Iraqi Elections: Poll
 

not to take anything away from rekna's iraqi elections thread... but i thought it would be interesting to see the consensus among tfp'ers about how well the mechanics of the election would function this sunday. please choose the option that best fits your expectations. i realize that the level of violence is not exactly measured objectively and that options 3 & 6 aren't necessarily mutually exclusive... just take a guess.

I would say over 40% turnout, but not necessarily widespread violence. A car bomb here, a car bomb there, but not across the entire country and simultaneously.

Unless the insurgents have planned something special, but I don't see it happening because it probably already would have.

I still say that all this will blow up in dubya face. Mabye then he'll come to realize the mess he made and that he can't shove our version of freedom down the worlds throat. I still can't believe he had the balls to say in his speech that he would spread freedom around the world with that forceful, cowboy tone of his. I'm pretty pissed about it and I'm not even a foreigner!

He'll still have no idea as to how to clean up this mess. Iraq will become a haven for terrorists and it will be dubya's fault. Let's see him blame that on Clinton.

I think over 40% turnout is reasonable. Over 60%, maybe not. I think that terrorist who have been threatening to kill anyone who votes will sure try to do so, but our security'll be out in full force. It'll be interesting to see what happens. *Hopefully* someone will get elected that won't get assassinated immediately and who can do something to pull Iraq together. I don't know if such a candidate exists, however.

That is going to sway me to your side anyday. Please be reasonable about this. Cause I will get upset and start saying the same type of things. Not bashing, cause I can get angry and start to do the same thing

But, I say 40 with the volience. I think that the car bombs and maybe an attempt on the elects life. BE it if its wide spread or not, I didn't know how much defined lil and widespread. Is the volience widespread now cause if thats the def. then thats what i say it will be, about the same.

Frankly, I'm not trying to sway you to "my" side because in the end, nothing I say will accomplish that so it's pointless. I'm being totally reasonable. Those who are still living in a dream world thinking this is all going to go as smooth as glass are not. Am I lying about what I said? Look at the facts that are stated. This is in fact, a very large mess, nobody knows how to clean it up and they actually want more of the same. Are those facts false? You mean to tell me that you didn't get that "the world better do what I want or they can fuck off" vibe from that speech?

I still say the Iraqi "president" has a week to live before one of the insurgents get to him and his car blows up. There's just no type of security over there that could prevent something like that from happening,

Id say probably 40% turnout but with violence - I just don't see violence being halted. Not to mention that if Sunnis decide not to vote, we can have one hell of a problem at hand.

I knew this wasnt going to be smooth. No one said that this was going to be easy. Has any war ever gone smooth as glass, no it hasn't. And you know it 's not going to be smooth when the bickering (SP?) started before the war. All that shows is that those who don't like Bush are going to tear down everything he does if it is not perfect, and goes "smooth as glass" So, I do not think that you are being reasonable by bashing "Dubya" (as you put it). He is the Prez, I wish people could show respect.

Why not bring up the faults with the Iragi election to be and what is going on over there, than emotionally bashing the prez.
And you can help people see your side of the argument if it has more than an overly biased tone to it, but has more facts and seems less emotional. I have seen my veiws sway since I have started veiwing these boards, due to the reasonable arguments. You can always make reasonable people rethink a stance.

There is going to be close to a 30% turnout but I think it is pretty evident from the actions of the insurgents that they are going to be at least trying to use violence as a deterant. Hopefully everything goes as well as it could but I doubt it, know matter how many securtiy forces they have guarding the polling stations.

It will probably go better than most expect. Probably a little less turnout than we get in the U.S. around 30-40% or so. Heck we can't even get 50% to vote here sometimes. I assume the military and police have done their homework and will keep the violence down somewhat.

it seems really difficult to say much coherent at this point about the elections.
i do not feel as though i can speculate about turnout levels, etc.
i do wonder about the question of legitimacy--but that too will play itself out on the ground.
there are to be something on the order of a hundred candidates on the ballot--but the campign is truncated by fear of violence, so that part is odd.

what strikes me as really odd is that in addition to the 100 or so candidates, the kurdish region is being offered a national referendum. i suspect this is payback for the support lent the invasion. and here i thought the looting of the iraqi museum was enough. silly me. i wonder what the implications regionally will be if this referendum in favor of national autonomy passes--i imagine the turks will be double-plus unpleased with it. i also wonder what the relation will be between this measure, if it passes, and the "transitional government"

trying to seperate views of this ritual from my general opposition to the war is not easy. this is the best i have managed so far.

There will be low turnout, boycotts, violence, widespread fraud, and a speech full of meaningless but glittering generalities by Bush.

I heard an Iraqi couple on NPR today, who said they were voting at different places because that way it's unlikely that both of them would die, and at least one of them would survive to take care of their kids.

If I was an Iraqi, I wouldn't bother to vote. Think of it rationally: the probability that you would be killed is about a million times greater than the probability that your vote would make any difference whatsoever.

Read my post again.

Hardknock I like how you say we are shoving our democracy down someone's throats, when the country is being terrorized by a fraction of it's total population trying to stop the vote.

I do expect a high turnout and rather low violence but I'm really in no position to know.

I hope for the best for the Iraqi people - this is a pivotal historic moment for them.

I too am hoping for the best... I don't expect much immediate change from this election but trust that it is a step in the right direction, despite the path taken to take these steps.

Low turnout with plenty of bloodshed. The Iraqi fighters have already bombed many places in which the pollings were to take place. It's simply too early for an election considering the widespread violence that has yet to be stopped. It is an unfair election when voters must either risk their lives or sit home and hope for the best.

i am honestly hoping for a moderate/higher turnout and low violence, but i'm expecting low turnout/low violence. I think a lot of people will simply not vote for a myriad of reasons, but i also feel that the security forces (US and Iraq's) will do a superb job of keeping violence at a minimum.

at any rate, as jaded as i am about the whole iraq situation, i do sincerely hope for a positive outcome...

Who can blame them? If a foreign force invaded America we'd fight them off the same way they're doing us. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Since its pretty much treason nowadays to disagree with Lord Bush, you can condemn me all you want. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. In their eyes, we're the terrorists. Does anyone ever think of it that way? Or are we just locked in our "superior American mindset" and we don't think about what the rest of the world wants or how they feel about us? It's the American way or the highway. Honestly, I don't think we have a clue as to what's really going on over there. We just watch the 3 minute clips on CNN every hour and accept it as honest truth.

ok... but if you're going to take the stance that bush is primarily to blame for the things that go wrong, you must give him full credit for the things that go right. we'll see how much of that actually goes around.

I'm game. Name one thing that has gone right in the last four years that all citizens can benefit from.

I think you have no clue. A few from the few negative things that is portrayed daily, by people like you, who want us to fail in Iraq.

Is it a wonder how less then 1% of the Iraqi population are involved with this insurgency? Isn't it weird that when you further analyze that number it get's smaller and smaller because it turns out many of this glourious minute men freedom fighters aren't even from Iraq? Also have you noticed how the "insurgency" is largely perpetuated by ex baathists and Saddam loyalists, mainly in the Sunni Triangle? Oh wait sorry that must be American propaganda. Isn't it weird how they behead civilian workers? Isn't it weird how they suicide bomb Iraqi markets and schools and political offices?... real brave, and boy do they really care about their country men.

I don't like tossing around American hater this or American hater that, but the few posts of yours I have read, I get the distinct feeling that you do hate America, or at the very best you want to see it fail; which would just be peachy for the Iraqi's, and you come off as an apologist for terrorism and sociopaths like Al-Zarqawi.

Interesting how you label someone as an "American-hater" due to his views on the war. His "American-hating" and "negative" post is more realistic than anyone else’s in this thread. I fail to see how not being a blind flag waiving "patriotic" fool makes him anti-American, if anything, he is a true American who does not allow the non-sense propaganda to pollute his mind. It's not called "America-hater", it's called having the ability to think for oneself.

He is correct, do any of you "patriots" ever consider the other side? Do any of you understand the reasoning behind their fighting? Could it be they're fighting because their country was wrongfully invaded? Could it be they're fighting because they had loved ones killed by the Americans? Of course not, they are nothing but sociopath terrorists, right? I said it before and I'll say it again, our perception of terrorism is either completely fucked, or simply biased and racist.

And Mojo, about the “terrorists” beheading “civilian workers”, each and every one of them assisted the enemy (not that I’m justifying it, but it’s not like they just grab random people in the street to behead them as a hobby).

I remember watching videos of women in Afghanistan who litterally did the death rights for EVERY MEMBER of their family the night before the vote because they were sure most of them were going to die. Dont underestimate these people.

Really? like the muslim lady who worked for something like 10 years in Iraq to help get foreign aid to the people? The lady who worked tirelessly for the poor and starving of that country?

Pull Foot A out of Mouth B.

I hope that there is widespread turnout and low violence, but that isn't what I'm anticipating. I heard on the radio today that a lot of Iraqis don't have easy access to a polling place, that it's an all day drive to get to one, and that the Sunnis don't want to vote at all.

what? you said if things don't work in the iraqi election out it'd be Bush's fault and i responded that if it's Bush's fault if they go wrong then they should probably be to his credit if they go well. since the election hasn't even been held yet... you should probably wait till sometime next year for a decent answer to that question.

also, it's folly to think of things that go right only in terms of EVERYONE benefiting.

Should have been more specific. I meant US citizens.

Again, if this noble insurgency compromised any significant part of the population, more then 1%, I would consider it. But guess what Iraqi's are better off now, and I could care less then sunni baathist loyalists and foreign infiltrators don't like an American presence. They employ cowardice tactics and they are only making things worse for themselves and their fellow country men.

Nothing is worse than betrayal of your country by assisting and cooperating with foreign invaders that illegally invaded your country. This is what the 1% understands, whereas the rest are mere puppets of the Americans.

I don't support either side’s fighters, but I can at least understand the "insurgents" retaliation. You may call them cowards, but the Americans use cowardice tactics as well.

How about the betrayal of supporting a regiem that for 30 years have tortured, maimed, raped, killed, massacred, and done every bad thing in the book to your own country. That seems a lot worse of a betrayal than aiding a country that sought to get rid of him, and leave as soon as the fighting cooled down.

Using that logic, why haven't we invaded, N. Korea, Cuba, Iran, or China? They all have dictators that do all the bad things that Saddam did. Since we want to spread freedom all around the world, they should have been invaded by now. Everytime I ask a war supporter this question I never get an answer back. Why is that?

Everytime I hear this I'm reminded of little neighbor kids I used to babysit. There was a kid down the street who bullied all the other kids. One day I caught him beating up the little girl whom I babysit for the day before. I backhanded the bully and he ran off. His mother came to my house and threatened to call the cops on me. When I told her how her son was beating up a defenseless girl she said "well you never stopped him when he was fighting other kids".

So this is our situation. We didnt stop Saddam when he was killing the Kurds or Shi'i. We didnt stop N. Korea as he lets his people cannibalize each other just to survive. We have the power to stop bullies doing bad things. For various reasons we generally dont (namely we're called colonists, imperialists, etc). In two instances in the past 4 years we did it and lifted two large countries from the clutches of bullies. Now ontop of everyone calling us various names we are called by those same people to continue it against half the world in order to prove ourselves worthy of a goal we already proved to fight for, the progression of democracy and the abolishment of evil.

I view doing a little bit of good as infanitely better than sitting idlely by and letting evil men subjegate the good.

Like I said in my last post, everytime I ask this question I never get a decent answer that directly answers the question, always something else that skirts the real issue.

I'm still waiting.

I'd suspect that they're next on the list. It looks like Israel and America are itching to bomb some nuclear factories in Iran. Cuba's not worth our time anymore because Castro's probably going to kick off eventually and then we'll get involved. And I wouldn't put North Korea out of our mind. China's too big of a bite to take quite yet. But they're slowly but surely reforming their nation, at least the economic system in some areas.

that's like telling the runner on first base that he really has no intention of actually scoring a run because... if that's what he really wanted he would've already done so.

and also, people love to talk about war-mongering Bush and how he just loves to arrogantly spread his will by military force... but they don't recognize all the political/diplomatic/economic power being exerted. we ARE spreading freedom, just not through military means (exactly how we did for 12 years before operation iraqi freedom w/oil sanctions). n.korea, cuba, and iran are all severely handicapped by our non-military policies. china is experiencing more change in the last 50 years than they have in the last 1000 because they know they must bend over backwards to meet our brand of capitalism on our terms. things are being done about every example you cited.

you cannot lament U.S.'s use of military power while citing examples where there are obvious political/diplomatic/economic measures in place to bloodlessly achieve the same goals.

I'd say Seaver's response hit the nail on the head.

The results so far: over 60% turnout, with observers calling the election free and fair. Kurds and Shi'its waiting for hours to vote, and Sunni's mostly staying at home, heeding a call to boycot the election (for fear of losing power). There were a few idiots blowing themselves up, but 36 killed isn't a lot compared to the scenarios some news networks predicted. The insurgents threatened to kill lots of people and turn this into a bloodbath, but they failed miserably.

Apparently, the average Iraqi is indeed capable of understanding democracy, and doesn't support the insurgents one bit. Boy, what a surprise that was...

But then again, the people not fighting the "occupation" must be brainwashed fools, cowering before the American-backed puppet-government, right???

(edit: updated the number of deaths. Still low.)

Nice to know the Iraqi election is going pretty well so far.

Thank you. I thought I hit it quite directly if you read my whole post.

Rough estimates, which admittely isn't the most reliable or accurate, coming from CNN.com are 72%. What a wash this election has been!

If those numbers are even close, I'm impressed. The only person I heard on the news predicting such a high turnout was the Iraqi prime minister. I guess he knows his people better than our pundits.

there were some violent attacks, but around 40 casualties for the entire country qualifies as low violence to me... especially considering the turnought was reportedly very high in some places.

i'm an optimist, generally, and this seems to have gone much better than i expected. under the circumstances, i don't think anyone could've thought it would go much better than it did.

it gives me a warm-fuzzy feeling inside.

QUESTION: does anyone know how this played on Al-Jazeera or Al-Arabiya over there?

I hopped over to Al Jazeera and they were mixed on their reporting. They focused A LOT on the sunni's who didn't show, they talked about the high Kurdish turnout and mostly ignored the huge shiite turnout.

I was disappointed, but not surprised.

That's cause Al Jazeera is owned by Sunnis. What yall dont understand, that in every Arab country, if you are Sunni you ARE the government. If you are Shi'i you ARE the working class. So, you can see where Al Jazeera would be just a tad bit biased.

If the Sunnis didn't vote, screw em. They have had their boot on the throats of 80% of the country for decades. Sure they're not happy about losing their dominant position, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

I note that there is already bitching the the Sunni's are going to be "under represented".

Gee, I wonder who's fault THAT is?

Oh yeah, the United States :rolleyes:

Wow, what a success! Much better than I expected and I expected it to go pretty well. I think a lot of credit goes out to the Iraqi government and the US Government for making this critical election run as well as it did. No matter where you sit politically, you can not deny that Bush did a good job in making sure these elections ran smoothly.

Want to bet? :D

I wont go into all the others. But I have to say, just as predicted by many people here, went smoothly just as it did in Afghanistan, after everyone saying the exact same things on how violent it would be.

Some of you seem to be gloating just a little today. For what exactly? An election that’s taking place half a world away? Being able to say Bush did something "right?" If the Iraqis end up a free and stable nation then good for them. If they do all the work to start their new government and get it up and running then good for them. But, the question that's lingering on my mind is, what do WE as the United States get out of the deal? That's the question all of you need to ask yourselves.

Was it worth it? And if you say yes, then what was it that made this whole mess worth it?

Look under the surface, and read between the lines.

What we get out of an American friendly, free and Democratic Iraq in the Middle East? You sir might need to brush over your geopolitical knowledge, there is a lot to gain there.

A beaming example to the rest of the Arab world on democracy and civil rights.

A vast improvement to the stability of a region.

Return of international respect for the benefits of American foreign policy.

Yeah, I'd say it was worth the cost if successful.

So Iraq is friendly to the US. AND??? One country out of many in the middle east. So is Iran next? What exactly is there to gain? (besides the free society which is what everyone is spewing right now and at the same time I might remind everyone is not the reason we went in the first place) That was my question. Are we just going to be like "ok, your country is free now. Glad we could help. See ya later you'll never hear from us again."

If only it worked the other way too. Is Bush ever going to do anything other than champion a success and ignore a failure? I'm not holding my breath.

of Course it's worth it.

Even if we don't look at a possible trading partner. What about doing it for the good of the Iraqi people. Or are they not good enough to warent a free country to live in. (they weem to want it, but who can say that they schouldn't have it)

Haven't you heard of charity. There is a lot of that out there. It works by people helping others and not asking for anything in return. It goes hand and hand with kindness. That question angers me. It is like asking those hit by the tsunami to send me a check or a free hotel room for helping them.

And what exactly would we trade with a free Iraq? What would they trade with us? They really don't have any currency to speak of. since the givernment is just starting up.

Tsunami/Iraq. Apples to Oranges, seriously. You mean to tell me that you believe that we went over there out of charity?

They have oil, and we are over there helping them set up their plants and that is a big source of wealth.




No, we didn't go over becuase of the kindness in our hearts. But, when we didn't find any WMD's we could have apt. the current PM and left. By staying there and making sure that Iraq gets a goold start Americans are paying with their lives. All to make sure that someone that they don't know doesn't ahev to fear their goverment. We could have easily pulled out right after we took Saddam out, or placed our own people in charge of their goverment. But we didn't and we are paying for it (lives and money) to make sure that we do the right thing.

Thank you for proving my point.

And why are we doing all of this you think? Could it be because:

And Iraq happens to owe us billions of dollars because the Bush admin. has stated that the money we're using to free them is a loan. And how do you think they will pay that loan back?

Thats your whole point??????

Cause we could have put in our own goverment with our hand selected people to get their oil. There is more than greed at play here. Cause if we just wanted the oil we could have just slaughtered everyone and not worried about the people who now have control over their goverment.

Yes, we can get oil from them. But, you make it seem as it is such a bad thing. And before you go and say that this was all for the oil, those counties agaisnt the war were keeping saddam in power so they could get it themselves. I think that our way is a much better, and more humaine way to do it.

That in the end, we went in to economically control Iraq and eventually get our hands on their oil, then yes.

We did. They voted on it yesterday. The government in Iraq will be American friendly. That's already been established.

Are you sure? Really?


The United States purposely slaughtering the Iraqi people in order to get their oil. Ok. Now, under your scenario, we forced our way into Iraq, killed their people, took their oil and gave the insurgents and the rest of the Middle East region a new basis of anti-Americanism. Thousands rise up against us in defiance. That'd look very nice on the world stage. Cowboy diplomacy, is it?

Getting oil from them is not a bad thing you say? And killing innocent civilians is a much more humane way to do it?? Listen to yourself! Please, please get your head out of the sand. Look at the big picture for a minute. In the end, this will be all about oil. All the other dictators in the world haven't been attacked yet. Why? China, Iran, N. Korea, etc can actually defend themselves. Iraq was this little nation that couldn't fight back even if they wanted to. The CIA already knew that there were no WMD's. That's why we attacked. Don't believe me? Then why is Bush going on and on about trying to resolve the N. Korea situation with actual diplomacy? What about cowboy diplomacy? N. Korea is some shittly little country way up there. We can take em! Right?

Maybe France, Canada, and all the rest were trying to get oil for themselves. At this point we'll never know. What pisses me off is that kids had to go and die because of America's thirst for black gold.

We went to war for oil. Again. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. And the fact that there are people out there who think that's ok disgusts me. If I was a parent and I learned that Bush sent my kid off to die becasue he wanted oil for his big oil friends it would really piss me off.

If this was only about oil we would have left Saddam in place and taken sactions off him and let him sell it at bottom prices to get back his military.

But he had WMD's!!

And how would we have gained economic control if Saddam was left in power?

The way I see it, control of Iraqi oil has been taken out of the hands of an unpredictable madman, and placed into the hands of Iraqis who hopefully will use it more productively.

They can vote whoever they want. But, if you want to call it American Friendly go ahead. Beacuse there are millions of American Friendly Iraqis.



Yes, you are right we went in there and slaughtered Iraqi people. To bad those Iraqi's had guns and bombs and were firing them at our troops and beheading people. Not to mention that most of those people that are fighting aren't from Iraq. And those thousands you mentioned, thats less than 1%. Hmmm... Millions turn out to vote, thousands try ro scare poeple into a fasicst state that they want to be incontrol of.


We are at war with N. Korea. Just not fighting. There was never and end to the Korean War, that is why we are still in Korea Guarding the 38th.

Wow, you have no regard for the Iraqis that were killed and Tortured by Saddam. Do you not think that it is better that Iraq is not under Saddam anymore? But you are saying that it isn't ok for us to go in and take him out, but it is ok for other Governments (that aren't under Bush(why i think that you are against all of this) ) can pay the man to stay in power to slip them oil .

And you know what when someone joins the army they better be prepared to go and fight and could die.

I wish I had a nickel for everytime this has been posted.

But the world isn't that black and white.

Was oil a part of the equation? Certainly.

Is that a bad thing? No.

Is there more to the reasons we are there? Absolutely.

Amazing. I'm the only one who sees it wrong to fight wars, to kill people just for some oil because we Americans are too damn stupid to get off our ass and develop an alternative source of energy. Amazing.

Maybe we are headed down the tubes.

You are not the only. One think you seem to not grasp, or you may not even know is that there is major long term geopolitical issues regarding Iraq's oil, it doesn't even pertain to us touching their oil. The fact that you base all this off us not developing an alternate source of energy, leads me to believe you are ignorant to the reality of the situation. In 2003 we got less then 1/4 of our oil from the Middle East (less then 5% from Iraq), we got it mainly from South America and Canada. The issue is that other countries namely China and Western European nations get the majority of their oil from the Middle East. You do the math.

And you quote your source....

Based off my 2003 numbers:

Top 5 as listed by http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030919.html

Okay, Mojo_PeiPei responded to your request for documentation.

It's time for you to do the same, namely, please post how much oil we've taken from Iraq thus far.

Their throats look alright to me. That 90% turnout in some areas wasn't bad, either.

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RQDrAjMVKulnw2SkFw*lmgkc8R6Tg!H4kxLoawmYg02pMlGO6n6e5TjY73H0r9MENiIRhBnLLOv84DYTfSEsMFI3kbJW6*8DeMhdgMtXmys/i1.jpg?dc=4675508268962885876></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RQDvAjQVbOkkYRs1RE2CatBxCV!eM26z!ZIE0DsmAkpHMoqkqK8HIZ*9wmGzUacABAAZogkTELGsD4nGl7YquHGJBQ7HeMBf9B976kya2UM/i2.jpg?dc=4675508269003126539></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RQDvAjUVrulDDGA46cX7XR1CjPnuN2tAaontjtBm12lYPMlCcGZEmZJ3rD*cDq4tT2djKURu*7hmm!4MJ6!rP62NLf5kGg*es!GRp5W7DuI/i3.jpg?dc=4675508269040163473></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RQATAzYV8OkKfl26NhiavIq09Wzt1AH1CRI0eGNwvXXSb6FJv5xPhVFB1ecOrCq0uTHbdmjVxVU9AcbeHF1UK2hqXGmz7U49LnNmiZPBxAs/i4.jpg?dc=4675508269072969070></img>

Yes, voting there (and in Germany, Iran, Syria, etc.) required courage.

Unlike many US voters, who think it's too difficult to drive down the street to the polls, the Iraqis apparently value the privilege of voting.

John Kerry isn't president.

I never said that we got all our oil from Iraq. I don't really see the point of your scarcastic remark. No one's received anything from Iraq in the past 2 years for obvious reasons. I just find it odd that we go to war just to get our hands on it.

I never said you did, so please refrain from future "straw man" arguments.

Again, please post something that will give credibility to your claim that "we go to war just to get our hands on it."

I'm assuming you're referring to the current conflict.

You want facts, read the ENTIRE thread. Tell me anything I've stated is false.

Why don't you offer some type of debate instead of trying your best to silence someone when their opinion doesn't exactly match yours since I'm so out of whack.

Can I be immature for a second and say that it comes as a great joy to me that people Rdr4ever and Raveneye were unequivocally wrong about the elections (short of some massive bomb shell being dropped that would otherwise discredit)?

It is posts and mentalities like yours that give aid and comfort to the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq, asserting things like there is no point in voting, and painting pictures of doom and gloom. It does nobody any good, if anything it does harm, those assholes see shit like that and push just a little harder, trying to get the paper tiger to meow.

*You can't publish that article johnny. It goes against the war. You might be helping the terrirosts*

I can see it now. Students already think our rights should be surpressed so I can totally see this coming.

Like I stated earlier in this thread, because I don't wholeheartedly agree with Bush and this war that makes me a traitor and I'm aiding the terrorists right? What a fucking crock. Don't feed me the "don't question government in a time of war" bullshit either. Bush did a lot of fucked up things in this "war" and for him to even think that people will just blindly follow him and his lies is absurd. Our duty as citizens is to question our government, not become pawns just because "war" is declared and we should just automatically "rally behind the president" like sheep.

I think for myself. I suggest you do the same for once.

I think we're clouding the issues:

I was/am against the war but I still recognize that the elctions are a success. You really can't deny it unless it's some really elaborate scheme involving a Hollywood shoot with a ton of extras in the desert.

You know, good for them, you can still applaud the success of an election while standing by your belief that the war was wrong. It's just different issues (unless you believe the ends justify the means which is dangerous and sKetchy policy).

There's no need for petty bickering, none of us truly know the answers or can predict the future. All we have are opinions and in this case (as in others) some of us were right and some of us were wrong in regards to certain elements). It doesn't mean one was right or wrong before or will be right or wrong in the future. Each case is independent of the other. Obviously there are many on this board who are divided ideology wise and politically. But that should not impede political discourse. It is good to stay on track and try to maintain the standard of discussion by using relevant material and backing up with sources.

So in sum:

The election went well. Yes, I think that's a cause that everyone can celebrate. But it doesn't neccessarily demean or counter Rdr4ever and Raveneye etc opinions per se. They had their opinion and you had yours. It appears that this time or in this instant that they were incorrect. Me too. I also thought the elections were going to be a fiasco (and same with many people) but it looks like I'm wrong here. NO big deal, I don't really have a problem with that. It doesn't mean that everything I say or all my opinions are wrong either.

In a weird way, I'm proud of the Iraqis for coming out and voting. All politics aside, I must say that I felt a twinge of emotion(especially as a proud American) when I read about the droves of people who came out and voted. It truly is an incredible process and I am always cognizant of the fact how precious the right to vote is. It looks like we could learn a thing or two about participation eh? Anyways, since they don't have Florida or Ohio, it looks like they'll be ok (Ha! I had to get that in there, LOL!)

No HardKnock, you are most definitey not a traitor or terrorist.

I don't agree with most of Bush's ideas I don't agree with the war either but I am most certainly NOT a traitor nor a terrorist. I don't agree with Kerry either nor do I agree with most Democrat's policies. I am an individual, an American, a patriot.

That's our right and opinion. I think everyone can agree with that. We are all Americans entitled to our opinions. That is the very essence of America, God bless her.

As long as we're not beating people up or whatever or threatening people then there's nothing wrong with it.

Sob,

Great pictures by the way. I think those pictures speak a 1000 words.

Thanks for posting.

Who is telling you not to question, or calling you a traitor? I was just responding to two particular boneheaded posts, Raveneye's particularly. These people had the oppurtunity to vote in the first free election in 50 years, and it isn't worth it to vote because a FOREIGN BORN TERRORIST threatens violence in a country that isn't their own. What kind of weak shit is that?

Furthermore, there is a time and place for everything, my post was merely in the context of this thread, Iraqi's voting. Certain people here said some weak shit, that was just innapropriate really, and I couldn't be happier that they couldn't have been more wrong about the results.

Well said ART...In fact, you really should consider running in an election here in the USA. You are usually extremely right on - IMHO. However, sadly, all elections are rigged one way or the other. Look at Ohio in 2004 and Florida...well, never mind. Hindsight IS 20/20. But it's still all media hype. The fact that so many Iraqis voted is pretty astounding and to see women there voting, well, can that be real or just a staged TV moment for BushCo and buddies (ie The Carlyle Group). At any rate it's hopeful (if in fact it really did happen in a free and just manner ---but doesn't it feel like a long time gone and far away?)

Please illuminate us if you can. I would like to feel that it is still the Democratic way, but c'mon, this place is still 90% nomadic tribes...

Thanks. It doesn't take much to encourage me to post things our news media can't seem to find the time to show.

But I just can't fathom those who would rather see President Bush embarrassed than democracy in Iraq.

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TQAwA*YWrGyFBETysJVvOcBM9ruJ79rnPqouKpQHV8RNcovb2AnAJ4CYWTzNWhpiA0XFu9uaDfoe6**OQfvB!7s2qnUy2jbiCa!TM*oFtgJaORdyWEq4Kw/ATT4309479.jpg?dc=4675508387967267052></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TQAAAO4WnWqFBETysJVvOVUDh4RlZuhS*i3TqsXD7lQBhScWJdZLQfmvegGDciacH!2csPgYnWcHNrlu!rCByjilsTgP3tuboJDBJ8nyx96txxticbt2Zw/ATT4309480.jpg?dc=4675508388024560325></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TQAAAO8W32qFBETysJVvOXDFLkhVrWd!AwnXXQ4sGt00tHUD4TewVUxvlxI947Z1GK3SPi0v*fk4BAMWMxJuOS6JhIirlMSJTxBT1m1*TaXkgmrg2Q1FcQ/ATT4309481.jpg?dc=4675508388113991088></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TQDvAvAWIWuFBETysJVvOZpc0nk9mCCX4*vhlX6tx2u1rMP5N9Ah7yvp4Y0cp!3H!mgaDzlpNMLjL0gim0y66kochC8YWu7oke8rAhUX0f*MkB2XvR5ruw/ATT4309482.jpg?dc=4675508388175355036></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TQAAAPEWY2uFBETysJVvOaCEPsKQW4QF!iYZBxi!CnxUeRqfWfv1nD6RAx9!5rx*0LzmAyt!74sparnY8O0Hd3sCEDhTkrD39utinvEiSjCnkSpxxGSdYg/ATT4309483.jpg?dc=4675508388326867165></img>

Those people were paid to do that. No Iraqi's like us there or are grateful.

/sarcasm off

Ugh, nevermind...I was going to ask if I should post pictures of the death and violence that the media doesn't show either since you chose to show a few positive ones, but whatever....

C'mon now, I am against the war but I can still appreciate these pictures. I believe it provides balance. We've already seen the bad stuff and here is some good stuff. It is always a good thing when we are as informed as possible with all sides of an issue.

Funny thing is, I get the impression that the Iraqis are as divided as we are. Some for the war, and some against. Some for the election, some against. Some want us to stay, some want us to leave, and some like Bush, and some don't like Bush. Just like here and elsewhere too.

I guess we're all not that different after all eh? Hmmm....interesting.

By the way Sob, the picture of the veteran standing up in his wheelchair at a parade next to some folks sitting down is now my desktop wallpaper (although the resolution's not so good, I still know what it is). Talk about powerful imagery...

For the sake of balance: (minus any photo hype)

That increased malnutrition rate couldn't have anything to do with the terrorists fucking up everything we fix over there, now could it?

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was referring to you. There were other posts which convinced me the author hoped that Bush would be embarrassed, even if it meant the Iraqis might suffer.

I can understand opposition to the war. However, the posts that are simply Bush-hating rants don't seem to contribute a lot to discussion.

Thanks again for the props.

Ooops,

Actually Sob, I was refering to Rdr4evr's response:

"Ugh, nevermind...I was going to ask if I should post pictures of the death and violence that the media doesn't show either since you chose to show a few positive ones, but whatever...."

It's all good, we all have our opinions and that's a healthy part of a free and democratic nation.