PDA

View Full Version : Iraqis Vote and Democrats (Kerry Especially) Do Nothing But Complain


RINGLEADER
01-30-2005, 11:47 AM
Listening to the way Democrats are talking today you get the sense that they're actually pissed that Iraqis voted in huge numbers today to determine their own future. Following on the heels of Ike Skelton's dour Democratic radio response yesterday we hear presidential loser John Kerry giving the big "so what" to the election today and focusing on everything that MIGHT go wrong in the months ahead. Why the Democrats continue to choose the wrong side of every issue is one of those mysteries I hope they never figure out how to correct.

CHIEF4EVER
01-30-2005, 11:50 AM
Listening to the way Democrats are talking today you get the sense that they're actually pissed that Iraqis voted in huge numbers today to determine their own future. Following on the heels of Ike Skelton's dour Democratic radio response yesterday we hear presidential loser John Kerry giving the big "so what" to the election today and focusing on everything that MIGHT go wrong in the months ahead. Why the Democrats continue to choose the wrong side of every issue is one of those mysteries I hope they never figure out how to correct.

And this surprises you.......why? :shrug:

RINGLEADER
01-30-2005, 12:04 PM
And this surprises you.......why? :shrug:


I don't know...I guess I just thought that maybe the Dems would have learned something from the last election. Bush-hating sure didn't get them very far last time but it seems that the Dems are using their own levels of Bush-hating as the barometer that will get them the nomination in 2008. I think that's a brilliant strategy...for another GOP landslide.

HC_Chief
01-30-2005, 12:04 PM
Disgusting.
This is an historic event, yet they view it as a negative because it enforces Bush's strategery in the region and against terrorism as a whole. Shameful. History will judge them negatively.

BigOlChiefsfan
01-30-2005, 12:18 PM
Disgusting - Shameful. History will judge them negatively.

Not if they get to choose the history books.

Cochise
01-30-2005, 02:56 PM
I would say that I'm surprised that they look so unprepared and confounded by the fact that it's gone better than expected, but of course these ARE the 'rats...

alanm
01-30-2005, 03:49 PM
I don't know...I guess I just thought that maybe the Dems would have learned something from the last election. Bush-hating sure didn't get them very far last time but it seems that the Dems are using their own levels of Bush-hating as the barometer that will get them the nomination in 2008. I think that's a brilliant strategy...for another GOP landslide.The problem is the democrats are too f*cking stoopid to learn from their mistakes. Their right gawd damnit and you're wrong!!. And like you, I too hope they never wise up.:thumb:

Pitt Gorilla
01-30-2005, 04:10 PM
Ok, once again, I'm confused. I've been watching MSNBC and every person interviewed (both sides) appears to be pleased with the high turnout. Where are you watching or hearing people complain? I'm not calling you a liar; I just haven't seen OR heard it. I guess when you wrote "Democrats," I assumed you were making some sort of general statement. I didn't see Kerry, so I'll take your word for it, but I haven't seen any Democrat complain. Could you provide SOME evidence?!?

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 04:18 PM
Listening to the way Democrats are talking today you get the sense that they're actually pissed that Iraqis voted in huge numbers today to determine their own future. Following on the heels of Ike Skelton's dour Democratic radio response yesterday we hear presidential loser John Kerry giving the big "so what" to the election today and focusing on everything that MIGHT go wrong in the months ahead. Why the Democrats continue to choose the wrong side of every issue is one of those mysteries I hope they never figure out how to correct.

After the presentation of the 'spontaneous' fall of the Saddam Hussein statue, please forgive our cautious and wait and see attitude...
:hmmm:

CHIEF4EVER
01-30-2005, 04:23 PM
After the presentation of the 'spontaneous' fall of the Saddam Hussein statue, please forgive our cautious and wait and see attitude...
:hmmm:

Yeah, especially suspicious were the hired professional actors from Iraq beating the statue with their shoes........:rolleyes:

6 Iron
01-30-2005, 04:26 PM
After the presentation of the 'spontaneous' fall of the Saddam Hussein statue, please forgive our cautious and wait and see attitude...
:hmmm:

I personally would be thrilled to see your "cautious and wait and see attitude".


When does yours arrive?

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 04:27 PM
Yeah, especially suspicious were the hired professional actors from Iraq beating the statue with their shoes........:rolleyes:

I'll go ahead and post it for you...

the LA Times. They must be lying.

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0703-02.htm

Published on Saturday, July 3, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times
Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue
by David Zucchino

The Army's internal study of the war in Iraq criticizes some efforts by its own psychological operations units, but one spur-of-the-moment effort last year produced the most memorable image of the invasion.

As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein. It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.

After the colonel — who was not named in the report — selected the statue as a "target of opportunity," the psychological team used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a unit member.

But Marines had draped an American flag over the statue's face.

"God bless them, but we were thinking … that this was just bad news," the member of the psychological unit said. "We didn't want to look like an occupation force, and some of the Iraqis were saying, 'No, we want an Iraqi flag!' "

Someone produced an Iraqi flag, and a sergeant in the psychological operations unit quickly replaced the American flag.

Ultimately, a Marine recovery vehicle toppled the statue with a chain, but the effort appeared to be Iraqi-inspired because the psychological team had managed to pack the vehicle with cheering Iraqi children.

mlyonsd
01-30-2005, 04:27 PM
After the presentation of the 'spontaneous' fall of the Saddam Hussein statue, please forgive our cautious and wait and see attitude...
:hmmm:

Translation...Holy crap today is almost as bad as November 2nd. I wish I could wake up tomorrow and have the last 3 months just be a dream.

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 04:28 PM
I personally would be thrilled to see your "cautious and wait and see attitude".


When does yours arrive?


I said two days ago I'm giving the honeymoon period 3 months and 6 months for hell to break loose...

I guess that would be sometime in August if that period passes and my hunch is wrong.

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 04:31 PM
Translation...Holy crap today is almost as bad as November 2nd. I wish I could wake up tomorrow and have the last 3 months just be a dream.

Nightmare? :hmmm: I expectedsome people to vote today and that no matter what the number it would be called a success.

Nevermind the entire country had to be under martial law for a 'free election'...

and never mind one of the largest populations did not participate.

And never mind 40% of those who were going to vote thought they would be picking a president.

Today will be seen as a success...the long term implications a secondary notion.

6 Iron
01-30-2005, 04:33 PM
I said two days ago I'm giving the honeymoon period 3 months and 6 months for hell to break loose...

I guess that would be sometime in August if that period passes and my hunch is wrong.

What do you mean by "hell to break loose"?

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 04:34 PM
What do you mean by "hell to break loose"?

civil war or something very close to it.

mlyonsd
01-30-2005, 04:37 PM
Nightmare? :hmmm: I expectedsome people to vote today and that no matter what the number it would be called a success.

Nevermind the entire country had to be under martial law for a 'free election'...

and never mind one of the largest populations did not participate.

And never mind 40% of those who were going to vote thought they would be picking a president.

Today will be seen as a success...the long term implications a secondary notion.

So...you want to go on record that today was not a positive step?

No one is saying today means the trouble is over. But as an American you should be at least a little happy that the common Iraqi has taken the first step towards democracy. Come on, say it with me.....

6 Iron
01-30-2005, 04:39 PM
civil war or something very close to it.

Possible, but I think it less likely now than a year ago. There will no doubt be a seperatist movement amongst the Kurds. If the elected government evolves into a Sharia law theocracy, I reserve the right to revise.

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 04:44 PM
So...you want to go on record that today was not a positive step?

No one is saying today means the trouble is over. But as an American you should be at least a little happy that the common Iraqi has taken the first step towards democracy. Come on, say it with me.....

It was a step, period. Whether it will be positive or negative, authentic democracy or ceremonial symbolism is too soon to tell.

Remember, at one time we thought firing all of SH's army was going to be a positive first step...

BigMeatballDave
01-30-2005, 04:45 PM
civil war or something very close to it.I'm sure you are praying for it. Anything to make this adminaistration and America look bad. You're life must suck. Gee, I'd sure like to become an extreme leftist and piss and moan about anything pro-American...

Joe Seahawk
01-30-2005, 04:46 PM
Today the people of Iraq have spoken to the world, and the world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East.

In great numbers, and under great risk, Iraqis have shown their commitment to democracy. By participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists. They have refused to be intimidated by thugs and assassins. And they have demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-government.

Some Iraqis were killed while exercising their rights as citizens. We also mourn the American and British military personnel who lost their lives today. Their sacrifices were made in a vital cause of freedom, peace in a troubled region, and a more secure future for us all.

The Iraqi people, themselves, made this election a resounding success. Brave patriots stepped forward as candidates. Many citizens volunteered as poll workers. More than 100,000 Iraqi security force personnel guarded polling places and conducted operations against terrorist groups. One news account told of a voter who had lost a leg in a terror attack last year, and went to the polls today, despite threats of violence. He said, "I would have crawled here if I had to. I don't want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. Today I am voting for peace."

Across Iraq today, men and women have taken rightful control of their country's destiny, and they have chosen a future of freedom and peace. In this process, Iraqis have had many friends at their side. The European Union and the United Nations gave important assistance in the election process. The American military and our diplomats, working with our coalition partners, have been skilled and relentless, and their sacrifices have helped to bring Iraqis to this day. The people of the United States have been patient and resolute, even in difficult days.

The commitment to a free Iraq now goes forward. This historic election begins the process of drafting and ratifying a new constitution, which will be the basis of a fully democratic Iraqi government. Terrorists and insurgents will continue to wage their war against democracy, and we will support the Iraqi people in their fight against them. We will continue training Iraqi security forces so this rising democracy can eventually take responsibility for its own security.

There's more distance to travel on the road to democracy. Yet Iraqis are proving they're equal to the challenge. On behalf of the American people, I congratulate the people of Iraq on this great and historic achievement.

Thank you very much.

President of the United States Of America

George W Bush 1/30/05

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 04:47 PM
I'm sure you are praying for it. Anything to make this adminaistration and America look bad. You're life must suck. Gee, I'd sure like to become an extreme leftist and piss and moan about anything pro-American...


I'm not praying for it. I'm hoping history is not repeating itself. Merely giving people the ACT of voting means NOTHING if there is not the stability in place to prevent the collapse of the country into a war within itself.

CHIEF4EVER
01-30-2005, 04:49 PM
Nightmare? :hmmm: I expectedsome people to vote today and that no matter what the number it would be called a success.

If the turnout had been say...20%, then the media would have gone "hog wild" and no administration in the friggin world would have called it a success. So that statement is BS.

Nevermind the entire country had to be under martial law for a 'free election'...

Your logic is suspect. If we had terrorists threatening our polling places you can bet the November election would have had security out the wazoo. The prescence of troops was necessary to even hold the election and in no way interfered with the polling.

and never mind one of the largest populations did not participate.

And never mind 40% of those who were going to vote thought they would be picking a president.

Really? WHICH population? And for your information, noone was under the illusion that they were voting for a president. The ballots made that patently clear.

Today will be seen as a success...the long term implications a secondary notion.

I guess we'll see.

6 Iron
01-30-2005, 04:50 PM
It was a step, period. Whether it will be positive or negative, authentic democracy or ceremonial symbolism is too soon to tell.

Remember, at one time we thought firing all of SH's army was going to be a positive first step...

This is not intellectually honest. Of course, with the ultimate goal a democratic society, initial elections with active involvement of most of the population is a positive step. Period.

6 Iron
01-30-2005, 04:55 PM
I'm not praying for it. I'm hoping history is not repeating itself. Merely giving people the ACT of voting means NOTHING if there is not the stability in place to prevent the collapse of the country into a war within itself.

Might it be possible that the "stability" you speak of is made more possible by a population that sees it has a responsibility in selecting it's leaders, and can make changes if need be? I'll answer for you. Yep.

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 04:56 PM
This is not intellectually honest. Of course, with the ultimate goal a democratic society, initial elections with active involvement of most of the population is a positive step. Period.

Yes, elections taken in the absence of martial law and occupation...indeed. But neither was the case here. And because 75% of the ballot and the parties were unknown to the voters because of 'security' concerns then you have the spectacle of people voting just to vote and not knowing who or why.

Do you think this sort of acting out of principle will carry frustrated and angry people for long? Meaning, when the novelty of the act of voting wears off and little, if anything, has changed how long will that act of voting satisfy their much encouraged need to be 'free?'

Might some of those people come to see a continued status quo and the democracy they've experienced to be one in the dreadful same?

jAZ
01-30-2005, 04:56 PM
The irony of this thread is killing me!

ROFL

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 04:58 PM
Might it be possible that the "stability" you speak of is made more possible by a population that sees it has a responsibility in selecting it's leaders, and can make changes if need be? I'll answer for you. Yep.


40% of those prior to the poll thought they were voting for a President...

that means that nearly half the population who were to vote had no freakin idea what they were voting for or why.

So yes, in theory you have a point. But in this reality it cannot be readily applied.

Cochise
01-30-2005, 05:30 PM
What the hell situation other than 'martial law' would exist if a country didn't have an existing government? :spock: :spock:

Main Entry: martial law
Function: noun
1 : the law applied in occupied territory by the military authority of the occupying power
2 : the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 05:33 PM
What the hell situation other than 'martial law' would exist if a country didn't have an existing government? :spock: :spock:

Wait, I thought they had a Prime Minister and a President...

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 05:34 PM
What the hell situation other than 'martial law' would exist if a country didn't have an existing government? :spock: :spock:

Main Entry: martial law
Function: noun
1 : the law applied in occupied territory by the military authority of the occupying power
2 : the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety

Sounds about right...

thanks. :thumb:

Cochise
01-30-2005, 05:35 PM
Wait, I thought they had a Prime Minister and a President...

Are you unfamiliar with the term "Iraqi provisional government"?

Main Entry: pro·vi·sion·al
Pronunciation: pr&-'vizh-n&l, -'vi-zh&-n&l
Function: adjective
: serving for the time being, TEMPORARY

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 05:37 PM
Are you unfamiliar with the term "Iraqi provisional government"?

Main Entry: pro·vi·sion·al
Pronunciation: pr&-'vizh-n&l, -'vi-zh&-n&l
Function: adjective
: serving for the time being, TEMPORARY

Wait, you said they did not have an existing government...

Now you are adding they do but it's temporary? So the martial law is necessary because of the temporary nature of the government and not because of the insurgency and violence? :hmmm:

Cochise
01-30-2005, 05:54 PM
Wait, you said they did not have an existing government...

Now you are adding they do but it's temporary? So the martial law is necessary because of the temporary nature of the government and not because of the insurgency and violence? :hmmm:

"But how was the play?"

You know exactly what I'm talking about. There is a temporary but not permanent government in place. There is no Constitution yet and no one selected to serve in the government. So, other than martial law, can you provide some sort of term or description of what kind of situation could exist other than anarchy, and explain why Iraq currently qualifies as whatever your meme-cracy is?

Cochise
01-30-2005, 06:06 PM
And may I add, that frankly I find it downright disturbing that even Kofi Annan was able to muster some kind of positive statement with regard to the elections, elections resulting from a war he said was 'illegal', along with just about everyone else on earth, except you and John Kerry.

I think it's very telling that you feel the need to take to the internet and begin an offensive to downplay minimize the prospect of people getting to vote who haven't been able to do so in 50 years.

You are one sad human being. I geniunely pity you.

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 06:11 PM
And may I add, that frankly I find it downright disturbing that even Kofi Annan was able to muster some kind of positive statement with regard to the elections, elections resulting from a war he said was 'illegal', along with just about everyone else on earth, except you and John Kerry.

I think it's very telling that you feel the need to take to the internet and begin an offensive to downplay minimize the prospect of people getting to vote who haven't been able to do so in 50 years.

You are one sad human being. I geniunely pity you.

Again, I won't apologize for finding an election in a country held while occupied and under martial law, where a majority of the candidates are unannounced due to their safety concerns, and nearly half of the people who were to vote misunderstood exactly what and whom they are voting for to be less than a positive step.

If this scenario were played out in any unfriendly to the US or Communist country you would be disavowing and rightly so. But for some reason (political expediency) this scenario is being presented as a legitimate basis for a 'free election.' :shake:

CHIEF4EVER
01-30-2005, 06:15 PM
Again, I won't apologize for finding an election in a country held while occupied and under martial law, where a majority of the candidates are unannounced due to their safety concerns, and nearly half of the people who were to vote misunderstood exactly what and whom they are voting for to be less than a positive step.

If this scenario were played out in any unfriendly to the US or Communist country you would be disavowing and rightly so. But for some reason (political expediency) this scenario is being presented as a legitimate basis for a 'free election.' :shake:

Do you honestly believe half the nonsense you post? Howzabout post a link or 2 proving your assertions that the majority of the candidates were unannounced, and that half the people didn't know who they were voting for. Please post a credible link and not something like www.leftwingnutjob.com/liar/idiot (http://www.leftwingnutjob.com/liar/idiot).......

Cochise
01-30-2005, 06:19 PM
Again, I won't apologize for finding an election in a country held while occupied and under martial law, where a majority of the candidates are unannounced due to their safety concerns, and nearly half of the people who were to vote misunderstood exactly what and whom they are voting for to be less than a positive step.

I don't know who you think you're fooling. You disdainfully give a token "positive step" to give you license to spin it like nothing happened without sounding like one of the insurgents. It's bloody obvious to anyone with a pulse that you sit around hoping for bad news on Iraq for "political expediency".


If this scenario were played out in any unfriendly to the US or Communist country you would be disavowing and rightly so. But for some reason (political expediency) this scenario is being presented as a legitimate basis for a 'free election.' :shake:

Oh, I think it would depend on when the last time the country was ruled by a murderous dictator and how many decades it had been since there even was a free election.

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 06:38 PM
I don't know who you think you're fooling. You disdainfully give a token "positive step" to give you license to spin it like nothing happened without sounding like one of the insurgents. It's bloody obvious to anyone with a pulse that you sit around hoping for bad news on Iraq for "political expediency".



Oh, I think it would depend on when the last time the country was ruled by a murderous dictator and how many decades it had been since there even was a free election.

Look, something happened today that has the POTENTIAL of being a good first step...

but the way this administration has botched the post-war I think not going overboard on the meaning (pro or con) of today is a prudent reaction.

Afterall, who can forget

http://daily.greencine.com/archives/mission-accomplished.jpg

BigMeatballDave
01-30-2005, 06:57 PM
And may I add, that frankly I find it downright disturbing that even Kofi Annan was able to muster some kind of positive statement with regard to the elections, elections resulting from a war he said was 'illegal', along with just about everyone else on earth, except you and John Kerry.

I think it's very telling that you feel the need to take to the internet and begin an offensive to downplay minimize the prospect of people getting to vote who haven't been able to do so in 50 years.

You are one sad human being. I geniunely pity you.She's just a bitter hateful bitch. Lucifer has a place for her in hell. I truely hope that when its time for her to leave this planet, she'll die a painful death with a flesh-eating virus on her genitals...

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 06:57 PM
Do you honestly believe half the nonsense you post? Howzabout post a link or 2 proving your assertions that the majority of the candidates were unannounced, and that half the people didn't know who they were voting for. Please post a credible link and not something like www.leftwingnutjob.com/liar/idiot (http://www.leftwingnutjob.com/liar/idiot).......

Howzabout ENTIRE articles with links and the points you questioned underlined for your convenience... :hmmm:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-iraqelex19jan19,1,5198405.story?coll=la-iraq-complete&ctrack=1&cset=true

Slates Still Blank for Iraqi Voters
Amid jumble of similar pitches and anonymous contenders, citizens are likely to fall back on ethnic and religious affinities in selecting.

By Edmund Sanders, Times Staff Writer


BAGHDAD — Less than two weeks before the Jan. 30 vote, Iraqis' frustration is rising as they prepare for the most important election of their lives amid a climate of fear, insecurity and scant information.

There have been no public debates or voter fact booklets to help citizens wade through the 111 slates offering candidates for a transitional national assembly, which will write the country's constitution. Iraqis still don't know where they will vote, what the ballots will look like or, because of assassination fears, the names of 7,400 candidates.

"How can we vote for people when we don't even know their names yet?" asked Heider Khalid, 21, a mathematics student at Baghdad University. "This is such a critical vote. We don't know nearly enough."

On Baghdad's busiest shopping street, laborer Abdallah Jasim scanned the hundreds of campaign posters vying for his attention. Slapped on fences, light poles and anything else that will stand still long enough, colorful banners spout slogans of unity and one-word platforms such as "Security," "Peace" or, in a sign of ongoing infrastructure problems, "Electricity."

It's a jumble of unfamiliar coalition names, symbols and three-digit numbers urging voters to remember a particular slate when they open their ballots on election day. Iraqis will select a single slate of ranked candidates, who will be allotted assembly seats based on how many votes the slate gets.

For Jasim, who hasn't decided which slate to support, the blizzard of posters and platitudes is of little help.

"We don't know who these people are," he said. "The posters offer nothing. We don't know what numbers represent which parties. There's a long list of promises, but who knows if they will keep them or not?"

In the absence of facts or aggressive campaigning, electoral experts predict that Iraqis will have little choice but to revert to religious affiliation or ethnicity when making a decision. Shiite Muslims will vote for Shiites, Kurds for Kurds. Members of Islam's Sunni branch, if they vote at all, will seek out a Sunni slate.

U.S. and Iraqi officials had long hoped to shift Iraq away from such sectarianism, fearing that long-simmering animosities would ignite a civil war. But so far, most slates have been unable or unwilling to communicate their positions beyond the religious or ethnic makeup of their candidates.

"Whenever there's a lack of information about the people and the parties, voters turn to the next-best thing, which is: 'This is somebody like me,' " said an election official with a nongovernmental organization in Baghdad, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "As much as Iraqis talk about unity, they still feel very strongly about who they are."

U.S. officials acknowledge that the campaign so far remains largely superficial.

"It's all apple pie and motherhood, and it sounds wonderful," said a senior U.S. Embassy official in Baghdad, who also requested anonymity. "One would like to have more campaigning and better information."

But given Iraq's security challenges, weak media and the population's lack of experience with elections, he said, the current campaign is probably the best that can be achieved.

"I suspect a lot of Iraqis will know enough to feel they can make a choice," he added. "I don't think it's a totally blind thing. It's less adequate than one might desire. But it's certainly more than they had before."

A slate led by interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a Shiite who fought Saddam Hussein with backing from the CIA, has launched one of the most aggressive campaigns. Allawi is running television and newspaper advertisements, touting his experience and promising "strong leadership." Last month he vowed that candidates on his slate would campaign proudly and openly. "[The insurgents] are masked," he said. "We cannot be masked."

But his team, like nearly every other, has refused to publish its candidates' names. Electoral officials say the names will be released a few days before Jan. 30 or perhaps on election day.

The leading Shiite slate, called the United Iraqi Alliance, has based its campaign on one image: a picture of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the popular cleric who helped select the slate's candidates. "There's not much more to say," said Saad Jawad, an official working on the slate.

The bewildering array of vague, similar-sounding slate names is enough to confuse even experienced voters. There's the National Democratic Alliance, the National Democratic Union, the National United Coalition, the United Democratic Gathering and the United National Federal List, just to name a few.

In addition to confusion over how such lists differ politically, there's been almost no information about who is funding them.

There's speculation that firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr supports candidates on more than one list, but officially his office insists that he is boycotting the election. Iran and Syrian intelligence are said to be backing some lists, though no evidence has emerged to bolster such claims.

Women must make up one-fourth of the candidate lists, but little is known about the majority of females in the running. One slate has mounted an anti-American campaign even though its backers arrived in Iraq with U.S. troops.

"We are trying to shed light on some of the more shadowy slates, but this is a problem for both voters and the media," said Abdul Zahra Zaki, editor of Al Mada newspaper.

Zaki has assigned five reporters to cover the vote and devoted full pages and special sections to various campaigns so they can introduce themselves to readers.

But even his reporters have been unable to identify all the candidates and backers of the leading slates. It's easy to see why voters are tempted to rely on ethnicity or personal contacts to navigate the field.

Baghdad resident Ashur Sliwa, a 22-year-old Christian, has tried to keep abreast of the various lists but acknowledged that he had learned little about their goals or platforms. So he was leaning toward voting for one of the Assyrian Christian slates.

"This is an opportunity for me to do something so my people can be represented in the government," Sliwa said.


http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/dec_2004/iraqis_dont_know_what_theyre_voting_for.html

Poll finds most Iraqis don't know what they're voting for

Poll finds most Iraqis plan to vote, many optimistic about the future
BY WARREN P. STROBEL
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Wed, Dec. 22, 2004

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Nearly three-quarters of Iraqis say they "strongly intend" to vote in next month's pivotal elections, and a small majority believe the country is headed in the right direction, according to a major new poll of Iraqi attitudes.

The poll of nearly 2,200 people across most of Iraq found a resilient citizenry modestly hopeful that the Jan. 30 elections will improve life. Iraqis said pocketbook issues such as unemployment and health care are more pressing than the bloody insurgency that claims Iraqi and U.S. lives virtually every day.

But the poll by the International Republican Institute, to be released Thursday, also uncovered worrisome signs for the elections.

Significantly fewer Iraqis living in predominantly Sunni Muslim areas said they intend to vote. The finding underlines growing concern that the elections will be seen as legitimate by Iraq's majority Shiite Muslims but rejected by minority Sunnis, who monopolized political power under dictator Saddam Hussein.

The poll didn't include the cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul, which have been centers of the insurgency. But 36 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Sunni Muslims and 60 percent as Shiites, roughly in line with Iraq's religious make-up.

More than 41 percent of the Iraqis polled mistakenly believe they'll be voting for a president. Less than 29 percent responded correctly that the main election is for a transitional national assembly, or parliament.

President Bush is counting on the elections to turn the corner in Iraq, where the insurgency has killed more than 1,300 U.S. soldiers and wounded thousands more. It has also bedeviled efforts to reconstruct and stabilize the country.

But senior U.S. officials increasingly acknowledge that the election will be messy at best, particularly in areas of Sunni resistance.

The International Republican Institute conducted the poll with face-to-face interviews by Iraqi surveyors. IRI is a U.S. government-funded nonprofit organization that promotes democracy worldwide. It's one of the few independent groups to conduct in-depth scientific polling in Iraq.

The poll, conducted Nov. 24 to Dec. 5, found improvements over the last two months in Iraqis' feelings about the country's direction and, to a lesser degree, about the interim Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

The survey was conducted after U.S. and Iraqi troops retook insurgent-held Fallujah, but before it became clear that the insurgency remains potent.

Nearly 54 percent said Iraq is generally headed in the right direction - compared with 42 percent in late September and early October - while 32 percent said it's headed in the wrong direction.

Of the optimists, more than 16 percent cited the coming election and 21 percent cited the toppling of Saddam's regime as the main reasons they thought the country was headed in the right direction. Of the pessimists, nearly 53 percent cited the poor security situation as the main reason for thinking Iraq is headed in the wrong direction.

More than 71 percent of those polled said they "strongly intend" to vote, and 67 percent said they believe Iraq will be ready to hold elections by the end of January, compared with 24 percent who said the country won't be ready.

"The Iraqis want to vote. They intend to participate in an election. . . . This is an important part of taking back control of their country," said John Anelli, the IRI's regional program director for Iraq.

However, in predominantly Sunni areas of Iraq, only about 20 percent said they "strongly intend" to vote, compared with more than 25 percent who said they don't plan to do so.

The percentage of those who believe Iraq is headed in the right direction would have been somewhat less if areas such as Mosul were included in the survey, IRI officials acknowledged.

Mosul, where an attack on an American base Tuesday killed 22 people, including 14 U.S. soldiers, is a once-stable northern city that's become a hotbed of insurgents. Pollsters couldn't go there for security reasons.

A State Department official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity this week, said special procedures will have to be implemented to allow voting in al Anbar province, which includes Fallujah and Ramadi. "I can't say what those will be," the official said.

The Jan. 30 elections will choose members of a 275-person transitional national assembly, whose primary task will be to write a new Iraqi constitution. Provincial councils also will be chosen.

On Iraqis' mistaken views of the elections, IRI's Anelli said that voter education efforts are increasing, adding, "There's a lot of work to be done there."

The poll also asked about Iraqis' views of some of the 107 coalitions, parties and individuals that will be on the ballot. That information, which IRI uses to help Iraqi political parties sharpen their messages, wasn't released.

The poll found nearly 50 percent of Iraqis said religion and government should be separate. Forty-two percent said religion "has a special role to play" in government, and of that smaller group, slightly less than half said either that the religious hierarchy has authority over political affairs or that supreme religious leaders and political leaders are the same.

But by a margin of 52 percent to 20 percent, Iraqis said they preferred a faith-based party to a secular party.

© 2004, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

Cochise
01-30-2005, 06:58 PM
She's just a bitter hateful bitch. Lucifer has a place for her in hell. I truely hope that when its time for her to leave this planet, she'll die a painful death with a flesh-eating virus on her genitals...

I don't want her to die, I just wish she would STFU and quit cheering for the terrorists.

BigMeatballDave
01-30-2005, 07:01 PM
I don't want her to die, I just wish she would STFU and quit cheering for the terrorists.Neither do I. I said, 'when its her time'...

mlyonsd
01-30-2005, 07:42 PM
It was a step, period. Whether it will be positive or negative, authentic democracy or ceremonial symbolism is too soon to tell.

Remember, at one time we thought firing all of SH's army was going to be a positive first step...

So answer me this, if a democracy did materialize in Iraq would that be a good thing for America's interests?

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 07:59 PM
So answer me this, if a democracy did materialize in Iraq would that be a good thing for America's interests?

Could be, yes and/or no. I guess that depends on if they are pro-American or not. Certainly Sistani's crowd (the ones Iran encouraged Iraqis to vote for) might not be...

thus, the principle of democracy spreading would be as Martha says 'a good thing' but the reality of it might NOT be.

Sorry if I'm not in a yes or no mood. Clearly, I understand this is not a duality issue.

KCWolfman
01-30-2005, 08:08 PM
I said two days ago I'm giving the honeymoon period 3 months and 6 months for hell to break loose...

I guess that would be sometime in August if that period passes and my hunch is wrong.
Right :denise:

stevieray
01-30-2005, 08:23 PM
Watching a family member being thrown into a woodchipper feet first is always better than implementing and exercising the right to vote.

The people in Iraq have shown conviction and courage that most on this board will ever know or experience, and any attempt to downplay that is selfish and self serving.

nothing more. nothing less.

Joe Seahawk
01-30-2005, 08:28 PM
I came across this at Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com)

A reader pointed out this thread at Democratic Underground, where the innermost core of the Democratic Party is on display. Some of the posters, like the one who started the thread, are over the top:
All the media keeps talking about is how happy the Iraqis are, how high turnout was, and how "freedom" has spread to Iraq. I had to turn off CNN because they kept focusing on the so-called "voters" and barely mentioned the resistance movements at all. Where are the freedom fighters today? Are their voices silenced because some American puppets cast a few ballots?
I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this "democracy" bullshit.

That's the American left in its natural habitat. At least one poster, though, had some sensible thoughts about the future of the Democratic Party:

If you want to cheer on a bunch zealots who stone gays and beat women or power-mad fascists, then go over to Pat Robertson's or the neo-Nazi's website. It's that kind of anti-democratic Democratic thinking that is turning the DNC into the minority party everywhere.
If what happened today in Iraq is screwing up the world, then we've got to figure out how to screw it up faster. Maybe if we could screw up mainland "company town" China their workers could have real unions and be able to bargin for better conditions. Let's screw up Iran next. After their wars women are enough of a majority there they might could elect some feminists.

Why does Bush say he wants to spread freedom around the world? If that's what American's want to here, then let's get out in front of it and complain from the cutting edge that the conservatives are too slow. Tell people that if they want to make sure its done right then who better than the party of Jefferson and Wilson and Roosevelt.

This short-sighted "the enemy of my political oponent is my friend" obsession is not only going to alienate voters, it's going to destroy an otherwise great opportunity to spread democracy around the world.

It's not enough to say that Bush's inaugural speech sounded pretty but he doesn't mean it, you have to follow it up by saying "BUT WE DO, we have a track record of 2 centuries of success, and if you give us a chance we'll show you again." How many people are going to be inspired by following it up with "and we'll protect your Social Security better?" Deep down people need to be a part of something greater than themselves. Maybe "fighting to blow up hopeful voters" seems great to a few people, but "fighting to make sure the bravery of hopeful voters is not wasted or betrayed" sounds better to me. I'll bet it sounds better to a lot of swing voters too.

As far as people "betraying their country" by wanting to vote... How the (&@(#& is that kind of nationalist thinking progressive?

But in the inner precincts of today's Democratic Party, that guy is in the minority.

alanm
01-30-2005, 08:55 PM
Could be, yes and/or no. I guess that depends on if they are pro-American or not. Certainly Sistani's crowd (the ones Iran encouraged Iraqis to vote for) might not be...

thus, the principle of democracy spreading would be as Martha says 'a good thing' but the reality of it might NOT be.

Sorry if I'm not in a yes or no mood. Clearly, I understand this is not a duality issue.
And it may or may not be partly cloudy tomorrow. :)

Mosbonian
01-30-2005, 09:04 PM
Merely giving people the ACT of voting means NOTHING if there is not the stability in place to prevent the collapse of the country into a war within itself.

I wonder if there was anyone being just as pessimistic anywhere in the world when there was this small little start-up country that had just gotten itself out from under the rule of another tyrant just a little over a couple of hundred years ago......

Freedom comes with a cost...and is never easy. There will always be strife...those who will try to thwart freedom for their own personal gain. If you or anyone truly believed that the infighting would stop once democratic elections were held, then you haven't studied the history of the Middle East.

Instead of being cynical and pessimistic, standing by and just waiting for something bad to happen, we should all be happy that for the first time in a very long time, people truly got to vote in Iraq without the ballot being pre-marked for them.

mmaddog
*******

RINGLEADER
01-30-2005, 09:22 PM
After the presentation of the 'spontaneous' fall of the Saddam Hussein statue, please forgive our cautious and wait and see attitude...
:hmmm:


I didn't know comparing Iraq (where we defeated the incumbant government, captured and killed its leaders, handed the government over to its people and set the conditions to allow its people to vote for their own leaders) to Vietnam (where none of these things happened) was an example of being "cautious" or taking a "wait and see attitude".

RINGLEADER
01-30-2005, 09:25 PM
I said two days ago I'm giving the honeymoon period 3 months and 6 months for hell to break loose...

I guess that would be sometime in August if that period passes and my hunch is wrong.


So predicting the date that "all hell will break loose" is an example of having a "wait and see attitude"? Face it, you'll hate it if Iraq turns into a functioning democracy because the results will benefit not only American interests and our overall goals in the War on Terror, but could possible innure to Bush and the GOP.

RINGLEADER
01-30-2005, 09:32 PM
Nightmare? :hmmm: I expectedsome people to vote today and that no matter what the number it would be called a success.

It would be called a success because it was. Read the home pages of the main cable news sites...everyone is saying turnout exceeded expectations.

Nevermind the entire country had to be under martial law for a 'free election'...

So? No one said bringing democracy to Iraq would be fast and easy. Would you rather they rescinded martial law so the terrorists could be more effective?

and never mind one of the largest populations did not participate.

You just couldn't resist could you? I predict that this will be the liberal talking point today and you fall in line. Maybe you can explain how a portion of 20% of the country's decision not to participate invalidates or in any way demeans the other 80% who DID participate. This argument is just stupid.

And never mind 40% of those who were going to vote thought they would be picking a president.

Again, a petty argument that you can't support with fact.

Today will be seen as a success...the long term implications a secondary notion.[/QUOTE]

It's sad that you have no concept what actually occured today.

RINGLEADER
01-30-2005, 09:35 PM
It was a step, period. Whether it will be positive or negative, authentic democracy or ceremonial symbolism is too soon to tell.

Remember, at one time we thought firing all of SH's army was going to be a positive first step...


No, leaving the same army that subjegated 80% of the country for decades would have made all the sense in the world. If you wanted a real civil war in Iraq all you would have had to do is keep the same people in place.

RINGLEADER
01-30-2005, 09:39 PM
Yes, elections taken in the absence of martial law and occupation...indeed. But neither was the case here. And because 75% of the ballot and the parties were unknown to the voters because of 'security' concerns then you have the spectacle of people voting just to vote and not knowing who or why.

Do you think this sort of acting out of principle will carry frustrated and angry people for long? Meaning, when the novelty of the act of voting wears off and little, if anything, has changed how long will that act of voting satisfy their much encouraged need to be 'free?'

Might some of those people come to see a continued status quo and the democracy they've experienced to be one in the dreadful same?

Election not valid because of martial law. Election not valid because of occupation. Election not valid because of unknown parties. Election not valid because people weren't informed.

Very sad.

I can tell you one thing...there's no turning back for the Shia. There could be a civil war, but at least 80% of the country will be fighting for something other than a manufactured belief that they have the right to rule and rape and kill.

RINGLEADER
01-30-2005, 09:43 PM
Afterall, who can forget

http://daily.greencine.com/archives/mission-accomplished.jpg


I guess you watched his speech with the volume turned off. For the people that he addressed it very much was Mission Accomplished.

So what if it took them a year to figure out that's what it meant... ;)

You just seem very sour about today's developments D-Nise.

Joe Seahawk
01-30-2005, 09:49 PM
Denise, I would like a simple yes or no answer to this question:

Were the elections in Iraq a positive step?

Marada
01-30-2005, 09:59 PM
Could be, yes and/or no. I guess that depends on if they are pro-American or not. Certainly Sistani's crowd (the ones Iran encouraged Iraqis to vote for) might not be...

thus, the principle of democracy spreading would be as Martha says 'a good thing' but the reality of it might NOT be.

Sorry if I'm not in a yes or no mood. Clearly, I understand this is not a duality issue.


Ok, here it is plain, simple and direct. From this point on what exactly would you do? Leave Iraq and pull our troops home? What would your foreign policy be? Give me solutions.

RINGLEADER
01-30-2005, 10:02 PM
Face it, nothing will appeal to D-Nise and her like. If there is a representative democracy that functions great and is a friend to the US they'll still find some BS story to hang their hat on to try and diminish what has occured.

You get a better idea of this mindset when you read what the boys and girls at DemocratsUnderground are saying...this particular thread is fun because they're pissed off that so many Iraqis voted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1196550

beavis
01-30-2005, 10:16 PM
but the way this administration has botched the post-war I think not going overboard on the meaning (pro or con) of today is a prudent reaction.
Obviously. It's not like anything happened today. :rolleyes:

KCWolfman
01-30-2005, 10:17 PM
Face it, nothing will appeal to D-Nise and her like. If there is a representative democracy that functions great and is a friend to the US they'll still find some BS story to hang their hat on to try and diminish what has occured.

You get a better idea of this mindset when you read what the boys and girls at DemocratsUnderground are saying...this particular thread is fun because they're pissed off that so many Iraqis voted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1196550
You know, reading crap like this makes me realize that some people are so full of self import that they would hope they are right and Iraqi fall before they would admit they are wrong.

The world is full of sick people

Amnorix
01-30-2005, 10:48 PM
She's just a bitter hateful bitch. Lucifer has a place for her in hell. I truely hope that when its time for her to leave this planet, she'll die a painful death with a flesh-eating virus on her genitals...

Are you proud of posts like this one? Just curious. :shrug:

Amnorix
01-30-2005, 10:55 PM
Denise, I would like a simple yes or no answer to this question:

Were the elections in Iraq a positive step?

Not directed at me, but I've never been shy.

Today was a positive step. Whether it's a significant step on the road to an independent, stable Iraq under a reasonable form of government or not is what remains to be seen. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Not to go overboard with Vietnam comparisons, but national elections were held in South Vietnam in the late 60s as well. Ultimately, they were not significant in altering the developments that were to follow.

Cochise
01-30-2005, 11:00 PM
All the media keeps talking about is how happy the Iraqis are, how high turnout was, and how "freedom" has spread to Iraq. I had to turn off CNN because they kept focusing on the so-called "voters" and barely mentioned the resistance movements at all. Where are the freedom fighters today? Are their voices silenced because some American puppets cast a few ballots?

I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this "democracy" bullshit.


And that, my friends, is why this matters.

Cochise
01-30-2005, 11:05 PM
Not directed at me, but I've never been shy.

Today was a positive step. Whether it's a significant step on the road to an independent, stable Iraq under a reasonable form of government or not is what remains to be seen. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Not to go overboard with Vietnam comparisons, but national elections were held in South Vietnam in the late 60s as well. Ultimately, they were not significant in altering the developments that were to follow.

Yeah, there is still a lot of work left to be done. But this is definitely a good and historic day. I have to think that people in places like Iran have to be looking over the border thinking "hey, why can't we do this here?" That is, if al jazeera even told them there were elections happening.

Maybe this will spread through the region, I hope that is the case. Then we could be looking back many years from now at today as a day like the fall of the Soviet Union or something.

Joe Seahawk
01-30-2005, 11:13 PM
Yeah, there is still a lot of work left to be done. But this is definitely a good and historic day. I have to think that people in places like Iran have to be looking over the border thinking "hey, why can't we do this here?" That is, if al jazeera even told them there were elections happening.

Maybe this will spread through the region, I hope that is the case. Then we could be looking back many years from now at today as a day like the fall of the Soviet Union or something.

Exactly, I also think one of the most important factors is that this will boost the morale of the millions that voted and empower them to help squish the insurgents.. Iraqi citizens should be very proud of themselves to show the bravery to show up at the polls :thumb: :holdman: ..

Cochise
01-30-2005, 11:18 PM
Exactly, I also think one of the most important factors is that this will boost the morale of the millions that voted and empower them to help squish the insurgents.. Iraqi citizens should be very proud of themselves to show the bravery to show up at the polls :thumb: :holdman: ..

The insurgents take a very serious blow today, IMO.

They failed to turn the elections into bloodbaths like they were making noise about doing. And now there was an election that went better than expected and from all accounts was pretty much a national day of celebration.

The people of Iraq aren't going to be so passive with them anymore, I think. This isn't some occupying force being attacked. Pretty soon it's going to be their government, the one that they enacted, and if they believe Democracy is a better way of life then they'll be behind it.

memyselfI
01-31-2005, 08:01 AM
It would be called a success because it was. Read the home pages of the main cable news sites...everyone is saying turnout exceeded expectations.



So? No one said bringing democracy to Iraq would be fast and easy. Would you rather they rescinded martial law so the terrorists could be more effective?



You just couldn't resist could you? I predict that this will be the liberal talking point today and you fall in line. Maybe you can explain how a portion of 20% of the country's decision not to participate invalidates or in any way demeans the other 80% who DID participate. This argument is just stupid.



Again, a petty argument that you can't support with fact.

Today will be seen as a success...the long term implications a secondary notion.


Yes, and around "Mission Accomplished" proclaimation time 'EVERYBODY' was claiming the US mission in Iraq was a success...

like I said before, the US is great at staging the grand event. It's the aftermath they've botched. Let's see (or rather some of us will wait and see) how this plays out before we claim staging, supporting, organizing, etc. an election equates to democratic success.

I will grant you that if democracy simply means stuffing paper in a box without anything meaningful to back it up, then YES it was a 'success'. But the real work of the DEMOCRACY they are trying to establish comes NOW.

I'll also grant you that symbolism of the election IS a success...but it's too early to say that the process of voting for a democracy will actually amount TO a democracy.

People claiming this massive 'victory' seem to be saying the game is over in the first freakin inning...

or rather "mission accomplished."

mlyonsd
01-31-2005, 08:09 AM
Yes, and around "Mission Accomplished" proclaimation time 'EVERYBODY' was claiming the US mission in Iraq was a success...

like I said before, the US is great at staging the grand event. It's the aftermath they've botched. Let's see (or rather some of us will wait and see) how this plays out before we claim staging an election equates to democratic success.

I will grant you that if democracy simply means stuffing paper in a box without anything meaningful to back it up, then YES it was a 'success'. But the real work of the DEMOCRACY they are trying to establish comes NOW.

I'll also grant you that symbolism of the election IS a success...but it's too early to say that the process of voting for a democracy will actually amount TO a democracy.

People claiming this massive 'victory' seem to be saying the game is over in the first freakin inning...

or rather "mission accomplished."

The obvious point you blatantly avoid is the turnout achieved when their lives were on the line. Iraqis risked their lives and turned out in greater numbers then even our elections when all one has to do here is put down a donut long enough to vote.

Granted it's just a first step. But for you not to acknowledge it as a positive one considering the fact that Iraqis seem to want to embrace democracy is just pure politics.

tiptap
01-31-2005, 08:39 AM
I will be very happy if Iraq finds success rooted in yesterdays elections.


But this thread is not an attempt to bolster that wish. It is simply a chance to make political hay from the comments of Democratic Politicos.

When Clinton moved militarily in Kosovo there were plenty of Republican voices claiming it was a purely political move to change the discussion away from his affair with Monica. There were plenty of cautious assessments that did not ring of resounding edorsements. This was the political hacks and they exist in the Democratic party as well. For these players it is only about the politics.

As a liberal, I don't listened to the rantings of those looking for only a political aspect of the events. The same political rantings go on from both parties political machines.

But since this section is for political rantings, you shouldn't expect that Democrats to be glowing in praise. Especially if the starter thread is preemptively targets all liberals as debase in their assessment, rather than guarded. I guess I find the personal comments of some, a view that is so vitriolic, as to be overly indulgent in wallowing in emotive hatred. Is it practice for how you would truly TREAT those who also feel passion for their position?

memyselfI
01-31-2005, 08:44 AM
The obvious point you blatantly avoid is the turnout achieved when their lives were on the line. Iraqis risked their lives and turned out in greater numbers then even our elections when all one has to do here is put down a donut long enough to vote.

Granted it's just a first step. But for you not to acknowledge it as a positive one considering the fact that Iraqis seem to want to embrace democracy is just pure politics.

It's a first step. On that we agree.

It's the EMOTIONAL NEED to determine and label the step positive OR negative is where we disagree.

I'm saying I feel no emotional attachment to the step or process and thus I'll wait and see what actually transpires from that first step before I label the event positive or negative.

LamarR Huunt
01-31-2005, 08:46 AM
... Is it practice for how you would truly TREAT those who also feel passion for their position?

Disrespect begats disrespect...neither side seems willing to "take the high road."

Chief Henry
01-31-2005, 08:47 AM
To see women voting...thats a Good thing.

To see womens FACES...thats a Good thing.

To see women and men dancing...thats a Good thing.

To read this whole thread and to expect something positive out of the LWNJ is also a futile excercise in
patience.

Freedom is gaining strength and speed in the middle
east. I wonder if the Iraqi's would have been able to if AL Gore would have won? I wonder if the Iraq's would have been able to have voted if John Kerry would have won?

We are fortunate to watch the formation of a new country.

BigMeatballDave
01-31-2005, 12:53 PM
Are you proud of posts like this one? Just curious. :shrug:I'm proud I don't share her sickening leftist mentality...