Would You Vote in Iraq?

You won't find this info in mainstream USA media

Published on January 28, 2005 By dabe In Politics

Would you vote in Iraq, given that you'd be taking your life in your hands if you tried? Would you even know who you'd be voting for? What about where to vote?

These are questions that Iraqis are facing with regard to the "elections" on Sunday. In this article from Speigel, a German website, you'll find some interesting info that our mainstream media won't print. Like the burning truth. First of all, "Meanwhile, many Iraqis say they are not only too scared to vote, but know little to nothing about the some 7,000 candidates from 256 political groups and independents running."

Seven thousand (7,000) candidates? Holy freakin' bomb scare!!! Two hundred fifty six (256) political groups? What's a voter to do?

How about this:
"Here's a quick roundup of Iraq violence from 8 a.m. Thursday to 8 a.m. Friday. We have just one question: Amid all this, would you vote?

*Insurgents attacked a Marine base about 50 kilometers south of Baghdad, killing one soldier and injuring others.

*Street fighting broke out between American soldiers and rebels in central Baghdad.

*Jordanian terrorist and al-Qaida affiliate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi posted a videotape on the Internet showing the murder of Salem Jaafar Abed, a National Assembly candidate and the secretary of interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

*In Baghdad, a car bomb near an Iraqi police station killed four policemen.

*A car bomb exploded in Samarra (95 kilometers north of Baghdad) killing three Iraqis.

*Two polling stations in Samarra were attacked. One -- a school administration building -- was blown up. Staff had been warned beforehand to leave.

*Sporadic clashes erupted in Samarra between US soldiers and armed men. One Iraqi died.

*In the city of Kirkuk north of Baghdad, rebels attacked seven polling stations with mortar shells and machine guns.

*Also in Kirkuk, insurgents attacked an Iraqi police patrol, killing one.

*In Beiji, also in the north, a suicide bomber struck a US military convoy.

*In Mahmoudiya, 30 kilometers south of Baghdad, three Iraqis died when a roadside bomb missed a US convoy.

*Near Tikrit, a roadside bomb aimed at a US convoy killed an Iraqi.

*On the military base, a US soldier died of gunshot wounds.

*In Ramadi, west of Baghdad, an Iraqi National Guard soldier died when insurgents attacked a school voting center.

*In Baqouba, the body of a former Saddam Hussein loyal was found. He had been abducted by armed men.

*Insurgents shelled the US Marine base south of Baghdad.

*In Baghdad, a car bomb near an Iraqi police station killed four policemen.

*In Basra, four polling stations were attacked. "

Now, I'd venture a guess that if Dubya and his dummies had to vote, they'd sure not risk their lives to go and vote. And, given the mess surrounding this "election", how valid do you think the outcome will be? I'd say not valid at all. An exercise in American hubris, is all. After all, I'm betting that after the elections, nothing, absolutely nothing will change. It will make no fucking difference. Time, I suppose, will tell.

1,600 American soldiers dead
10,000 American soldiers injured
100,000 Iraqis dead
Untold numbers of Iraqis injured
Bin Laden still at large
Saddam still not tried
Afghanistan still not rebuilt
Bagdad still not in control
Iraq in ruins
Dubya still selling his con job about how rosy everything is.

Oh yeah, the elections will really make the difference. And, OJ was innocent.

Comments (Page 2)

dabe

on Jan 30, 2005

Daiwa, I do have my fingers crossed for the Iraqis. I'm going to look for poll numbers now. 77% seems really high. I hope you're right.

Daiwa

on Jan 30, 2005

dabe -

I, too, have my fingers crossed for the Iraqi people and I'm glad to have you with me in that. It looks like 60% is going to be closer to the number. But whatever the number, the Iraqi people have won a great battle against the insurgent cowards. The video clips of them dancing and singing after voting have been very heartwarming. Their courage is a little hard for us to get our arms around but cannot be denied.

Let me take this opportunity, dabe, to extend an apology if my somewhat indelicate words in another thread offended you. Your passion is a good thing, and I'll try to keep that in mind when you slide over the edge a bit.

Cheers,
Sorry Ass Daiwa

dabe

on Jan 30, 2005

Thanks Daiwa. I guess you're OK, as far as righties go.

I am a passionate person. I do tend to go a tad over the edge. But, it's to make a point, usually. And, I do not suffer fools gladly. There are a few complete and utterly iliterate fools here, who shall remain nameless, and I'll never give them any slack or benefit of the doubt. That's me. But, I am a fair and reasonable person, and I thank you for the lattitude you offer me. As I do for you.

I guess we're buddies, huh?

dabe

on Jan 30, 2005

One thing I forgot to mention, as I was getting all gooey emotional there, was that the outcome of the elections, who was actually voted in, and what he/she stands for will be the most telling result. As I said above, I have no faith in the neocon plant, Allawi, and if an Islamist extremist gets the nod, then we will not have succeeded in much of anything. Time will tell.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 30, 2005

No one was "voted in" as this election was not held to pick a leader. This election was held to choose basically "delegates" for the "National Assembly" and for the "Governorate council". Roughly speaking they are the equivolent of the U.S. "Constitutional Convention" and "Continental Congress".

The iraqis are voting for "parties" more than people (although there are people on the ballot too). Once the votes are counted, each "party" will be given the percentage of seats equal to the percentage of the vote they received.

That way it will truly be an election of the people of Iraq, and when the new government is set up, it will be done by those elected by the people to do so.

Daiwa

on Jan 30, 2005

dabe -

It's OK to have a token Sorry Ass or two as buddies, long as you don't flaunt it too much.

And ParaTed2k is quite correct - this vote was to establish the makeup of the delegates to the Iraqi equivalent of our Constitutional Congress. Interestingly, the ballot, by design, included at least one woman for every 2 men and no matter what the distribution of parties, at least a quarter to 1/3 of the delegates will be women. We can argue from the comfort of our chairs with the 2-to-1 ratio, but even that is a remarkable thing in a Muslim country and bodes well for the ultimate success of the movement toward democracy. Hillary & Boxer aside, women are generally a force for good in politics.

Cheers,
Daiwa

dabe

on Jan 30, 2005

ParaTed is correct, and my skeptisism gets in the way of that. I have to admit that I'm amazed at the reported turnouts in Iraq. As much as I am a skeptic of anything Dubya, this really is about he Iraqi people, and success can only be measured by them.

As for Dubya, I still really detest the guy, along with the rest of his neocon cohorts. They lied their way into Iraq, and nothing will convince me otherwise. The reason for going was an "imminent threat" to the US because of Saddam's WMD. That never materialized, so they just made it up as they went along. I do hope that the outcome of their extremely expensive disaster, and the human sacrifice for their folly is ultimately freedom for Iraqis. If they pull that off, and bail themselves out of this mess, I will be amazed. However, I remain very skeptical.

Daiwa

on Jan 30, 2005

Oh yeah, the elections will really make the difference. And, OJ was innocent.

1 out of 2 ain't bad, dabe. A .500 batting average would smash the MLB record by 60 points (Hugh Duffy, Boston, 1894).

And one of the things that still puzzles me is why so many of you (I'm using the general "you" to designate folks on the left as passionate as you) reserve your disdain and hatred for Dubya alone (throw in Wolfowitz & a couple of others, if you want) - with the exception of Howard Dean, all the Democrat candidates for President accepted and believed the same intelligence. Same with most of the Democrat Congressional leadership. By your standards, they were all liars, too. Either, that or really stupid.

It ascribes way too much Machiavellian brilliance to Dubya to claim that he alone snookered everyone, and completely contrived the whole Iraq endeavor, especially when most of you consider him a total dimwit. I just don't understand the logic employed in arriving at this "Liar! Liar!" intransigence.

Cheers,
Daiwa

ParaTed2k

on Jan 31, 2005

True, this day was not about any president, policy or person, it was about the Iraqi people as a whole. Over the last year and a half, we have heard from politician, pundits and reporters, all trying to tell us what the Iraqi people think about this war. Well, today the people were finally given the chance to tell the world how they felt, and their message was as plain as the ink on their finger.

dabe

on Jan 31, 2005

Daiwa, I don't detest Dubya alone. When I single his name out, I am referring to the whole lot of neocon death cult and hate mongers. Dubya is only their figurehead. A dumbass figurehead, but he represents them all. And, I do believe that the impetus for the original invasion had nothing to do with "freeing the Iraqi people" or "creating democracy". That only came into play when everything else failed and fell apart.

Remember, there were no WMD's, which was the main focus and buildup to why we needed to invade Iraq in the first place. And, that the players who pushed for this war, the neocons, and Dubya himself, were so riddled with conflicts of interest that the whole mess was originally created because of their business dealings.

The elections are certainly part of the exit strategy, and for that I remain hopeful. But, I would be amazed if, when all the dust clears, and the Iraqis have their democracy (or whatever itteration of democracy they develop), that the US will just leave. We will have succeeded in creating a stronghold there to exploit the Iraqi oil. America is not going to ever walk away from the oil. That's a given. And, those who will benefit most financially are the Bush's, and various American oil interests. Wouldn't it have been a whole lot cheaper to just buy the freakin' oil, rather than steal it?

I still maintain that war should have been the very last resort. Dubya made it a first action, and the death toll is horrific. Taxpayers will be paying war reparations for years to come, and the oil magnates will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Oh yeah, I remain skeptical and distrustful of our administration, even though I do hope that the Iraqis do achieve their democracy. The elections were a good first step. I'm waiting for step two.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 31, 2005

I don't detest Dubya alone. When I single his name out, I am referring to the whole lot of neocon death cult and hate mongers. Dubya is only their figurehead.

Excuse me if I butt in here Dabe, but from where I sit it is the "anti war" crowd who are emerging as hate mongers here. I know it must be worse than drinking vomit for many to admit that yesterday was a great day for freedom and for Iraq, but those in the anti crowd who can't seem to even choke out a positive word about is nothing short of pathetic.

Our revolutionary war, civil war and involvement in WWII were all wars that were strongly opposed by many Americans. All 3 bought freedom for people at that point of a gun, and only one of them was fought primarily for freedom of those who were freed. We didn't go to war with the CSA just to free the slaves, but slavery as an institution did end. Liberating the Concentration camps was not our goal when we went into Europe after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. However, when they heard the gunfire at the gates, I seriously doubt anyone in Dachau or the other camps cared.

You say the death toll is "horrific", well only in the concept that each person killed is tragic could that be true. Millions were killed freeing Europe from Hitler and if you throw in the Pacific theater deaths, Iraq pales in comparison. Should we have stayed out of the fight, or only retaliated against Japan with a few air strikes on empty buildings? Should we have let the USA splinter by allowing the CSA to stand?

Oh yeah, I remain skeptical and distrustful of our administration, even though I do hope that the Iraqis do achieve their democracy. The elections were a good first step. I'm waiting for step two.

I respect skeptism and I'm glad that you can at least hold out hope for the people of Iraq, but I don't understand why you can't even get yourself to celebrate their election day with them. Yesterday was achieved through much heartache and blood shed, and there is still more of that to come. Why is it so hard to just allow them a day (and hopefully a few) to dance in the streets without a bunch of people, pundits and politicians trying to tell them why they shouldn't be.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!