ican711nm wrote:revel wrote:
...
Your editing probably reveals how you arrive at your conclusions in general in this thread.
No! My editing reveals what I think is relevant to my post.
I arrive at my conclusions by rationally applying facts and logic to the analysis of the post I am responding to.
Your response to my post ignored my response and instead discussed your opinion of me. For me,
your opinion of me possesses zero weight. However, also for me, your opinions of what I post always possess more than zero weight.
Every time you post, I start hearing the theme to twilight zone playing. You sound like George Bush when he starts trying to explain something.
Anon
Anon-Voter wrote:
...
Every time you post, I start hearing the theme to twilight zone playing. You sound like George Bush when he starts trying to explain something.
Anon
Your post discusses your opinion of me. For me,
your opinion of me possesses zero weight. However, also for me, your opinions of what I post always possess more than zero weight. The amount of weight I assign to your opinions (or anyone else's) of what I post depends on how well you explain why your opinion is what it is.
revel wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_election_fraud
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - An international assessment team on Thursday cited numerous violations and cases of fraud in Iraq's Dec. 15 parliamentary elections, but it did not question the final results.
The International Mission for Iraqi Elections, a 10-nation monitoring body led by Canada, recommended changes for future balloting but made no call for repeating any voting from the December election.
The results from the voting have not been announced, but are expected to show a large victory for Shiite parties. Sunni Arab leaders have denounced the voting, calling the results into question and urging a new vote.
Some of Iraq's 220,000 election workers were among those blamed for violating their code of conduct with "questionable or illegal practices," the report said.
Election officials received around 2,000 complaints that alleged ballot box stuffing and theft, tally sheet tampering, intimidation, violence, incorrect voter lists, ballot shortages, multiple voting, improper police and military conduct, campaigning within polling centers and violations of a pre-election ban on campaigning.
The report also said some Iraqi security forces voted on election day after casting ballots previously on an earlier day set aside for them.
Despite the problems, the mission said Iraqis should be commended for an election that operated smoothly under harsh circumstances.
"Despite these conditions, the people of Iraq have voted in numbers that would do credit to democracies in more settled parts of the world," the report said.
The mission gave no overall assessment on the likely integrity of the results, but said the elections' legal framework, institutions, and procedures were "designed to meet international standards."
The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, which oversaw the vote, investigated and resolved the most serious complaints, dismissing staff members or levying fines on those blamed for violations, the report said. Some violators were referred for criminal prosecution, it said.
The IECI also voided vote results from many polling stations where fraud was documented.
But the IECI did not have the means to investigate all complaints and did not probe "a large number." It also said additional fraud "in all probability" went undetected.
Haidar al-Obadi, senior adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, said the government would not comment because "elections are an independent issue."
But speaking as an official of a political bloc, al-Obadi said the report "confirms the fairness of the elections. This is the principle thing, which proves that the election was fair. This is important."
"There are irregularities in elections anywhere in the world, but the irregularities that occurred in our election were individual violations and individual violations will not have any effect," he said. "But unfortunately there are some political blocs that slandered the process. This is unacceptable and illegal. They tried to drag the country into conflicts."
Fair enough Ican, lets discuss the whole article rather than edited parts.
The mission gave credit for Iraqis showing up to vote in large numbers despite the ongoing violence. I agree. However, the mission gave no overall assessment of the Iraqi vote and said a large number of fraud went undected. It was a political party member who made the assesment the report confirms the fairness of the elections. Editing out portions which does not fit with your views don't make those portions go away.
In any event here is an update on the election results.
Quote:Iraqi Shias win election victory
Iraq's Shia-led United Iraqi Alliance has won the country's parliamentary elections, but failed to obtain an absolute majority.
The alliance received 128 seats out of 275, with Kurdish parties gaining 53 and the main Sunni Arab bloc 44.
The Shias will now be expected to form a coalition government with the other ethnic groups.
A number of Sunni politicians have alleged fraud, and international observers criticised irregularities.
source
Iraq's Shia-led United Iraqi Alliance has won the country's parliamentary elections, but failed to obtain an absolute majority.
The alliance took 128 of the 275 seats - 10 short of an outright majority. Kurdish parties have 53 seats and the main Sunni Arab bloc 44.
ELECTION RESULTS
United Iraqi Alliance: 128 seats
Kurdistan Alliance: 53
Iraqi Accord Front (Sunni): 44
Iraqi National List (secular): 25
Iraqi Front for National Dialogue (Sunni): 11
Other parties: 14
That will give the Sunni Arabs a bigger voice in the legislature than they had in the outgoing assembly.
The International Mission for Iraqi Elections (IMIE) found isolated instances of fraud but certified voting procedures as consistent with international standards and endorsed the election results. Under the final results, which do not include tallies from 227 ballot boxes set aside by the IECI after their own fraud investigation
Official Seats Summary (PDF)
revel wrote:
...
Fair enough Ican, lets discuss the whole article rather than edited parts.
The mission gave credit for Iraqis showing up to vote in large numbers despite the ongoing violence. I agree. However, the mission gave no overall assessment of the Iraqi vote and said a large number of fraud went undected. It was a political party member who made the assesment the report confirms the fairness of the elections. Editing out portions which does not fit with your views don't make those portions go away.
In any event here is an update on the election results.
Quote:Iraqi Shias win election victory
Iraq's Shia-led United Iraqi Alliance has won the country's parliamentary elections, but failed to obtain an absolute majority.
The alliance received 128 seats out of 275, with Kurdish parties gaining 53 and the main Sunni Arab bloc 44.
The Shias will now be expected to form a coalition government with the other ethnic groups.
A number of Sunni politicians have alleged fraud, and international observers criticised irregularities.
source
I repeat my previous response:
How about that!
My conclusion from the article is that despite many incidences of voter fraud and repeated death threats from Saddamists and al-Qaeda, the Iraqis made substantial progress toward establishing their democracy. I was pleasantly surprised that the election commission did not call for a re-vote.
What do you conclude from the article?
What is it in particular you wish to discuss further?
Newspaper Makes 'Right' Choice on Iraq
Newspaper Makes 'Right' Choice on Iraq
By Greg Mitchell, Editor
Editor and Publishers
January 19, 2006
Very few newspapers have ever come out for withdrawal from Iraq in their editorials. But this week a full and unconditional endorsement of Rep. John Murtha's withdrawal plan emerged from an unexpected source: a notably conservative daily controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife.
As regular readers of this column know, I embarked on a tireless (to some, tiresome) mission more than two years ago, encouraging newspaper editorial writers to endorse a phased U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, or at least kick around the idea. Since virtually no one took me up on it, I've had to repeat it every few months, as various "turning points" came and went, the American death toll passed 500, then 1000, then 2000, and numerous journalists were killed or kidnapped.
Nearly every major paper continued to ignore or oppose the idea, or even called for sending more troops. The Seattle Times and Minneapolis Star-Tribune were just about the only big-city exceptions.
Last November, after Rep. John Murtha's well-publicized call for a pullout, I tried again. Like most Democrats in Congress, many newspapers found some merit in Murtha's proposal, or at least defended him from those who charged the longtime Marine with being a coward (not exactly a risky choice). But in the end, almost none said: Yeah, let's start to withdraw, and soon. USA Today, for example, called his plea "understandable" but "misguided."
Now, this week, a full and unconditional endorsement of Murtha's notion has come from a completely unexpected source: the notably conservative Tribune-Review, which is based in Greensburg, Pa., but considers itself a full-fledged Pittsburgh newspaper. It's controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, one of the chief funders of conservative think-thanks and activist causes around the country.
Less than two months ago, the newspaper (daily circulation about 102,000), attacked Murtha's plan. Printed below is the text of the latest editorial, which was published on Tuesday. Perhaps a few other papers would now like to re-visit this subject, with the third anniversary of the start of the war approaching.
We didn't agree with Jack Murtha in November when he called for an immediate withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. The timing was not right. But the times have changed.
When the Pennsylvania congressman made his call, critical December parliamentary elections were ahead; cut-and-run talk was inappropriate.
But successful elections have passed. And contrary to what some may say, Iraqis are stepping up to the plate, as evidenced by the number dying in defense of their fledgling republic. Native Iraqi terrorists and those of the al-Qaida brand also are starting to battle each other.
There's a growing sense of self-determination, which is a critical trait on the road to democracy.
That said, the world situation has changed dramatically since November. The nuclear saber-rattling of neighboring Iran is heading for a showdown. To meet that threat should diplomacy fail, the United States must begin the six- to nine-month logistical process of drawing down its Iraqi force and repositioning it to respond, if need be, to the Iranian threat.
This is not retreat. This is not cut-and-run. This is a recognition of the reality in Iraq -- one that has evolved into an Iraqi problem that only the Iraqis now can solve -- and that the paramount world security threat now is Iran.
On CBS's "60 Minutes" Sunday night, Jack Murtha predicted the "vast majority" of U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year's end if not sooner. We hope he's right. The time has come.
*
UPDATE:
In response to the editorial, the Triibune Review published the following letter from a reader:
I was stunned to read that the Trib is calling for the beginning of a drawdown of troops from Iraq. However, I have to applaud the Trib for realizing that it is time to bring them home. I served with the Army in Vietnam for 14 months in 1967 and 1968, and regardless of what anyone says, Iraq is turning into another Vietnam: that is, a no-win situation.
Just as in Vietnam, the Iraqis wave to us during the day and shoot at us at night. Congressman John Murtha recognized this long ago, and his call for a withdrawal should be heeded. America has suffered enough dead and wounded.
Denis L. Andros
Greensburg
Thank you for the article, BBB. I just wanted to repeat the comment made by the Vietnam veteran. It shows real insight:
Quote:I served with the Army in Vietnam for 14 months in 1967 and 1968, and regardless of what anyone says, Iraq is turning into another Vietnam: that is, a no-win situation.
Just as in Vietnam, the Iraqis wave to us during the day and shoot at us at night. Congressman John Murtha recognized this long ago, and his call for a withdrawal should be heeded. America has suffered enough dead and wounded.
Denis L. Andros
Greensburg
The objective of the Vietnam war was prevention of North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam. That objective
was not achieved, because the American public in the case of this war
was not convinced long enough to not quit and run.
The objective of the Bosnia war was prevention of Serbia from conquering Bosnia. That objective
was achieved, because the American public in the case of this war
was convinced long enough not to quit and run.
The objective of the Kuwait war was prevention of Iraq from conquering Kuwait. That objective
was achieved, because the American public in the case of this war
was convinced long enough not to quit and run.
The present wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have a different objective than did either the Vietnam war, the Bosnia war, or the Kuwait war. The objective of these wars is to prevent Afghanistan and Iraq from being safe havens for terrorist groups to plot and initiate mass murders of civilians in the USA and other countries.
ican711nm wrote:Al-Qaeda declared war on the USA in 1996, 1998, and 2004. In Congress's Joint Resolution
Oct. 16, 2002 "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq," Congress declared two reasons for invading Iraq that have been proven independent, true, valid and individually sufficient reasons for invading Iraq (boldface numbers in the following quote were added by me).
Congress wrote:(10) Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Ican, there is nothing left to discuss. I just thought you pulled a cheap trick by your editing of the article. I am not suprised that they didn't call for a re-vote. Imagine the political fall out of such a move. No one is satisfied with the end results of this election.
Quote:While the negotiations began Friday night with a flurry of meetings among politicians, the parties also assessed whether they would accept the election results. Sunni, Kurdish and even Shiite politicians all said Friday that they might formally protest the vote count, which has been marred by accusations of fraud, leading to the rejection this week of somewhat less than 1 percent of the 11 million votes cast.
"The election results were not satisfactory at all," said Hussein Falluji, a member of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the leading coalition of Sunni Arab parties, which won 44 seats. "We expected more seats. When we took part in the political and electoral process, we thought that the process will be flexible and credible and won't be subjected to fraud. But that is what happened."
"We've lost eight seats in the process of counting the votes," said Ridha Jawad Taqi, a political officer for the Shiite alliance. "We will present a complaint tomorrow to demand another way of counting the votes. We want our seats back."
source
revel wrote:Ican, there is nothing left to discuss. I just thought you pulled a cheap trick by your editing of the article. I am not suprised that they didn't call for a re-vote. Imagine the political fall out of such a move. No one is satisfied with the end results of this election.
...
I'm guessing of course, but I bet that you object to
the way I "edited" (I call it
excerpted) a copy of your post and
not the fact that I "edited" a copy of your post.
Frequently, I use an ellipsis (i.e., ...) to delete from copies of posts that on which I
don't intend to comment. I did above. Sometimes I use boldface and/or color and/or increased size to emphasize that on which I
do intend to comment. However, in the case to which you objected, I
de-emphasized that on which I
didn't intend to comment.
One thing that was
not de-emphasized by me in the copy of your post was the fact that the election commission did not call for an Iraq re-vote. That fact continues to be a pleasant surprise to me as I've already indicated twice now by writing:
How about that! You will of course recall that was my only comment following my edit (i.e.,
excerpt) of a copy of your post.
I've provided you the above detailed explanation, so that you will understand why I continue to use these methods of focusing attention on parts of copies of that on which I intend to comment, and de-emphasizing parts of copies of that on which I don't intend to comment.
revel wrote:
Ican, there is nothing left to discuss. I just thought you pulled a cheap trick by your editing of the article. I am not suprised that they didn't call for a re-vote. Imagine the political fall out of such a move. No one is satisfied with the end results of this election.
...
I bet that the more honest the Iraq elections become, the more dissatisfied the Sunni's will become.
I agree with you about the probable political fall out of a re-vote! I expect that if there were a re-vote, the Sunni's would win
less and not more representation, and would
cry foul all the louder with even greater "political fallout" than is likely without a re-vote.
There goes that "Twilight Zone" theme again ...
Anon
ican wrote:The present wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have a different objective than did either the Vietnam war, the Bosnia war, or the Kuwait war. The objective of these wars is to prevent Afghanistan and Iraq from being safe havens for terrorist groups to plot and initiate mass murders of civilians in the USA and other countries.
How is success in the objective of preventing Afghanistan and Iraq from being safe havens for terrorist groups to plot and initiate mass murders of civilians in the USA and other countries going to be determined?
InfraBlue wrote:ican wrote:The present wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have a different objective than did either the Vietnam war, the Bosnia war, or the Kuwait war. The objective of these wars is to prevent Afghanistan and Iraq from being safe havens for terrorist groups to plot and initiate mass murders of civilians in the USA and other countries.
How is success in the objective of preventing Afghanistan and Iraq from being safe havens for terrorist groups to plot and initiate mass murders of civilians in the USA and other countries going to be determined?
When mass murder of Afghanistan and Iraq civilians is terminated,
and when the governments of each country decide they are able to secure their own democracies without USA military help,
and when the governments of each country ask the USA to withdraw its military from their countries.
Iraqi lives are so improved in every way by our invasion; I imagine they thank us everyday.
revel wrote:Iraqi lives are so improved in every way by our invasion; I imagine they thank us everyday.
And I'm making up my list for Santa next Christmas. I can't hardly wait for the tooth fairy, I lost a tooth today and she gives me .25 cents for it. Mommy and Daddy have also promised me a visit from the easter bunny this year too.
I'm so excited
Anon
More than 2,000 Iraqi civilians murdered per month before Saddam was removed.
Less than 900 Iraqi civilians murdered per month after Saddam was removed?
No improvement?
No improvement at all?
And it's all the fault of Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton?
When Republicans foul up it's 'cause of their evil intentions?
When Democrats foul up it's ok 'cause Democrats mean well?
