, fanatically religious country like Iraq.
The mess is not getting better, USA and UK are out of their depth, and the manipulators are now the manipulated...Ake

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:45 PM

Exactly, Akenaton! Hear! Hear! Amen! And similar phrases... :-)

Wake up, people, and smell the reality.