Iraqi Elections - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 01-21-2005, 12:30 PM

I have been reading various reports from Iraq and these elections seemed doomed to failure. Just today 41 canidates withdrew, a large part of the population is boycotting the elections, voting locations have still not been announced, i heard (but haven't read myself) that canidates haven't even been announced. Even if the elections occur there are so many problems with the elections that the outcome is meaningless. What do all of you think?

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 12:32 PM

They may not be as successful as we had hoped, but they are still a step forward...just a smaller one.

The alternative is to stay in the same spot or worse, to move backwards.

Rekna · 01-21-2005, 12:34 PM

I'm not sure if they are even a step forward. The results will have no meaning, will not be representive of the people, and only go to bolster the resistance.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-21-2005, 12:46 PM

It's people's right whether or not they want to participate, if they boycott it's their own damned fault if they don't like the results.

Also in regards to what you said about a large portion of the population not participating... to what extent, I've heard that it is mostly the Sunni's and they are the biggest minority of the Iraqi population at about 15%. Even if the entire Sunni population and Kurdish population, or you can mix and match how you want it, they would still have better participation by numbers they what we have (by proportions).

But yeah, the elections will happen, it will be a step in the right direction, and it will lead to a stable and hopefully democratic Iraq.

Charlatan · 01-21-2005, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

It's people's right whether or not they want to participate, if they boycott it's their own damned fault if they don't like the results.

That's easy for you to say. Would you be so quick to dash off to the polling station if you thought you might get shot by a sniper or blown up by a car/suicide bomb? All for a process that you don't honestly believe will be a fair? That you believe will be rigged, etc?

roachboy · 01-21-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Lastly there is the biggest contrast of all between the smug complacency of the administration over its electoral victory and the disastrous military failure of its adventure in Iraq. Since George Bush was re-elected over 200 more US soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Each new day brings another 70 attacks on the occupation forces as the territory dominated by the insurgents expands and the area which the occupiers can safely patrol shrinks. This week a senior Kurdish leader, although a supporter of the occupation, admitted that for a lot of its citizens, "the Iraqi government exists only on television".

The lawless background to the forthcoming elections has imposed whole new dimensions to the concept of a secret ballot. Most of the candidates will remain a secret lest they are assassinated. Polling stations are kept secret by the authorities lest they are blown up before election day in a week's time.

Iraq was the flagship project of the Bush administration and has turned into its greatest disaster. Yesterday's jollities cannot conceal the brutal truth that they neither know how to make the occupation succeed nor how to end it without leaving an even worse position behind. And, God help us, thanks to the unshakeable loyalty of our prime minister, we are left trapped in Basra shamed by the latest pictures of prisoner abuse and dependent for any shift of strategy on decisions taken in Washington by an administration that has repeatedly ignored British advice since its first monumental blunder of disbanding the Iraqi army.

A successful search for a new strategy can only start with a recognition that the present strategy has comprehensively failed. But the Bush administration II that took office yesterday is stuffed with people who are in denial about the dire situation of their forces occupying Iraq. In the couple of months since election day, George Bush has promoted the very people who thought conquering Iraq was a good idea and eased out anyone with a record of worrying about the consequences. Thus Condoleezza Rice, who was author of the alarmist claim that Saddam could produce a mushroom cloud, replaces Colin Powell, who warned the president that if he broke Iraq he would own the process of putting it back together again.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...395462,00.html

secret candidates. secret polling places, whole regions of the country not able to vote, an entire segment of the iraqi population not represented (the sunni)...this will be a fine election, no doubt about it.
what this looks like, more than anything else, is a huge ritualized repetition of the "mission accomplished" photo op--something meaningles in fact but which makes the right feel like it has done something....
it is not about iraq, not about the iraqi people: it is about giving the bush administration material with which to "prove" that something is happening that is not fiasco.
that it will function to make the discourse of democracy american-style even more a joke than it already is is obviously secondary to these folks.
it really does appear that "liberty" as bush defines it means in fact little more than formality. that "the people" means only those people who are lackies of american policy objectives. so the "historic mission" of the states is then the propagation of a new kind of colonialism, one in which the principle langauge of domination is that of democracy bush-style.
way to go.
hearts and minds.
o yes.

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...395462,00.html

secret candidates. secret polling places, whole regions of the country not able to vote, an entire segment of the iraqi population not represented (the sunni)...this will be a fine election, no doubt about it.
what this looks like, more than anything else, is a huge ritualized repetition of the "mission accomplished" photo op--something meaningles in fact but which makes the right feel like it has done something....
it is not about iraq, not about the iraqi people: it is about giving the bush administration material with which to "prove" that something is happening that is not fiasco.
that it will function to make the discourse of democracy american-style even more a joke than it already is is obviously secondary to these folks.
it really does appear that "liberty" as bush defines it means in fact little more than formality. that "the people" means only those people who are lackies of american policy objectives. so the "historic mission" of the states is then the propagation of a new kind of colonialism, one in which the principle langauge of domination is that of democracy bush-style.
way to go.
hearts and minds.
o yes.

You're blaming Bush for all this??

Seems to me you should be blaming the people who are sniping at voters, blowing up polling places and threatening the candidates.

roachboy · 01-21-2005, 01:06 PM

why?
the americans invaded iraq, lebell.
whether you like it or not, many of the folk fighting in iraq understand that as a colonial occupation. they understand the elections as an american fraud. why should they understand it otherwise? seriously--why should they?

i understand that, sitting in the us watching things unfold from afar, you might be inclined to attribute other motives to this farce--but these attributions rely on very different conditions (sitting in front of a tv or reading information on the net or in print from the comfort of your home in a place that has not been invaded by another power, one that in fact has talked itself up as liberating you while in fact it has found itself bogged down in an ongoing, bloody war--not insurgency--a war, the same war, which has not ended and which shows no signs of ending.)

of course this whole situation is the fault of george w bush and the neocons within his administration who developed and supported the line that lead into this mess.

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

why?
the americans invaded iraq, lebell.
whether you like it or not, many of the folk fighting in iraq understand that as a colonial occupation. they understand the elections as an american fraud. why should they understand it otherwise? seriously--why should they?

i understand that, sitting in the us watching things unfold from afar, you might be inclined to attribute other motives to this farce--but these attributions rely on very different conditions (sitting in front of a tv or reading information on the net or in print from the comfort of your home in a place that has not been invaded by another power, one that in fact has talked itself up as liberating you while in fact it has found itself bogged down in an ongoing, bloody war--not insurgency--a war, the same war, which has not ended and which shows no signs of ending.)

of course this whole situation is the fault of george w bush and the neocons within his administration who developed and supported the line that lead into this mess.

And if we hadn't invaded they would be having elections...?

But whatever your opinion on the war, your use of "colonial" is not correct: America is not setting up any "American" villiages, nor are we taking the country's resources, nor are we appointing permanent governors.

Quite the opposite, we are trying to get them to elect their own government and I am surprised and shocked that you don't support that.

What alternative do you propose? That we withdraw unilaterally and let the country disolve into civil war, which it surely would do?

No, whatever your opinion of the initial war, you should be supporting our efforts to get a legitimate government elected so that we can leave. Otherwise, it seems to me that you are against the effort only because we are sponsoring it, which is illogical.

01-21-2005, 01:26 PM

Pointing out the reasons for the differences in perception between a comfortable westerner and a frightened Iraqi is not the same thing as not supporting efforts to install a legitimate government. It's simply an attempt to explain things in an objective manner.

roachboy · 01-21-2005, 01:28 PM

i am against these particular elections because of their timing, their character, and their obvious political motivations. i am against these particular elections because they will, in my view, do more to harm the idea of elections than they will help them. i am against these particular elections because they are not happening in conditions that allow the legitimacy that such elections should have.
then there is the level of particular procedures.
then there is the nature of the allawi regime.
then there is the ongoing nature of the american occupation.

i think that the elections should be postponed.
this is not an opposition to elections in general, so dont confuse the two.

as for the relation of my position on the war to this--the question is complex and i have thought about it quite alot. i think i can seperate the two issues (no-one can ever be sure about this--i could pose the same question to you about your relative support for the elections and your relative support for the war [even though i am not so sure about your exact position on the issue--but i hope you see my point])

it has come down to whether i think it worthwhile to go even further in undercutting the value of the language of democracy by continuing with these particular elections in this particular situation.

what possible good would/could come of such a continuation of the erosion of this language? [edit: that of democracy, even in its weak american variant--thanks mostly to plato]

it is bad enough that the war was launched on fabricated grounds--and that everyone, iraqis included, knows this.
it is bad enough that every day, in most of iraq, you have a direct, material contradiction between the ideology wrapped round this war and conditions on the ground.

it seems to me that the elections are seen--widely--as something of a charade--but at the same time, it also seems that folk are to an extent hopeful about them--which means, to me at least, that it is important that the elections happen in conditions that do not undermine the functions they are meant to serve. i think the consequences of them turning into a farce far far outweigh the questions that might be raised by postponing them.

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 01:30 PM

Thank you for the clarification.

The_wall · 01-21-2005, 01:33 PM

I think the elections will happen but will essentially be meaningless. Having an elected leader isn't going to stop the violence, and I don't see the violence ending any time soon, hell I bet the chaotic state of Iraq won't change before the newly elected leader serves his entire term. Because of the chaos I can't imagine anything really productive happening. Some say its a step in the right direction, I see it as no step taken at all.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-21-2005, 01:53 PM

Oh, it isn't going to stop the violence, so I guess we should just cut and run, no point in having elections if they aren't going to be an immediate fix. Yeah let the insurgents and terrorists win, that'd be a real strong and smart message to send to the world. Paper Tiger rarrrrrr!!!!! meow....

martinguerre · 01-21-2005, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i am against these particular elections because of their timing, their character, and their obvious political motivations. i am against these particular elections because they will, in my view, do more to harm the idea of elections than they will help them. i am against these particular elections because they are not happening in conditions that allow the legitimacy that such elections should have.
then there is the level of particular procedures.
then there is the nature of the allawi regime.
then there is the ongoing nature of the american occupation.

i think that the elections should be postponed.
this is not an opposition to elections in general, so dont confuse the two.

Very, very true. The problem at this point is that we've gotten the situation screwed up enought that it may not even be possible to hold good elections. Democracy doesn't come out of nowhere...it has a lot of prerequistes...none of which we've helped to build. We bought ourselves a whole lot more responsbility than we're likely to deliver on. the tragedy is that the elections they see will be flawed, marred by violence, and unfair. i fear they will never try them again.

Yakk · 01-21-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

But whatever your opinion on the war, your use of "colonial" is not correct: America is not setting up any "American" villiages, nor are we taking the country's resources, nor are we appointing permanent governors.

America won't keep military bases in Iraq? Really? Wow, you must be reading a different script than I am.

The basic building block of the American empire is the military base.

America hasn't placed large military bases in neighbouring nations, after stopping by to 'help'?

Once again, I'm all for holding elections. But, if you don't think America looks like a colonial power, you aren't looking at the world from the eyes of the Iraqis.

Some of the rebels in Iraq are evil fucks. So are some Americans. Not all insurgents are evil fucks, and neither are all Americans.

The US government decided that Iraq's people would pay the price for the US government's mistakes. Right now, the US government is in what is known as a 'no win situation' -- they are indeed damned if they do and damned if they don't, as a consequence of past decisions.

There doesn't have to be a winning move. You can position yourself so you are just fucked. This isn't a game, it's the real world.

Now, possibly I'm wrong. I've said in the past, if the US managed to defeat Iraq quickly and cheaply, have the Iraqi's line the streets and throw flowers at them embracing their liberators, set up a secular democracy that acts as a beacon of progressive freedom to the rest of the Arab states, and brings about a golden age of properity and peach throughout the Middle East -- I'd even forgive Bush for Ashcroft.

That was, after all, the grand plan here.

I just didn't, and still don't, think it would work.

stevo · 01-21-2005, 07:51 PM

I think some of you have a wrong picture of the upcoming elections. Although there is still ongoing violence it is not going to widely disrupt the polls. There will be some cities, like Fallujah, where there will be disruptions and voting will be difficult, but Iraqis do not have to vote in the towns they reside. They are able to vote in any city in the province they live, as a way to avoid insurgent threats. If you live in fallujah, and other troubled cities (mostly in the sunni triangle) you can vote anywhere in your province or in Baghdad, itself. It should also be noted that the insurgent violence that threatens the polls the most is restricted to 3 of Iraq's 18 provinces. The rest of the country is in relative stability as far as holding elections are concerned.

There is also the concern over misrepresentation in the election outcome causing the results to be meaningless. To overcome this, when the Iraqis go to the polls they are not just voting for individuals in the national assembly, but a group of candidates that is representative of all the people. When a Shia casts a ballot for his favorite candidate, on that ticket he will also be voting for a sunni, kurd, etc. So even if all the Sunnis boycott the election there will still be a sunni representation in the general assembly, thus having a voice in the construction of the constitution.

Seaver · 01-22-2005, 09:43 AM

I think this is redundant. The exact same things were said before the Afghan election. About how Al Qaeda was going to scare off the whole populace and how it'd be void in the eyes of the public. That went off pretty nicely to the bane of many critics.

roachboy · 01-22-2005, 10:19 AM

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan22.html

Quote:

No Foreign Observers to Monitor Iraq Vote
Only One Outsider From International Mission May Assess Elections on Site

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 22, 2005; Page A12

When 1 million Palestinians voted for a successor to Yasser Arafat, 800 international observers poured into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to monitor the polling. Former president Jimmy Carter and former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt led one team. A former French prime minister led another, and there were two U.S. congressional delegations.

When 8 million Afghans voted in October, at least 122 international observers from across Europe and Asia monitored the presidential election -- and declared it an "orderly and transparent process."

But in Iraq, where 14 million people are eligible to vote, the elections next week may have only one outsider from the hastily organized International Mission for Iraqi Elections to evaluate the balloting. If reluctant governments change their minds at the last minute about letting their officials go to Iraq, a handful of others may show up. But, even then, none is likely to tour polling stations or to be publicly identified, mission and U.S. officials said.

The violence in Iraq means that its elections will be the first among dozens of transitional elections over the past two decades -- since democracy began to sweep through eastern Europe, the old Soviet Union, Latin America and Africa -- that will not have an international observer force touring polling stations to assess the vote's credibility, election experts say.

There will be no neutral outside group deployed across Iraq to determine whether voters are impeded, ballot boxes are stuffed, any party tries to interfere with the process or votes are counted fairly. No congressional delegation will monitor the polls, and the European Union announced last week that it had declined an invitation from Iraq to send observers. The Carter Center, which has monitored more than 50 elections overseas, also decided not to send observers.

"That means you don't have an independent voice that can really report credibly on the quality of the election -- in a context where there are already extremely difficult circumstances and doubts about the process," said David Carroll of the Carter Center, who was an observer in the Palestinian elections. Among those doubts are whether the insurgents will succeed in keeping people away from polling places with threats of violence and whether the minority Sunnis will participate in sufficient numbers for the balloting to be called successful.

Iraq's escalating violence has forced the International Mission for Iraqi Elections to headquarter its operation outside Iraq -- in neighboring Jordan -- a fact the group is not keen to publicize because of fears it could be targeted there, too. And even then, fewer than two dozen election experts from Albania, Australia, Bangladesh, Britain, Canada, Ghana, Hungary, Indonesia, Mexico, Panama and Yemen will participate. Their limited mission will be to sift through data provided by Iraq to evaluate the elections, according to mission and U.S. officials.

"I applaud the [mission's] effort, but if they're not on site, they will not be credible in judging either the participation in or the results of Iraq's election," said Frederick D. Barton, a monitor or election trainer in Haiti, Poland and Ethiopia in the 1990s and now co-director of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Iraq does have about 6,000 of its own first-time monitors culled from 150 organizations, but that figure is low -- one for every 2,300 registered voters. The Palestinians had 21,000 observers -- about one for every 50 voters. And Afghanistan had 5,300 observers, 22,000 party agents and 52,000 candidate agents.

The International Mission for Iraqi Elections was pulled together just last month to provide a stamp of international legitimacy. "The idea was that the elections would go ahead but there would be so much cynicism and doubt in the outside world that unless there was a credible and objective organization involved to evaluate it and provide expert opinion, even a relatively good election could be put in doubt," said Les Campbell, an expert on the Middle East who is working on Iraq's elections for the National Democratic Institute.

Now, with the international mission largely on the outskirts of the elections, the balloting is already facing criticism. "Any attempt to present the elections as valid is an attempt to fool the world," Giulietto Chiesa, an Italian member of the European Parliament, told reporters after the EU decision not to send representatives to Iraq.

The international mission, chaired by Elections Canada chief Jean-Pierre Kingsley, says it can still provide an overview from outside by reviewing data on 10 issues provided by Iraq's election commission. "There's no doubt that an international presence does something," Kingsley said in an interview.

"But our experts can look at the laws and tell us what is good or needs to be improved. We'll weigh the voter registration and how it was done -- and the system to handle complaints. We'll look at the process of listing parties and access to the media and voter education," he said. "We'll have a good idea of how the elections went."

But mission and U.S. officials describe the mission's work with words such as "audit" and "assess" rather than "monitor" or "observe."

Like most of the nations whose elections chiefs or officials are part of the new international mission, Canada has barred Canadians from going into Iraq -- at least for now. Countries with representatives on the mission team -- which is also supposed to "assess" the constitutional referendum in the fall and the elections in December for a permanent government -- are reviewing the dangers daily to see whether other experts can be dispatched before the Jan. 30 vote, mission and U.S. officials say.

In the absence of outside observers, election experts are concerned that voter turnout may be used as a barometer of the elections' credibility. "I hope we don't resort to saying that in the U.S. we only get 15 percent in local elections, 35 percent in gubernatorial elections and 55 percent in presidential elections, and therefore even a low vote is credible," Barton said. "This is not an honest standard in a country that finally gets a chance to vote on its future.

no problems with the election, o no.
if no-one sees problems, then there arent any.
how do you keep people from seeing problems?
you exclude those who would look for them.

Rekna · 01-22-2005, 10:23 AM

I don't think this election can be fairly compaired to Afganistan. Iraq and Afaganistan are completely different in terms of politics and security. I had no concerns with the afgan elections but the Iraqi ones bother me a lot.

Lebell · 01-22-2005, 01:37 PM

Yakk,

Every country that currently hosts an American Military base does so of their free will.

This is not true of a "colony".

chateau_margaux · 01-22-2005, 02:21 PM

Here's the crux - if the people wont register, we got a problem - so how do you involve the electorate?
Registration for overseas absentee voting in Iraq's national election has been extended by two days because the turnout so far in the weeklong campaign has run far behind expectations, organizers said Saturday.

As of Thursday, fewer than one in 10 of the estimated 1.2 million eligible Iraqis living abroad in 14 countries had registered.

The International Organization for Migration, which is organizing the overseas vote, decided to continue registrations through Monday and Tuesday.

“The extra days will apply to each of the 74 registration centres in all 14 countries where Iraqis are able to register and vote, pending the approval of the host governments,” the organization said in a statement.

“We are extending our operation in an effort to provide Iraqi voters with as much access to our centres as possible,” said Peter Erben, director of the project. “We would urge Iraqis to register now to avoid being caught in lengthy queues on the final day.”

Niurka Pineiro, spokeswoman for the Geneva-based organization, said that “in some places” the turnout has been less than anticipated. She noted that in Australia only one in eight of the estimated eligible voters had signed up as of Thursday.

“We don't know exactly why,” Ms. Pineiro said. “It could be a number of things. It could be procrastination, it could be apathy, they don't have the right documents. There are many Iraqis who have been out for a long time.”

She said some speculated that a Muslim holiday this week may have been a factor.

“It's a mixture of apathy and apprehension,” said Bernie Hogan, the head of the voting effort in Australia, explaining the lack of response from Iraqis living in that country.

Despite predictions that as many as 50,000 Iraqis living in Australia could join the electoral rolls, only 6,500 have done so. Hogan on Saturday revised his registration target to 10,000 Iraqis and expressed disappointment with the response.

“The apathy comes from people who say nothing's going to happen, it's a sham, I'm comfortable here in Australia and I'm not going to get involved,” Mr. Hogan said.

But a larger section of the community is simply suspicious of the process, he said, afraid of adding their names to a government-sponsored list they fear could be used against them.

“They're very distrusting,” Mr. Hogan said. “After decades and decades of tyranny and government abuse, they're not confident about the future of government and they're not confident about the use of registration material.”

Mr. Hogan said registration turnout had been lowest in the Shiite and Kurdish communities, while members of Australia's thriving Assyrian community have embraced the election with open arms.

The absentee voting itself will still be held over three days, Jan. 28-30, with the final day coinciding with the election day in Iraq, the agency said.

To register, Iraqis have to document their identity, Iraqi nationality and birth on or before Dec. 31, 1986. They must then return to the same location to vote.

As of Thursday, 93,847 overseas Iraqis had registered, the agency said.

The national breakdown of registrations through the first four days is 5,158 in Australia; 8,506 in Britain; 3,473 in Canada; 5,084 in Denmark; 267 in France; 6,448 in Germany; 20,805 in Iran; 5,019 in Jordan; 4,882 in the Netherlands; 10,773 in Sweden; 6,236 in Syria; 2,144 in Turkey; 6,086 in the United Arab Emirates; and 8,966 in the United States.

Iraqis who live outside the host countries may travel at their own expense to a participating country to register and vote.

powerclown · 01-22-2005, 04:47 PM

Democracy > Dictatorship

I hope the elections work out. From what I understand, there are only a few provinces unsafe for voting. It's understandable that the minority, ex-Baathist Sunnis are hesitant to relinquish power and privilege they enjoyed under Hussein, and I think they're making a mistake if they don't vote. In my opinion, there is no way the Coalition will allow civil war to break out and destabilize the region, not after everything they've gone through to get this far.

If the Sunnis boycott the election, it's my understanding that the Shia and the Kurds will be admitting Sunni representatives into the new government anyway.

stevo · 01-23-2005, 08:51 AM

Quote:

... If reluctant governments change their minds at the last minute about letting their officials go to Iraq, a handful of others may show up.....

...European Union announced last week that it had declined an invitation from Iraq to send observers. The Carter Center, which has monitored more than 50 elections overseas, also decided not to send observers....

"Any attempt to present the elections as valid is an attempt to fool the world," Giulietto Chiesa, an Italian member of the European Parliament, told reporters after the EU decision not to send representatives to Iraq.

Like most of the nations whose elections chiefs or officials are part of the new international mission, Canada has barred Canadians from going into Iraq

Cowards. They whine that the elections will be unfair, that there will be no one to monitor the elections. But it is them that are refraining from doing the job THEY claim to be responsible for. They are the international oversight they claim the iraqi elections so desperately need, yet they refuse to monitor them. This truely shows who the friends of the Iraqis are. Cowards.

powerclown · 01-23-2005, 09:02 AM

Excellent article in today's New York Times:

Divided We Stand
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: January 23, 2005

Paris — There's only one thing you can say about the elections in Iraq: They are either going to be the end of the beginning there or the beginning of the end.

Either Iraqis turn out in large numbers to take control of their own future and write their own constitution - and I think they will - or the fascist insurgents there prevent them from doing so, in which case the Bush team will have to move to Plan B. What's sad is that right when we have reached crunch time in Iraq, the West is totally divided. All that the Europeans care about is being able to say to George Bush, "We told you so." What happens the morning after "We told you so" ? Well, the Europeans don't have a Plan B either.

Ever since 9/11, I've argued the war on terrorism is really a war of ideas within the Muslim world - a war between those who want to wall Islam off from modernity, and defend it with a suicide cult, and those who want to bring Islam into the 21st century and preserve it as a compassionate faith. This war of ideas is not one that the West can fight, only promote. Muslims have to fight it from within. That is what is at stake in the Iraqi elections. This is the first great battle in the post-9/11 war of ideas.

This war also can't be won with troops - only with turnout. This is a war between Iraqi voters and insurgents - ballots versus bullets. And the people who understand that best are the fascist insurgents. That is why they are not focusing their attacks on U.S. troops, but on Iraqi election workers, candidates, local officials and police. The insurgents have one credo: "Iraqis must not vote - there must be no authentic expression of the people's will for a modern, decent Iraq. Because, if there is, the world will see that this is not a war between Muslims and infidel occupiers, but between Muslims with bad ideas and Muslims with progressive ideas."

And at this key juncture the West stands disunited. Condi Rice told the Senate that the "time for diplomacy is now." Give me a break. The time for diplomacy was two years ago. We would be so much better off now if the entire European Union was actively urging Iraqis to vote, and using its own moral legitimacy in the Arab world to delegitimize the insurgents. The divided West is a real liability.

"The most important threat [to the West] is Islamic terrorism," said Bernard Kouchner, the founder of Doctors Without Borders, and one of the few French intellectuals to support the ouster of Saddam. This is not a war with the Muslim religion, he stressed, but with a violent "fascist" Muslim minority. "We [in the West] have always been allied against fascism since the Second World War," he said. "We have to be together, America and Europe, because our enemies are the same, Muslim extremism and fascism," but right now, unlike in Bosnia, "we are apart."

Mr. Kouchner blames Paris for having been too quick to threaten a U.N. veto and blames even more the Bush team for having been too quick to go to war without a real U.N. alliance, and for mismanaging postwar Iraq. At least he cares. Most of his countrymen, I sense, are hoping Mr. Bush will fail in Iraq so that the ends will never justify his unilateral means. It's quite amazing, when you consider that Europe, with its large Muslim minorities, needs the moderates to win the war of ideas within Islam so much more than America.

I spent Friday morning interviewing two 18-year-old French Muslim girls in the Paris immigrant district of St.-Ouen. (It is about a mile from the school where in March 2003 a French Muslim girl, who had refused the veil and rebuffed the advances of a Muslim boy, was thrown into a garbage can by three Muslim teenagers, who then tossed lighted cigarette butts into the can and closed the lid.)

Both girls I interviewed wore veils and one also wore a full Afghan-like head-to-toe covering; one was of Egyptian parents, the other of Tunisian parents, but both were born and raised in France. What did I learn from them? That they got all their news from Al Jazeera TV, because they did not believe French TV, that the person they admired most in the world was Osama bin Laden, because he was defending Islam, that suicide "martyrdom" was justified because there was no greater glory than dying in defense of Islam, that they saw themselves as Muslims first and French citizens last, and that all their friends felt pretty much the same.

We were not in Kabul. We were standing outside their French public high school - a short ride from the Eiffel Tower.
------------------------------------
"...ballots vs. bullets."
Indeed.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-23-2005, 11:17 AM

From Zarqawi on the elections

Quote:

(CNN) -- An Internet recording claiming to be from wanted terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi condemned democracy as "the big American lie" on Sunday and said participants in Iraq's January 30 election are enemies of Islam.

The authenticity of the message could not immediately be confirmed by CNN.

"We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," said the speaker in the 35-minute message.

"Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

The message was posted on two Islamist Web sites that have carried previous messages thought to be from al-Zarqawi. Al-Zarqawi heads an insurgent group believed responsible for numerous car bombings and beheadings throughout Iraq.

Al-Zarqawi recently renamed his group from Unification and Jihad to al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States has placed $25 million bounties on al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden, whose recent taped messages have endorsed al-Zarqawi's acts of terrorism. (Full story)

The speaker attacked the Iraqi interim government as a tool used by the "Americans to promote this lie that is called democracy ... You have to be careful of the enemy's plots that involve applying democracy in your country and confront these plots, because they only want to do so to ... give the rejectionists the rule of Iraq. And after fighting the Baathists ... and the Sunnis, they will spread their insidious beliefs, and Baghdad and all the Sunni areas will become Shiite. Even now, the signs of infidelity and polytheism are on the rise."

The speaker said that 4 million Iranians had entered Iraq to vote in the coming elections.

"Oh, people of Iraq, where is your honor?" he asked. "Have you accepted oppression of the crusader harlots ... and the rejectionist pigs?"

"For all these issues, we declared war against, and whoever helps promote this and all those candidates, as well as the voters, are also part of this, and are considered enemies of God," the tape said.

On Friday, a video posted on an Islamist Web site showed two Iraqis apparently being beheaded on a city sidewalk. In the past, the Web site has shown video verified as having been produced by a group led by al-Zarqawi. CNN could not confirm the authenticity of the video.

In the 10-minute video, the two men tell their kidnappers that they drove truckloads of food and supplies to a U.S. base in the central Iraqi town of Ramadi.

......

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Grey2000 · 01-25-2005, 11:42 PM

Just a reminder to those that have forgotten, this election is to elect a transitional government, and as such can, I believe, be held succesfully under less than perfect conditions.

Besides, what is the alternative ?

jorgelito · 01-26-2005, 02:15 AM

You know, I bet that more Iraqis show up to vote (proportionally) than Americans did. And for the rest that don't, well too bad I guess. Not a whole lot of American vote either but they still bitch and moan (as is their right).

And if I recall, we had some problems at the polls too. Intimidation, wacky registration, miscounts etc...yet somehow we still get by just fine.

I'm sure they'll be ok. There will be growing pains and if they decide to elect themselves a new dictator or theocracy, well, so be it and may Alanis forever learn the true definition of irony.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-26-2005, 10:16 AM

There won't be a theocracy, it won't be able to sustain itself from the civil war that would erupt.

Yakk · 01-26-2005, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Yakk,

Every country that currently hosts an American Military base does so of their free will.

This is not true of a "colony".

Trivial counter-example: Cuba. Tell me guantanamo bay is there at the free will of the current Cuban government.

frogza · 01-26-2005, 11:21 AM

Does anyone know what the voter turnout was for the first US elections? To put the Iraqi elections in perspective I think that would be an important stat.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-26-2005, 11:24 AM

Well I know that in the last "Democratic" elections held in Iraq, Saddam got an astounding 10 million "yes" votes.

Manx · 01-26-2005, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

There won't be a theocracy, it won't be able to sustain itself from the civil war that would erupt.

Or the rebels will just be labeled terrorists and the U.S. gov't will support the ruling theocracy. Or the U.S. will have to sit back as the civil war erupts.

There is no non-theocratic Iraqi government on the table. It's a nice fantasy, but that's all it is.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-26-2005, 11:40 AM

Your wording is confusing Manx... are you asserting the only option on the table is a theocratic Iraq?

Manx · 01-26-2005, 11:49 AM

That is correct.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-26-2005, 12:15 PM

Well this election is to establish delgates for the constitution correct? We'll see what they write in there, hopefully they will balance power and eliminate any possibility of a theocracy.

Bodyhammer86 · 01-26-2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Trivial counter-example: Cuba. Tell me guantanamo bay is there at the free will of the current Cuban government

Yakk, we've had control of that base ever since 1898 and our government pays rent to Cuba to keep that base under US ownership, so technically, it is there at the free will of current Cuban government.

Hardknock · 01-26-2005, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

You're blaming Bush for all this??

Seems to me you should be blaming the people who are sniping at voters, blowing up polling places and threatening the candidates.

Yes, I blame Bush as well. Who started this war? For what reason? WMD's? Oil for food? Liberation? What excuse will it be next week? This election is nothing more than a show. When it all blows up in Dubya's face, which it will, because this "vote" won't represent the people at all. It will only fuel the resistance.

I give the Iraqi "president" a week before he's assininated. What are they gonna do? Are they gonig to send US secret service agents over there to protect him? The Iraqi's don't even want to police themselves. Oh, I forgot, Condi says that there are 40,000 of them ready and willing to fight. My mistake.

Yakk · 01-26-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

Yakk, we've had control of that base ever since 1898 and our government pays rent to Cuba to keep that base under US ownership, so technically, it is there at the free will of current Cuban government.

And if Cuba said 'leave now', what would happen?

Quote:

Since coming to power, Fidel Castro has only cashed one rent check, while steadfastly refusing to cash the others because he views the base as illegitimate. Although diplomatic relations do not exist between the U.S. and Communist Cuba, the U.S. has agreed to return fugitives from Cuban law to Cuban authorities and Cuba agreed to return fugitives from U.S. law, for offenses committed in Guantánamo Bay, to U.S. authorities.

The rent payments that the US 'pays' are being refused by the government of Cuba. They don't want the U.S. and the U.S. military there, on Cuban soil.

Like I said, it is just an easy counterexample. Are most US military bases welcomed by the hosting government? I'd say yes. But, that has been true of pretty much every colonial power in the history of the world.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-26-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Yes, I blame Bush as well. Who started this war? For what reason? WMD's? Oil for food? Liberation? What excuse will it be next week? This election is nothing more than a show. When it all blows up in Dubya's face, which it will, because this "vote" won't represent the people at all. It will only fuel the resistance.

I give the Iraqi "president" a week before he's assininated. What are they gonna do? Are they gonig to send US secret service agents over there to protect him? The Iraqi's don't even want to police themselves. Oh, I forgot, Condi says that there are 40,000 of them ready and willing to fight. My mistake.

You really have a grasp on what's going on over there, eh?

This glorious resistance you speak of, you realize it is merely focused in 3, count them 3, of 18, Iraqi provinces. The 3 provinces just happen to be the sunni triangle, where the ex-baathists and Saddam loyalists are all from. The triangle where the majority of the insurrection and problems regarding this transitional election, compromises the smallest minority of Iraqis at 15% (+/-) of the total population. Then you have the fact that the number of the "insurgents" is 200,000, not even 1% of the total Iraqi population, and they aren't even all Iraqi!

You have fucks like Zarqawi carrying out the majority of the attacks against American troops and Iraqi citizens because guess what, Al Qaeda doesn't want a democratic Iraq, it's a tool of the harlot zionists and crusaders.

01-21-2005, 12:30 PM	#1 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Iraqi Elections I have been reading various reports from Iraq and these elections seemed doomed to failure. Just today 41 canidates withdrew, a large part of the population is boycotting the elections, voting locations have still not been announced, i heard (but haven't read myself) that canidates haven't even been announced. Even if the elections occur there are so many problems with the elections that the outcome is meaningless. What do all of you think?

01-21-2005, 12:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	They may not be as successful as we had hoped, but they are still a step forward...just a smaller one. The alternative is to stay in the same spot or worse, to move backwards. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-21-2005, 12:46 PM	#4 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It's people's right whether or not they want to participate, if they boycott it's their own damned fault if they don't like the results. Also in regards to what you said about a large portion of the population not participating... to what extent, I've heard that it is mostly the Sunni's and they are the biggest minority of the Iraqi population at about 15%. Even if the entire Sunni population and Kurdish population, or you can mix and match how you want it, they would still have better participation by numbers they what we have (by proportions). But yeah, the elections will happen, it will be a step in the right direction, and it will lead to a stable and hopefully democratic Iraq. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-21-2005, 01:06 PM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	why? the americans invaded iraq, lebell. whether you like it or not, many of the folk fighting in iraq understand that as a colonial occupation. they understand the elections as an american fraud. why should they understand it otherwise? seriously--why should they? i understand that, sitting in the us watching things unfold from afar, you might be inclined to attribute other motives to this farce--but these attributions rely on very different conditions (sitting in front of a tv or reading information on the net or in print from the comfort of your home in a place that has not been invaded by another power, one that in fact has talked itself up as liberating you while in fact it has found itself bogged down in an ongoing, bloody war--not insurgency--a war, the same war, which has not ended and which shows no signs of ending.) of course this whole situation is the fault of george w bush and the neocons within his administration who developed and supported the line that lead into this mess. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-21-2005, 01:28 PM	#11 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i am against these particular elections because of their timing, their character, and their obvious political motivations. i am against these particular elections because they will, in my view, do more to harm the idea of elections than they will help them. i am against these particular elections because they are not happening in conditions that allow the legitimacy that such elections should have. then there is the level of particular procedures. then there is the nature of the allawi regime. then there is the ongoing nature of the american occupation. i think that the elections should be postponed. this is not an opposition to elections in general, so dont confuse the two. as for the relation of my position on the war to this--the question is complex and i have thought about it quite alot. i think i can seperate the two issues (no-one can ever be sure about this--i could pose the same question to you about your relative support for the elections and your relative support for the war [even though i am not so sure about your exact position on the issue--but i hope you see my point]) it has come down to whether i think it worthwhile to go even further in undercutting the value of the language of democracy by continuing with these particular elections in this particular situation. what possible good would/could come of such a continuation of the erosion of this language? [edit: that of democracy, even in its weak american variant--thanks mostly to plato] it is bad enough that the war was launched on fabricated grounds--and that everyone, iraqis included, knows this. it is bad enough that every day, in most of iraq, you have a direct, material contradiction between the ideology wrapped round this war and conditions on the ground. it seems to me that the elections are seen--widely--as something of a charade--but at the same time, it also seems that folk are to an extent hopeful about them--which means, to me at least, that it is important that the elections happen in conditions that do not undermine the functions they are meant to serve. i think the consequences of them turning into a farce far far outweigh the questions that might be raised by postponing them. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-21-2005, 12:34 PM	#3 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I'm not sure if they are even a step forward. The results will have no meaning, will not be representive of the people, and only go to bolster the resistance.

01-21-2005, 01:26 PM	#10 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	Pointing out the reasons for the differences in perception between a comfortable westerner and a frightened Iraqi is not the same thing as not supporting efforts to install a legitimate government. It's simply an attempt to explain things in an objective manner.

01-21-2005, 01:30 PM	#12 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Thank you for the clarification. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-21-2005, 01:33 PM	#13 (permalink)
The_wall Psycho Location: Rhode Island biatches!	I think the elections will happen but will essentially be meaningless. Having an elected leader isn't going to stop the violence, and I don't see the violence ending any time soon, hell I bet the chaotic state of Iraq won't change before the newly elected leader serves his entire term. Because of the chaos I can't imagine anything really productive happening. Some say its a step in the right direction, I see it as no step taken at all. __________________ "We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

01-21-2005, 01:53 PM	#14 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Oh, it isn't going to stop the violence, so I guess we should just cut and run, no point in having elections if they aren't going to be an immediate fix. Yeah let the insurgents and terrorists win, that'd be a real strong and smart message to send to the world. Paper Tiger rarrrrrr!!!!! meow.... __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-21-2005, 07:51 PM	#17 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I think some of you have a wrong picture of the upcoming elections. Although there is still ongoing violence it is not going to widely disrupt the polls. There will be some cities, like Fallujah, where there will be disruptions and voting will be difficult, but Iraqis do not have to vote in the towns they reside. They are able to vote in any city in the province they live, as a way to avoid insurgent threats. If you live in fallujah, and other troubled cities (mostly in the sunni triangle) you can vote anywhere in your province or in Baghdad, itself. It should also be noted that the insurgent violence that threatens the polls the most is restricted to 3 of Iraq's 18 provinces. The rest of the country is in relative stability as far as holding elections are concerned. There is also the concern over misrepresentation in the election outcome causing the results to be meaningless. To overcome this, when the Iraqis go to the polls they are not just voting for individuals in the national assembly, but a group of candidates that is representative of all the people. When a Shia casts a ballot for his favorite candidate, on that ticket he will also be voting for a sunni, kurd, etc. So even if all the Sunnis boycott the election there will still be a sunni representation in the general assembly, thus having a voice in the construction of the constitution.

01-22-2005, 09:43 AM	#18 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I think this is redundant. The exact same things were said before the Afghan election. About how Al Qaeda was going to scare off the whole populace and how it'd be void in the eyes of the public. That went off pretty nicely to the bane of many critics.

01-22-2005, 10:23 AM	#20 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I don't think this election can be fairly compaired to Afganistan. Iraq and Afaganistan are completely different in terms of politics and security. I had no concerns with the afgan elections but the Iraqi ones bother me a lot.

01-22-2005, 01:37 PM	#21 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Yakk, Every country that currently hosts an American Military base does so of their free will. This is not true of a "colony". __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-22-2005, 02:21 PM	#22 (permalink)
chateau_margaux Upright	Here's the crux - if the people wont register, we got a problem - so how do you involve the electorate? Registration for overseas absentee voting in Iraq's national election has been extended by two days because the turnout so far in the weeklong campaign has run far behind expectations, organizers said Saturday. As of Thursday, fewer than one in 10 of the estimated 1.2 million eligible Iraqis living abroad in 14 countries had registered. The International Organization for Migration, which is organizing the overseas vote, decided to continue registrations through Monday and Tuesday. “The extra days will apply to each of the 74 registration centres in all 14 countries where Iraqis are able to register and vote, pending the approval of the host governments,” the organization said in a statement. “We are extending our operation in an effort to provide Iraqi voters with as much access to our centres as possible,” said Peter Erben, director of the project. “We would urge Iraqis to register now to avoid being caught in lengthy queues on the final day.” Niurka Pineiro, spokeswoman for the Geneva-based organization, said that “in some places” the turnout has been less than anticipated. She noted that in Australia only one in eight of the estimated eligible voters had signed up as of Thursday. “We don't know exactly why,” Ms. Pineiro said. “It could be a number of things. It could be procrastination, it could be apathy, they don't have the right documents. There are many Iraqis who have been out for a long time.” She said some speculated that a Muslim holiday this week may have been a factor. “It's a mixture of apathy and apprehension,” said Bernie Hogan, the head of the voting effort in Australia, explaining the lack of response from Iraqis living in that country. Despite predictions that as many as 50,000 Iraqis living in Australia could join the electoral rolls, only 6,500 have done so. Hogan on Saturday revised his registration target to 10,000 Iraqis and expressed disappointment with the response. “The apathy comes from people who say nothing's going to happen, it's a sham, I'm comfortable here in Australia and I'm not going to get involved,” Mr. Hogan said. But a larger section of the community is simply suspicious of the process, he said, afraid of adding their names to a government-sponsored list they fear could be used against them. “They're very distrusting,” Mr. Hogan said. “After decades and decades of tyranny and government abuse, they're not confident about the future of government and they're not confident about the use of registration material.” Mr. Hogan said registration turnout had been lowest in the Shiite and Kurdish communities, while members of Australia's thriving Assyrian community have embraced the election with open arms. The absentee voting itself will still be held over three days, Jan. 28-30, with the final day coinciding with the election day in Iraq, the agency said. To register, Iraqis have to document their identity, Iraqi nationality and birth on or before Dec. 31, 1986. They must then return to the same location to vote. As of Thursday, 93,847 overseas Iraqis had registered, the agency said. The national breakdown of registrations through the first four days is 5,158 in Australia; 8,506 in Britain; 3,473 in Canada; 5,084 in Denmark; 267 in France; 6,448 in Germany; 20,805 in Iran; 5,019 in Jordan; 4,882 in the Netherlands; 10,773 in Sweden; 6,236 in Syria; 2,144 in Turkey; 6,086 in the United Arab Emirates; and 8,966 in the United States. Iraqis who live outside the host countries may travel at their own expense to a participating country to register and vote.

01-22-2005, 04:47 PM	#23 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Democracy > Dictatorship I hope the elections work out. From what I understand, there are only a few provinces unsafe for voting. It's understandable that the minority, ex-Baathist Sunnis are hesitant to relinquish power and privilege they enjoyed under Hussein, and I think they're making a mistake if they don't vote. In my opinion, there is no way the Coalition will allow civil war to break out and destabilize the region, not after everything they've gone through to get this far. If the Sunnis boycott the election, it's my understanding that the Shia and the Kurds will be admitting Sunni representatives into the new government anyway.

01-23-2005, 09:02 AM	#25 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Excellent article in today's New York Times: Divided We Stand By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: January 23, 2005 Paris — There's only one thing you can say about the elections in Iraq: They are either going to be the end of the beginning there or the beginning of the end. Either Iraqis turn out in large numbers to take control of their own future and write their own constitution - and I think they will - or the fascist insurgents there prevent them from doing so, in which case the Bush team will have to move to Plan B. What's sad is that right when we have reached crunch time in Iraq, the West is totally divided. All that the Europeans care about is being able to say to George Bush, "We told you so." What happens the morning after "We told you so" ? Well, the Europeans don't have a Plan B either. Ever since 9/11, I've argued the war on terrorism is really a war of ideas within the Muslim world - a war between those who want to wall Islam off from modernity, and defend it with a suicide cult, and those who want to bring Islam into the 21st century and preserve it as a compassionate faith. This war of ideas is not one that the West can fight, only promote. Muslims have to fight it from within. That is what is at stake in the Iraqi elections. This is the first great battle in the post-9/11 war of ideas. This war also can't be won with troops - only with turnout. This is a war between Iraqi voters and insurgents - ballots versus bullets. And the people who understand that best are the fascist insurgents. That is why they are not focusing their attacks on U.S. troops, but on Iraqi election workers, candidates, local officials and police. The insurgents have one credo: "Iraqis must not vote - there must be no authentic expression of the people's will for a modern, decent Iraq. Because, if there is, the world will see that this is not a war between Muslims and infidel occupiers, but between Muslims with bad ideas and Muslims with progressive ideas." And at this key juncture the West stands disunited. Condi Rice told the Senate that the "time for diplomacy is now." Give me a break. The time for diplomacy was two years ago. We would be so much better off now if the entire European Union was actively urging Iraqis to vote, and using its own moral legitimacy in the Arab world to delegitimize the insurgents. The divided West is a real liability. "The most important threat [to the West] is Islamic terrorism," said Bernard Kouchner, the founder of Doctors Without Borders, and one of the few French intellectuals to support the ouster of Saddam. This is not a war with the Muslim religion, he stressed, but with a violent "fascist" Muslim minority. "We [in the West] have always been allied against fascism since the Second World War," he said. "We have to be together, America and Europe, because our enemies are the same, Muslim extremism and fascism," but right now, unlike in Bosnia, "we are apart." Mr. Kouchner blames Paris for having been too quick to threaten a U.N. veto and blames even more the Bush team for having been too quick to go to war without a real U.N. alliance, and for mismanaging postwar Iraq. At least he cares. Most of his countrymen, I sense, are hoping Mr. Bush will fail in Iraq so that the ends will never justify his unilateral means. It's quite amazing, when you consider that Europe, with its large Muslim minorities, needs the moderates to win the war of ideas within Islam so much more than America. I spent Friday morning interviewing two 18-year-old French Muslim girls in the Paris immigrant district of St.-Ouen. (It is about a mile from the school where in March 2003 a French Muslim girl, who had refused the veil and rebuffed the advances of a Muslim boy, was thrown into a garbage can by three Muslim teenagers, who then tossed lighted cigarette butts into the can and closed the lid.) Both girls I interviewed wore veils and one also wore a full Afghan-like head-to-toe covering; one was of Egyptian parents, the other of Tunisian parents, but both were born and raised in France. What did I learn from them? That they got all their news from Al Jazeera TV, because they did not believe French TV, that the person they admired most in the world was Osama bin Laden, because he was defending Islam, that suicide "martyrdom" was justified because there was no greater glory than dying in defense of Islam, that they saw themselves as Muslims first and French citizens last, and that all their friends felt pretty much the same. We were not in Kabul. We were standing outside their French public high school - a short ride from the Eiffel Tower. ------------------------------------ "...ballots vs. bullets." Indeed.

01-25-2005, 11:42 PM	#27 (permalink)
Grey2000 Upright Location: Cape Town, South Africa	Just a reminder to those that have forgotten, this election is to elect a transitional government, and as such can, I believe, be held succesfully under less than perfect conditions. Besides, what is the alternative ?

01-26-2005, 02:15 AM	#28 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	You know, I bet that more Iraqis show up to vote (proportionally) than Americans did. And for the rest that don't, well too bad I guess. Not a whole lot of American vote either but they still bitch and moan (as is their right). And if I recall, we had some problems at the polls too. Intimidation, wacky registration, miscounts etc...yet somehow we still get by just fine. I'm sure they'll be ok. There will be growing pains and if they decide to elect themselves a new dictator or theocracy, well, so be it and may Alanis forever learn the true definition of irony.

01-26-2005, 10:16 AM	#29 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	There won't be a theocracy, it won't be able to sustain itself from the civil war that would erupt. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-26-2005, 11:21 AM	#31 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	Does anyone know what the voter turnout was for the first US elections? To put the Iraqi elections in perspective I think that would be an important stat.

01-26-2005, 11:24 AM	#32 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Well I know that in the last "Democratic" elections held in Iraq, Saddam got an astounding 10 million "yes" votes. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-26-2005, 11:40 AM	#34 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Your wording is confusing Manx... are you asserting the only option on the table is a theocratic Iraq? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-26-2005, 11:49 AM	#35 (permalink)
Manx Loser	That is correct.

01-26-2005, 12:15 PM	#36 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Well this election is to establish delgates for the constitution correct? We'll see what they write in there, hopefully they will balance power and eliminate any possibility of a theocracy. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.