0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 12:40 pm
You're living in a fantasy world, Ican....

It must be fun in happy land. Tell me, do you think the upcoming election will put an end to the insurgency in Iraq in any fashion?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 12:47 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You're living in a fantasy world, Ican....

It must be fun in happy land. Tell me, do you think the upcoming election will put an end to the insurgency in Iraq in any fashion?

Cycloptichorn


Do you believe that not having the election will put an end to it?

The elections will enable a centralized Iraqi government to start dealing with the insurgency.

I hope more voters in Iraq are as gung-ho as Icann is and less apathetic like you think they will be.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 12:50 pm
Just think, after the 30th Iraq willl be just another tourist trap...... like Afghanistan only with some streets and stuff .... then here comes Burger King and Mickey d's and that will attract Dave's pork barbcue heaven..... line dancing Friday after church then Levisand funny cheese hats and t-shirts that say 'I'm with stupid----->' and and and WAYNE NEWTON!!!!!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 12:53 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You're living in a fantasy world, Ican....It must be fun in happy land. Tell me, do you think the upcoming election will put an end to the insurgency in Iraq in any fashion? Cycloptichorn

It's your fantasy world versus my day dream. I'm betting on my day dream. Smile

Of course the election will not put an end to insurgency!

That won't happen. Ever!

What will happen is that four years after the Iraqis adopt their new Constitution, then elect their president and the new members of their legislature and appoint their judges, the insurgency will become as manageable as is crime in the US.

You can count on it![/b]
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 12:54 pm
It's not that I think the voters will be apathetic; it's more that I don't think the insurgents will be apathetic. And there is an amazing potential for trouble on this day in question.

Do I think not having the election will put an end to the insurgency? No! I think we're f*cked no matter what we do. Seriously. Not trying to be a pessimist; but we've gone too far down the wrong road to get back on the right track without gallons of blood, ours and theirs.

Remember; the baseline state is for failure. We have to make a large number of factors come into line to achieve success. We don't seem to be doing that in any way. This election is just window dressing; when the names of the vast majority of candidates are not even listed on the rolls, it's not a democratic election. Period. Sure, we can force one through, but it won't have any meaning.

Holding the election may (I believe, anyways) have much more damage in the long run than not holding it; if the Iraqi people see their first attempt at democracy as a failure b/c there are too many issues of illegitimacy/terrorism/whatever, then support for the US could vanish overnight in the region. Not a good outcome.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 12:57 pm
No, you can't count on it!

Putting things in pretty colors doesn't help your point any, btw....


There is absolutely zero evidence that what you are dreaming about will happen, Ican. Nothing is even pointing that way.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 12:59 pm
I see the elections as another step in the right direction towards a free Iraq. The current government has been making great strides towards that end despite the insurgency and an elected government will only continue the creep towards freedom.

There are a limited supply of insurgents as most Iraqi's want the freedom they had been promised. They are willing to fight and die for it. That's why the Iraqi army and police force continues growing despite the near daily stories of death.

Iraqi's want their freedom.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 01:06 pm
Yes, I understand that Iraqis want their freedom.

But a failed election (remember that 1/2 of all Iraqis live in areas that have been declared not safe to go vote in) shows them that our way of freedom cannot work for them. We cannot afford to have this happen and hope to maintain control of the hearts and minds of Iraqis.

What's going to happen if the election fails to produce? And not just for the president; there are hundreds of positions being filled. How many of these will be contested? How many polling sites will be blown up? If you don't think that's going to happen, you're out of your mind! How much of that has to happen before the results of the elections are invalid?

The arbitraty Jan. 30th date of the election was idiotic to begin with, and decided upon by the same group of dunces who have mis-managed Iraq financially, socially, and militarily since the beginning of this war. It would have been far better to wait until the situation had either calmed down, or reached and moved past a head, before trying to hold a democratic election in the middle of a war zone.

Too many ifs, too many things can go wrong for anyone to be confident about the outcome of the election.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 01:10 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I see the elections as another step in the right direction towards a free Iraq. The current government has been making great strides towards that end despite the insurgency and an elected government will only continue the creep towards freedom.

There are a limited supply of insurgents as most Iraqi's want the freedom they had been promised. They are willing to fight and die for it. That's why the Iraqi army and police force continues growing despite the near daily stories of death.

Iraqi's want their freedom.


Incredible Rolling Eyes who do you think the insurgents are? the freaking French Foreign freakinng Legion?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 01:12 pm
You have elections with the polling places and candidates you have, not the ones you want.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 01:14 pm
No, dummy, they're terrorists! Because the great leader told them that Iraq is the front on the war on terror, and we all know that Bush simply can't lie, a man as noble as he is incapable of it.

/sarcasm

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 01:17 pm
Quote:
You have elections with the polling places and nominees you have, not the ones you want.


You've gotta be sh*tting me.

It was crappy when Rumsfeld said it, and your adaptation has hardly improved.

This is one of the dumbest things you've ever written.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 01:25 pm
Suppose they gavean election and no one came. Would that mean that the Iraqis that live and vote outside of Iraq would rule the elections?

Quote:
Falling like Flies
53 Iraqi Parties Withdraw from Elections

Xinhuanet reports that:



' According to the Al Furat newspaper, 53 political parties and organizations as well as 30 individuals have asked their names to be dropped from the election lists in a bid to show their rejection of elections under US occupation. '



There had been 105 parties and individuals, and 6 coalitions, participating in the elections. There were only about 30 individuals running as independents, and it appears that they have all now withdrawn. And half of the registered parties have also withdrawn, if al-Furat is correct. The individuals mostly never had a chance, since voters only get one vote, and few would have wasted it on a single individual when they could vote for an entire party list. So their withdrawal may in part simply reflect a realistic assessment of their chances. But parties at least had the potential of gaining a seat or a few seats, and their withdrawals are serious.

The same news service says that among those withdrawing is The Patriotic Front for Iraqi Tribes, a Sunni Arab party. The party, which groups 40 major tribes, said that the security situation had to improve before elections could be held. Xinhuanet said that it was also protesting the arrest of Shaikh Hasan Zaidan Khalaf al-Lahibi last week. He plays a role in uniting the tribes, and has his own party.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat says that, as well, Shaikh Hasan's own party, the National Front for Iraqi Unity, has withdrawn from the election to protest his recent arrest. (This party is no. 101 on the list given here Wednesday of slates). At the Babil Hotel in Baghdad, a party official announcing the withdrawal complained that the Americans seemed uninterested in protecting candidates, and complained that the security situation made elections difficult at this time.

Al-Zaman reports that the large and powerful Dulaim tribe of Western Iraq has issued a statement condemning the killing by US troops of one of its chiefs, Shaikh Abd al-Razzaq Inad Mu'jal al-Ka'ud, last week, as well as the extensive destruction of life and property that has accompanied the US occupation in their areas. The Dulaim say that they want the United Nations to establish a fund to recompense them for their massive losses. They called for an immediate restoration of the pre-invasion Iraqi army and other security agencies. They complained that lack of security in Sunni Arab areas made voting out of the question, and said that anyway many parties were counterfeiting ballots. Of all the enemies you could have in Iraq, I would have advised the Americans not to make one of the Dulaim.

As Trudy Rubin reports from Amman, some of the Sunni Arab parties' reluctance to participate may come from foreboding of Shiite victory, something to which many Sunni Arabs have not reconciled themselves.

Minister of State Adnan Janabi, a key aide of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, has resigned to protest being detained and handcuffed by US troops at a checkpoint outside the Green Zone, where government offices and the US embassy are barricaded. It was revealed last week that Janabi was giving envelopes with $100 in them to journalists who covered the press conferences of the Iraqi National Accord, a party mainly made up of ex-Baathists that probably has little popularity in Iraq.

Wire services report 11 dead in Iraq violence, including two car bombings and a gun battle in Mosul, the assassination of the deputy police chief of Baquba, the burning of four bank guards and the shooting of a policeman in Baghdad.

Al-Hayat reports that the Shaikh al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, issued a call for Sunnis and Shiites both to participate actively in the January 30 elections. Al-Azhar University it the most prestigious Sunni seminary in the world, and its rector is widely respected. He is sometimes accused, however, of bending to government pressure, and his ruling of this week must be scene in this light.

Even as the NYT's Christine Hauser praised the courage of Iraqi electoral workers, the newspaper's editors published an editorial on Wednesday calling for the postponement of the elections.

Every path forward has costs. Postponing the elections leaves in place the increasingly unpopular Allawi interim government, populated by old CIA assets, which destroyed its credibility by acting as a cheering section for the US destruction of Fallujah. It could be argued that the Sunni Arab guerrilla war benefits from the perceived illegitimacy of the Allawi government, which has disappointed those who hoped it might restore order.

Postponement would risk radicalizing Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most respected leader in Iraq, who has already once demonstrated his willingness to call the faithful into the streets in the hundreds of thousands if he did not get his way on one person, one vote elections on a fast timetable. A postponement without his acquiescence would be dangerous in the extreme.

On the other hand, the credibility of elections in which the candidates have to remain anonymous to avoid being killed, and in which Sunni Arab candidates are increasingly unavailable, and in which half the lists have rushed to withdraw, is also very low. The credibility of the elections is not improved by the US killing or detaining and humiliating the party and clan leaders among the Sunnis who had still been willing to contest them, helping to drive them out of the race.

As usual in Bush's Iraq, there are no good options here because the administration's prior bad decisions have poisoned the most promising wells for the future.
Thu, Jan 13, 2005 1:34
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 02:08 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's not that I think the voters will be apathetic; it's more that I don't think the insurgents will be apathetic. And there is an amazing potential for trouble on this day in question. ...
This election is just window dressing; when the names of the vast majority of candidates are not even listed on the rolls, it's not a democratic election. Period. Sure, we can force one through, but it won't have any meaning. Cycloptichorn


Listen up for God's sake! This election is about electing representatives to the Iraqi equivalent to our Constitutional Convention. This convention once started cannot be expected to be accomplished over a weekend!

The Second Continental Congress resolved June 11, 1776 to draw up a formal confederation between the colonies. The plan for such was adopted November 15, 1777. Except for Maryland (never signed it), the signing of the Articles of Confederation was completed in 1779. "Although the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation would help lead to disorder in the 1780s, as a whole, the Articles provided a foundation that was strong enough to keep the country united through the American Revolution."

In May 1787--yes, 1787--four months of impassioned debate were commenced. "The convention was held in secret with sentries at the door"--secret with sentries at the door Shocked The new national government began operation March 4, 1789 after 11 states adopted it. By May 1790 all 13 states had ratified it. But they were not yet finished. It wasn't until 1791 that the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) were finally adopted.

My God, what a bunch of pokey joes? It took them 14 years, 1777 until 1791, to begin to get our government right! The 27th--yes 27th-- Amendment was part of the proposed Bill of Rights submitted September 27, 1789 for adoption by the states. It wasn't adopted until May 7, 1992. by the vote of Michigan. Politically we Americans aren't exactly speed demons! Are we?

The Iraqis will move a lot faster: 4 instead of 11 years to begin to get things right!

You can count on it!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 02:11 pm
The insurgents will never let that happen. Once again, you're living in a fantasy world.

The whole area is on the edge of a shia-shiite war. This election will only serve to highlight the tensions between the two groups... the American revolution and our current situation have nothing to do with each other at all. It's surprising that someone of your intelligence would even bring it up.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 02:17 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Listen up for God's sake! This election is about electing representatives to the Iraqi equivalent to our Constitutional Convention. This convention once started cannot be expected to be accomplished over a weekend!


Voters will choose 275 members of a national assembly, one of whose main task will be to debate and approve a new constitution.

There will also be elections to 18 provincial assemblies as well as to the autonomous Kurdish parliament in the north.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 02:18 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The insurgents will never let that happen. Once again, you're living in a fantasy world.


"Famous last words!"

The insurgents cannot stop it! It will happen because the Iraqis will demand it happen!

You can count on it!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 02:21 pm
No, the Americans have demanded that it will happen. Crucial difference.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 02:28 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, the Americans have demanded that it will happen. Crucial difference. Cycloptichorn

Yes Americans have demanded that it will happen. It will happen because the Iraqis will demand it happen! Yes, that is truly a crucial difference--a relevant crucial difference Very Happy

Me thinks you protest too much. Hmmmmm! Rolling Eyes I'm beginning to think you are terrified it will happen Shocked

You can count on it!
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 03:20 pm
Ican.........can I just say...........SmileSmileSmile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 08/17/2025 at 04:02:58