The Vote in Iraq is Over
New Anthrus
31-01-2005, 01:34
And it is better than many predicted.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7476494
Myrmidonisia
31-01-2005, 01:37
Reuters still managed to get their digs in. This quote is about half the article. I'm sure it rankles them that the US succeeded in doing what it said it would.
But in parts of the Sunni Arab heartland, where the insurgency has been bloodiest and several parties called for a boycott, polling stations were empty.
Hailing the election as a "resounding success," President Bush said: "By participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists."
Despite draconian security measures imposed by the U.S.-backed interim government, militants launched a string of attacks to try to torpedo the polls.
They struck mainly in Baghdad, rocking the capital with nine suicide blasts in rapid succession. Al Qaeda's network in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility.
Superpower07
31-01-2005, 01:38
Stupid Reuters
New Anthrus
31-01-2005, 01:40
Reuters still managed to get their digs in. This quote is about half the article. I'm sure it rankles them that the US succeeded in doing what it said it would.
Of course they did. They all do. But even with that piece of information, turnout was far better than expected. I'm still reluctant to use the "s" word, but I have a feeling that the new government will have legitimacy among many.
Stormforge
31-01-2005, 01:43
So, were you all expecting the news services to report only the good things about the election? It's not like they declared the whole thing a failure or anything.
Myrmidonisia
31-01-2005, 01:46
So, were you all expecting the news services to report only the good things about the election? It's not like they declared the whole thing a failure or anything.
LOL. No, I'm not that naive. I don't think so anyway. I just was amazed that Reuters gave half its article to how badly things went in a few places. Okay, maybe I am that naive.
Eastern Coast America
31-01-2005, 01:49
As soon as america leaves, I predict a civil war.
I'm betting on the Kurds. you?
Sdaeriji
31-01-2005, 01:50
LOL. No, I'm not that naive. I don't think so anyway. I just was amazed that Reuters gave half its article to how badly things went in a few places. Okay, maybe I am that naive.
That's the nature of our media. People like hearing about bad news more than good news.
Stormforge
31-01-2005, 01:53
That's the nature of our media. People like hearing about bad news more than good news.Heck, even Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145825,00.html) did it.
Myrmidonisia
31-01-2005, 01:54
As soon as america leaves, I predict a civil war.
I'm betting on the Kurds. you?
I wonder if there aren't really three countries in Iraq. It's almost like a parfait, Kurds, Sunnis, Shi'ites.
New Anthrus
31-01-2005, 01:57
I wonder if there aren't really three countries in Iraq. It's almost like a parfait, Kurds, Sunnis, Shi'ites.
But it'd be better if they stuck together. The Kurds have the oil, the Shi'ites have the trade routes, and the Sunnis are, well, we don't know about them. But I'm sure that as Iraq gets richer, the Sunnis will find perfect niches in society.
Nanotech Army
31-01-2005, 02:02
As soon as america leaves, I predict a civil war.
I'm betting on the Kurds. you?
I agree about the civil war but the winner would probably be the Shiites (largest percentage of population is Shiite) and it is possible that they would create a gov't similar to that of Iran. Also, about the election, I have my doubts about the process used to allow in candidates in the first place. They may have been "pre-approved" by certain people *cough Bush cough*. For a true democratic society you must allow EVERYONE who has a certain amount of support run regardless of whether or not we approve of them. (basing this on what happened in Vietnam where they were going to hold a vote to unite North and South under one leader but it looked like Ho Chi Minh, the communist leader, would win an actual vote so we cancelled the vote and sent troops instead) :headbang:
Vittos Ordination
31-01-2005, 02:07
Maybe Bush can go out and say "Mission Accomplished" even though this election is merely posturing.
No one had any doubt that we could set up a democracy in Iraq. The question is whether a democracy can be maintained in Iraq. While the excellent turnout in Iraq is a positive, I don't think it means that much in the grand scheme.
New Anthrus
31-01-2005, 02:10
Maybe Bush can go out and say "Mission Accomplished" even though this election is merely posturing.
No one had any doubt that we could set up a democracy in Iraq. The question is whether a democracy can be maintained in Iraq. While the excellent turnout in Iraq is a positive, I don't think it means that much in the grand scheme.
Well it certainly lends credit to this new government. That is extremely important, as these guys will draft Iraq's pernament constitution.
One thing that disturbs me is the registration of "Expatriated Iraqis" in the voting in of this new government. Some of the people voting have never even been to Iraq. They are being allowed to vote because one of their parents was from Iraq or is the descendant of someone from Iraq. It seems to me that the definition of "valid voter" has been broadened a bit much. My theory is that they are using "Expatriated Iraqi" voters to bolster the poll numbers. That's just a theory of course, but it is regardless disturbing.
Manstrom
31-01-2005, 04:16
Yay, cheers for the first free elections in over a century. YAY Go Iraq
New Foxxinnia
31-01-2005, 05:25
I would find it ironic if a higher percentage of registered Iraqis voted in this election than the US one.