Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
moon

The Iraqi Elections

Recommended Posts

I think that considering the circumstances the fact that it is happening at all is remarkable.

 

The only remarkable thing about it is that the coalition have the brass balls to think they can pull the scam off. For clarification, the idea of holding a fair and open election being the scam. If only 10% of the Iraqi population voted, would you still claim it as a victory for democracy? :erm: What turn-out percentage would make all the death and maiming worthwhile?

 

As for relatives, not many of those left alive in Iraq anymore :blank:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always was. It was the media that hyped it up.

Wrong. The media drew attention to the lies of our governments. Hardly the same as 'hyping it up' now is it?

 

We were lied to by our elected leaders and they were caught out. Now they and their apologists are passing the blame and changing the story.....remarkable.

 

The election is a joke...a sick one, but a joke nontheless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how much worth people put into the media at times, it's astounding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At any rate rest, get plenty of fluids.....and be carefull of that mysterious pain...it can flare up at any time. :lol:;)

;) Good advice :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. The media drew attention to the lies of our governments. Hardly the same as 'hyping it up' now is it?

 

We were lied to by our elected leaders and they were caught out. Now they and their apologists are passing the blame and changing the story.....remarkable.

 

 

It does not read that way if you look at the original pertinent documents including the presentation to the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think that those who love democracy so much, like our friends in Europe, would be rooting for the Iraqis to have a good election.

 

This is not the case.

Edited by The1PatO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always was. It was the media that hyped it up.

Regardless of what Dubya's cadres may have told the UN, what they told the American people was that Iraq was being invaded because Saddam had an active program to develop WMDs and had a stockpile of such weapons that presented an imminent threat to the security of the United States of America. On that basis and that basis alone, the peoples' representatives in Congress authorised the funding and deployment of an invasionary military force. That justification has now been roundly disproven and shown to be knowingly false at the time it was presented to Congress.

 

Congress isn't off the hook, though. They have the responsibility to demand that the administration justify its military adventure within 60 days of the deployment of troops. If they agree, they must then declare a state of war. If they don't, they must withdraw support for the administration's behaviour, including a withdrawal of funding. Obviously, that hasn't happened.

 

Let's call a spade a spade here: America is not at war with Iraq (or anyone else, for that matter). It is engaged in a police action operating outside of the rule of law: An action, in my opinion, antithetical to the values of the founding fathers of the republic.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shown to be knowingly false at the time it was presented to Congress.

 

 

I dont know that to be true, every report and investigation has cleared the administration of telling an outright lie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

every report and investigation has cleared the administration of telling an outright lie

Even as I typed that line, I knew someone would zero-in on that peripheral point first. Just the same, it's a pretty weak defence to trumpet a politician's skill at prevarication.

 

I

Edited by Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually had to look up that five $ word ;)

 

pre·var·i·cate Audio pronunciation of "prevarication" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-vr-kt)

intr.v. pre·var·i·cat·ed, pre·var·i·cat·ing, pre·var·i·cates

 

To stray from or evade the truth; equivocate. See Synonyms at lie2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that those who are willing to accept the results of this election, for whatever reasons, are overlooking the potential damage to 'democracy' in general.

I don't know if there is a minimum percentage turnout below which an election is automatically declared void. If there were I guess that it should be set at 51%. ( I know it isn't but it should be. If half the population, or less, do not support the democratic process then 'democracy' becomes rule by minority ) Suppose only 25% of eligible Iraqis vote. Is that a mandate for any political system ?

If the result is fudged through, despite there being a low turnout, violence in the streets, no candidate canvassing, no polling booth information, no election observers, etc., how will we define 'fair' elections in future ? Would you accept the result under such circumstances in your own country or state ?

Maybe not now, but the Iraqi elections may well set a precedent and you won't have any choice.

Edited by moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think that those who love democracy so much, like our friends in Europe, would be rooting for the Iraqis to have a good election.

 

This is not the case.

What is a good election? One that favors the United States? One that is completely free? A "good" election is not the same for you as it is for an Iraqi. They never asked for this election, they had one thing that they don't have since Saddam was removed and that is stability, a great deal of Iraqi's would probably vote for Saddam if they had the chance. I cannot see that being a good election when the people can't even vote for the person they want to because he is being held by a foreign country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know my position on the American adventure in Iraq moon, so don't think I'm an apologist for that mess. But the mess is on and the clock can't be turned back and so the best must be made of it.

 

I believe you're being a bit naive and short-sighted. Of course the looming election won't be democratic. No election in the forseeable future will be. But it does have the potential to create infrastructures and expectations that will support a future Iraqi democracy. And what's the alternative? A continued American occupation which could only amount to a benevolent dictatorship at best, with no mechanism for the transfer of power back into Iraqi hands.

 

I do believe an election, no matter how shallow, corrupt and flawed, is necessary, and the sooner the better. We're talking about decades of work here and the sooner it gets started the better.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that those who are willing to accept the results of this election, for whatever reasons, are overlooking the potential damage to 'democracy' in general.

I don't know if there is a minimum percentage turnout below which an election is automatically declared void. If there were I guess that it should be set at 51%. ( I know it isn't but it should be. If half the population, or less, do not support the democratic process then 'democracy' becomes rule by minority ) Suppose only 25% of eligible Iraqis vote. Is that a mandate for any political system ?

If the result is fudged through, despite there being a low turnout, violence in the streets, no candidate canvassing, no polling booth information, no election observers, etc., how will we define 'fair' elections in future ? Would you accept the result under such circumstances in your own country or state ?

Maybe not now, but the Iraqi elections may well set a precedent and you won't have any choice.

that would mean many of the elections in the US should be null and void....advocating making voting a legal requirement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how would that make the US elections void? I thought more then 50% of Americans voted and the president was elected with more then 50% of the vote, so it is legit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that would mean many of the elections in the US should be null and void....advocating making voting a legal requirement?

No, I don't believe that people should be forced to participate in the process. It doesn't improve the candidature, as the two dumb-:filtered: Australians recently indicated. However, a 'None of the Above' box to tick might force improvement in that area.

 

OK, Iain, so we are witnessing a hollow process in the hope that it will facilitate our withdrawal. I just wanted to see who would endorse this election as 'fair', accept the results as being democratic and their reasons for that stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how would that make the US elections void? I thought more then 50% of Americans voted and the president was elected with more then 50% of the vote, so it is legit.

there is roughly 220 million eligible voters in the US and somewhere between 50 and 60% of them actually turn out to vote, so figure 110-120 million people. Theres over 290 million people in the US.

 

Certain local and state elections total turnout will be 33-50% of eligible voters, hence less than half the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting should be manditory, so people will stop their :filtered:ing when they couldn't even get off their :filtered: for 5 minutes. People as a whole are stupid and they cannot figure out that voting is needed for a sucessful democracy.

 

As for your stats 12G it is ludicris to include minors and immigrants in the stats you provided, it has to be for eligable voters and not the entire population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even if you only include eligible voters many are not even registered to vote. There are elections across the US that fail to garner more than 50% of registered voters let alone eligible voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what Dubya's cadres may have told the UN, what they told the American people was that Iraq was being invaded because Saddam had an active program to develop WMDs and had a stockpile of such weapons that presented an imminent threat to the security of the United States of America. On that basis and that basis alone, the peoples' representatives in Congress authorised the funding and deployment of an invasionary military force. That justification has now been roundly disproven and shown to be knowingly false at the time it was presented to Congress.

 

Congress isn't off the hook, though. They have the responsibility to demand that the administration justify its military adventure within 60 days of the deployment of troops. If they agree, they must then declare a state of war. If they don't, they must withdraw support for the administration's behaviour, including a withdrawal of funding. Obviously, that hasn't happened.

 

Let's call a spade a spade here: America is not at war with Iraq (or anyone else, for that matter). It is engaged in a police action operating outside of the rule of law: An action, in my opinion, antithetical to the values of the founding fathers of the republic.

 

I

Where?

 

When?

 

 

I have been through all of the speeches and pertinent documents.

 

It isn't what the government presented, it is HOW the MEDIA presented it.

 

The funny thing is that all of the srguments you folks are presenting are based on the media presentation. You have been duped, but not by the government.

 

 

Bush?

 

OK yeah, right.

 

See this!

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Let...in-10-9-98.html

 

That is from 1998. There are MANY more like it. Why is everybody fixated on Bush?

 

 

EDIT:

 

Here is a repeat of one I posted earlier from Clinton:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/...s/clinton.iraq/

 

 

This language, this position, has been long standing in the US government.

 

Read both of them, please. If you want more from before 2001 there are many I can post.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to add that the UK House of Commons endorsed attacking Iraq on Blair's assurances that not only did Saddam possess wmd but that he had the capability to deploy them within 45 mins. Without those assurances the UK would not have invaded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. President, by invading Kuwait, Iraq threatened international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. By its failure to comply with the conditions it accepted as the international community's requirements for a cease-fire, Iraq continues to threaten international peace and security. By its refusal to abandon its quest for weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, Iraq is directly defying and challenging the international community and directly violating the terms of the cease fire between itself and the United States-led coalition.

 

 

bold added

 

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.

 

Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

 

1998

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to add that the UK House of Commons endorsed attacking Iraq on Blair's assurances that not only did Saddam possess wmd but that he had the capability to deploy them within 45 mins. Without those assurances the UK would not have invaded.

Well that would seem to be incorrect information, wouldn't it?

 

The fact remains that the stockpiles that we knew existed and that Iraq admitted to are still unaccounted for. Iraq never explained that and the inspections never revealed anything....that is...the inspections that Iraq would allow. Why does that not bother anybody?

 

Here is the kicker; I am not speaking about anything that flawed intelligence told us, I am speaking of what Iraq admitted to.

 

Without those assurances the UK would not have invaded.

Really?

 

I hope that isn't true.

 

 

You see, back in 98 (among other times) the UN promised "severest of consequenses" if Iraq did not meet its agreements regarding the cease fire. What does severest consequences mean?

 

It is undeniable that Iraq did not meet its agreements and was actively seeking to squirm out of them. This is a fact regardless of whether or not there was any WMD. In the face of that fact what are "severest of consequences"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that isn't true.

Oh it's true alright. The UK, up to now, doesn't leap off to war because the P.M.says so. First it was necessary to have the Attorney General affirm that it was legal. Apparently, he gave Blair this assurance in private. Armed with that assurance Blair then persuaded the Commons to endorse war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...