NationStates Jolt Archive

Must be a question on many minds in Iraq these days. Who to vote for, what their position is on various issues, how they are affiliated, ... you know - the basic stuff.

Now, besides the fact that polling will be unavailable to 40% of the country, how do you expect any legitimacy if the people don't even know a damn thing about many of the candidates? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20050118/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_candidates_killed)


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Assailants in southern Iraq (news - web sites) gunned down two more candidates running in the Jan. 30 elections for the political coalition of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a member of the group said Tuesday.

Alaa Hamid, who was running on Allawi's slate of candidates for the 275-member National Assembly, was shot dead Monday in the southern port city of Basra in front of his family, a member of Allawi's Iraqi National Accord said. Hamid also was the deputy chairman of the Iraqi Olympic Committee in Basra.

The other slain candidate was Riad Radi, who was running in the local race for Basra's provincial council on a list supported by Allawi's INC, the official said on condition of anonymity. Masked gunmen fired on his car Sunday as he was driving with his family, the official said.

Sunni Muslim militants who oppose holding the elections have warned candidates not to run. With less than two weeks until the vote, many candidates have not even announced they are running for fear of being attacked.

In Baghdad on Monday, masked gunmen shot dead another candidate, Shaker Jabbar Sahla, a Shiite Muslim running in the National Assembly election for the Constitutional Monarchy Movement. The party is headed by Sharif Ali bin Hussein, a cousin of Iraq's last king.

Basra, a predominantly Shiite Muslim city, has been relatively calm in recent weeks. In central Iraq, meanwhile, there have been numerous attacks on polling offices in the past days.

But on Sunday, insurgents fired four mortar rounds at schools slated to serve as polling centers there.



Is this a case of having an election just to be able to say that they had and election? What exactly is this vote going to mean regarding how the Iraqis want their country run if they have no forknowledge of who or what they are voting for?


How many people will die that day on what seems to be a meaningless vote?

Do you ever have anything positive to say about anything the US is involved in?

Yes.


This ain't it though.

Once they've had a party in government, they'll know whether they like them or not, and assuming it's truly a democracy, they'll be able to vote them out again.

Once they've had a party in government, they'll know whether they like them or not, and assuming it's truly a democracy, they'll be able to vote them out again.

Lets vote blind, select someone we have never heard of to run our country for the next four/five or however long years. Try it in the USA first, before imposing it elsewhere. If it works, fine, if not, rethink.

Once they've had a party in government, they'll know whether they like them or not, and assuming it's truly a democracy, they'll be able to vote them out again.


The problem is that this vote is for the people who will draw up the Constitution of Iraq from which all other elections will follow. Clearly this is a critical vote to start to get a fledgling country back on it's feet again. It's like getting to vote on your founding fathers, and that opportunity simply doesn't come around very often.

The problem is that this vote is for the people who will draw up the Constitution of Iraq from which all other elections will follow. Clearly this is a critical vote to start to get a fledgling country back on it's feet again. It's like getting to vote on your founding fathers, and that opportunity simply doesn't come around very often.

I see.

who cares who they vote for, the US will get the president it wants either way

Where'd your 40% number come from? I've heard 20% at the highest from CNN and the NY Times...

I think a more pressing question for a lot of Iraqis is "where the fuck are my registration papers?" About a week ago no one in Falluja had received any voting papers... but is that really all that surprising? However, it'll certainly undermine the legitamacy of the election.

I can't blame most of the candidates for not announcing that they're running. 2 candiates have been assasinated in the past to days.
*pictures an Iraqi ballot paper with lots of the names scribled out with the word 'assasinated' next to the candiates name*

Must be a question on many minds in Iraq these days. Who to vote for, what their position is on various issues, how they are affiliated, ... you know - the basic stuff.

Now, besides the fact that polling will be unavailable to 40% of the country, how do you expect any legitimacy if the people don't even know a damn thing about many of the candidates? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20050118/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_candidates_killed)




Is this a case of having an election just to be able to say that they had and election? What exactly is this vote going to mean regarding how the Iraqis want their country run if they have no forknowledge of who or what they are voting for?


How many people will die that day on what seems to be a meaningless vote?

I'm voting soon, and I'm voting 169! (I'm entitled to vote in the Iraqi elections)

Now, besides the fact that polling will be unavailable to 40% of the country, how do you expect any legitimacy if the people don't even know a damn thing about many of the candidates?

Like in America where the citizens do all kinds of research and know the entire platform of every candidate...

Where'd your 40% number come from? I've heard 20% at the highest from CNN and the NY Times...

I remembered that number from a recent article, however on a bit of research I see that it was made by the Jordanian Ambassador (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20050111-1544-iraq.html), so I'll take it with the proper grain of salt and revise downwards to other numbers that have been tossed about.


Still, even if we say 20%, this article is another nail in the legitimacy of the election. How can you vote if you can't evaluate candidates? And how can they allow there to be mystery candidates this late in the process? It is antithetical to the democratic precept of an informed electorate chosing from a slate of options if the electorate is not given the knowledge to inform themselves.

People can CHOOSE not to get informed if they like, however this information must be available for those who want it if you want a fair and proper election.

Do you ever have anything positive to say about anything the US is involved in?
I think you are missing the focus, it is a widely applied technique used to deflect criticism. If you notice, Zepp isn't really criticisizing america, but the administration, which is supposed to be our job-but we keep painting criticism as anti-americanism and spitting on the founding fathers while pretending to uphold them.

I think you are missing the focus, it is a widely applied technique used to deflect criticism. If you notice, Zepp isn't really criticisizing america, but the administration, which is supposed to be our job-but we keep painting criticism as anti-americanism and spitting on the founding fathers while pretending to uphold them.

I think thats usually the case with us. Dislike of administration = dislike of America. Such a fallacy is that...

One: Sistani, along with issuing a "Vote OR ELSE burn in hell" fatwa, has (sort of) recommended voting for a particular group of candidates: the United Iraqi Coalition, headed by Hussein Al-Shahristani I think it is a foregone conclusion that they will get the most votes (although not necessarily an absolute majority)

Two: A lot of people have affiliations (tribal, religious, etc) and will vote for whatever candidates are supported by the groups they are part of. They may not know the specific people or agenda, but they are pretty clear on who will represent them as a group. For example most Christian Assyrians and Chaldeans will vote for Al-Rafidain. They may not have name recognition of most of the people on that list, but that doesn't matter.

Three: the major guys are well known to *just about everyone*. Dawa, SCIRI, Badr, PUK/KDP...

I think you are missing the focus, it is a widely applied technique used to deflect criticism. If you notice, Zepp isn't really criticisizing america, but the administration, which is supposed to be our job-but we keep painting criticism as anti-americanism and spitting on the founding fathers while pretending to uphold them.

No, it is criticism of America, not the administration.

Zep's typical line is that we have no business interfering in other people's affairs. It is not that the war in Afghanistan/Iraq has been handled ineptly, but that we should not have engaged in it at all. The majority of Americans supported (and still support) the liberation of Afghanistan/Iraq; therefore Zep is criticising America, not the administration.

As for whether the war was handled badly: wars usually are, after all the other guys are trying to make you fail, so at best you muddle through. On a competency scale of 0-10 (where 0=Pearl Harbor and 10=Gulf War 1) I rate this one a 7. What did you expect, a f*cking parade?

No, it is criticism of America, not the administration.

Zep's typical line is that we have no business interfering in other people's affairs. It is not that the war in Afghanistan/Iraq has been handled ineptly, but that we should not have engaged in it at all. The majority of Americans supported (and still support) the liberation of Afghanistan/Iraq; therefore Zep is criticising America, not the administration.

As for whether the war was handled badly: wars usually are, after all the other guys are trying to make you fail, so at best you muddle through. On a competency scale of 0-10 (where 0=Pearl Harbor and 10=Gulf War 1) I rate this one a 7. What did you expect, a f*cking parade?


Thank you for informing me of what it is I mean. Clearly I must have been mistaken....

Incidentally, the initial crack came from a person who had just finished calling me a partisan Democrat supporter in another thread, which - I assume - means that I must be at least 49% pro-American. In other words, he was even contradicting his own reasons for what he was accusing me of.


Oh yes, and you will note that I have never criticized the decision to go to war with Afghanistan. Why? Because I agreed with it.

Oh darn - guess that blows YOUR theory about my mindset out of the water...

Oh yes Cassini, and according to the most recent poll sponsored by ABC, 55% of Americans now believe that the war in Iraq was not worth fighting.


So, by YOUR theory that criticism of a majority held opinion equates to anti-americanism rather than anti-policy.... congratulations! YOU ARE NOW AN ANTI-AMERICAN!!!



How does it feel? And do you want your own "f*cking parade" to celebrate the moment?

The upcoming election in Iraq is anything but democratic, will cause continued mistrust of the US initiatives, and more than likely will increase the possibility of civil war. Forcing an election on a war ravaged country is a cowardly attempt by the US administration to offer some validity to their illegal occupation of a sovereign nation. Shame on those who back this travesty.

What did you expect, a f*cking parade?
Interesting choice, since the administration actually did expect a parade with them "welcoming us in the streets." How'd that work out?

How about this-instead of defending the people who have been wrong again and again why don't we start looking at what the people who called this whole thing are saying instead of demonizing them and barrelling along like idiots? I know, I know, it's not 'staying the course,' but if you do that too long you are sure to run into a rock eventually. It's why the boats have those big round things to steer with....

The upcoming election in Iraq is anything but democratic, will cause continued mistrust of the US initiatives, and more than likely will increase the possibility of civil war. Forcing an election on a war ravaged country is a cowardly attempt by the US administration to offer some validity to their illegal occupation of a sovereign nation. Shame on those who back this travesty.

Yep they have atleast blow up the natural order of doing things then you liberate a country. The reason for doing it have a lot do with American national and internationl politics sadly and other reason that been taken up in a lot of posts.
Like for example a natural way do to the liberating a country is to
1. Secure rule of law and respect for human rights
2. Establish administrative framework, that is based on rule of law and the acceptans of local leaders and the public. This include election but they should be held in a secure enviroment, so the will of the people can be heard.
3. Instutionalized consent for the established order, like for example respect democratic order and peacfull coexistens between diffrent groups.
4. Is the final phase is handing over the responibility to the local population, a slow process but that will lead to true suverainity and a stabile country.
This points is presented by Michael Steiner who have been SRSG (head of the UN mission) in Kosovo and I think this seams like a smart way to liberate a people and that it is realy clear that it has not been followed in Iraq.

Interesting choice, since the administration actually did expect a parade with them "welcoming us in the streets." How'd that work out?



Well, they DID have that one lovely "spontaneous" statue-pulling carnival.

Too bad they eventually had to admit that even that was staged.....

What might happen is:

-The shi'a will resoundingly defeat the sunni (in terms of % of seats)

-The shi'a will be rather brutal in their treatment of the sunni, paying back some 50 (?) years of being treated like crap.

Benefits of the 2 party system.

Do you ever have anything positive to say about anything the US is involved in?
hell i dont have anything positive to say about them, then again im a pessimist and rather criticise and hope some people fix the shit than sit around praising all teh good its doing. if its doing good, great, keep doing, if its doing bad pay attention to the critics and get shit fixed

this is the problem i have with game fanboys, they bitch if you point out problems the developers should be fixing and point to the stuff they like, which is irrelevant when your pointing out shit thats needed to be fixed before the game is released

like wow, i was predicting all this shit would be happeneing weeks before the game even went gold because iwas in the open beta, but all teh fanboys were ripping me up

As mentioned in the article the majoroty of the country has been relatively calm for some time now the election is near and the violence seems to spread. Does it occur to anyone else that this is a result of a small minority from certain groups trying to prevent the election?