Iraqi Election: 2005

[Wilhuf]

LOL. Poor governor tarkin.

[Spider AL]

You haven't provided evidence that the Iraq election was undemocratic.

You're typing sheer nonsense mate. We've both agreed on these salient points:

 

[*]The candidates names were kept secret until the last minute (Undemocratic)

[*]"Undesirable" candidates were vetted by the coalition (EXTREMELY undemocratic)

[*]An entire community was prevented from voting, namely the Sunni arab contingent. Without representative voters from this community, how can the result reflect the will of the majority?

[*]There was no place on the ballot for the voters to express their desire to be rid of yank interference.

[/list=1]All these things are the DEFINITION of undemocratic, because they stifle the will of the people. They're the epitome of injustice, and there are others besides. I've quoted reputable news sources, you've quoted George Bush's spin doctors and used the term "Al-Qaeda" a lot. I'll be frank, your case was a house of cards, and now it's merely... cards.

 

You have forwarded no evidence that anything other than terrorist activity was responsible for the areas where turnout was below average.

WHAT? The fact that the whole election was a US-sponsored sham might have been a contributing factor in the populace's desire to boycott it, as well as the fact that they didn't know who they were voting for, had no option to vote for any anti-american-occupation candidate, as WELL as the threat of being blown to smithereens. What more do you want?

 

As an aside, I wish you didn't have to give me a reason to say this, but I also declare some of your statements about Americans as blatantly prejudiced, and destructive to your 'case' and objectivity.

Prejudice isn't a dirty word. As previously mentioned, I'm prejudiced against axe murderers, rapists, and neoconservatives (nazis). So of course I'm prejudiced against Bush supporters, and JUSTIFIABLY so, entirely due to their ACTIONS in voting for such a moronic menace.

 

You've been incredibly childish during this debate, playing the hitler card at LEAST once, and trying to get people's backs up with supposedly emotive terms like "prejudice". The fact that I am not ignorant of the etymology of the word means that I do not take offence. Far from it.

 

The responsibility for this destruction lies squarely on the shoulders of Hussein and his ilk, not the coalition

You people invaded their country for purely self-interested and petty reasons. It's ALL your fault. And Hussein's ilk includes Bush and all neoconservatives, frankly.

 

 

Skin:

Am I the only one that is beginning to not like Peter Cushing?

Watch "Horror Express" and tell me you dislike Peter Cushing. I dare you.

[Wilhuf]

What more do you want?

Specific reporting that low turnout (in areas were turnout was low, many areas had high turnout) was caused by direct coalition action. Show me an article documenting cases where Iraqi officials, or coalition officials actually turned away Iraqi voters. You've got nothing.

 

Without coalition action, Iraqis would have had no pluralist voice at all in the future direction of their country. Hopefully the upcoming parliamentary elections and future elections that will replace the interim government with a permanant one will enjoy even better active engagement by the Iraqi people.

 

There are numerous documented cases of anti-Iraqi insurgents conducting kidnappings, hostage takings, suicide bombings, assassinations, extortion and intimidation, to prevent Iraqis from voting. Those actions are the source of weakness in the election.

 

playing the hitler card at LEAST once

Don't be childish. I never even used the word 'hitler' (sic). What I did was illustrate that the US historically has intervened to defend foreign democracies.

 

It's ALL your fault. And Hussein's ilk includes Bush and all neoconservatives

Presumably by 'your,' you mean 'The United States'.' At minimum I would expect you to include Australia and the United Kingdom in your blanket condemnation. And your statements are prejudiced. I would be embarassed to make such statements about an entire nationality I don't even know.

 

Neocons aren't really related to Baathists. They're pretty much opposites.

 

There was no place on the ballot for the voters to express their desire to be rid of yank interference.

Or Australian or British, Ukrainian, Polish, Korean, Pakistani, etc. Be advised that the coalition presence is at the request of the Interim Iraqi Government.

[Spider AL]

Show me an article documenting cases where Iraqi officials, or coalition officials actually turned away Iraqi voters.

What, the fact that they were a hated invading force installing a puppet regime ENTIRELY of their own selection isn't enough to discourage voters from turning out?

 

Never mind that the coalition was actively waging an armed offensive against a huge slice of the population of Iraq that THEY deemed to be "undesirable". How were they supposed to cast their ballot when under American fire?

 

And still you dodge the point. You say categorically that the election was "Democratic". Yet you fail to answer these points:

 

1.The candidates names were kept secret until the last minute (Undemocratic)

 

2."Undesirable" candidates were vetted by the coalition (EXTREMELY undemocratic)

 

3. An entire community was prevented from voting, namely the Sunni arab contingent. Without representative voters from this community, how can the result reflect the will of the majority?

 

4. There was no place on the ballot for the voters to express their desire to be rid of yank interference.

 

Answer these points. Oh, you can't. Therefore the election was undemocratic, therefore your case is disproven.

 

Don't be childish. I never even used the word 'hitler'

You might want to add a capital "H" there sonny. OH WAIT, YOU WERE TRYING TO BE FUNNEH. Sorry I didn't realise. As for WHEN you played the hitler card, it was here:

 

That puts your mindset down a notch in the eyes of many people. It is chillingly similar to neonazi thought.

Implying that your opponent is a nazi when you yourself are plainly a neoconservative is amusing to me.

 

Presumably by 'your,' you mean 'The United States'.'

Why, I mean the US and all its stooges, together in one basket of rotten eggs.

 

Be advised that the coalition presence is at the request of the Interim Iraqi Government.

Which is a US puppet regime. So the US is in Iraq... at the request of the US? Makes perfect sense.

 

Neocons aren't really related to Baathists. They're pretty much opposites.

Actually you're right, they ARE different. Baathists aren't all bad once you get to know them...

 

In all seriousness, I compared Saddam to Bush and his henchmen, the word Baathist is your contribution to the medley, not mine. Saddam was a brutal fiend who believed that he had the sole right to crush anyone who fell outside his ideology.

 

Sound like anyone we know? Someone beginning with "B", perhaps?

[Wilhuf]

How were they supposed to cast their ballot when under American fire?

Show me a record documenting US military elements firing on Iraqi voters. Show me a case of Iraqi voters being turned away from polling stations by coalition or Iraqi government officials. You've got nothin'!

 

you yourself are plainly a neoconservative

I'm nothing of the sort. I voted for Kerry (god help me). But only because I disagree with the majority of Bush's domestic agenda. It was very difficult for me to vote Kerry, however, because of his flip-floppy stand on Iraq. I tried very hard to identify what Kerry's specific strategy for Iraq was, but he really didn't say anything other than 'I'll do it better than Bush.' But he never said how. Very annoying.

 

 

1.The candidates names were kept secret until the last minute (Undemocratic)

I've already explained this. Review my statements on the need to protect the identity of candidates so that they wouldn't be killed by terrorists.

 

2."Undesirable" candidates were vetted by the coalition (EXTREMELY undemocratic).

I've already explained this as well. Always read posts! There were candidates whose criminal and terrorist activity prevented them from running for election. This is common practice in modern democracies.

 

3. An entire community was prevented from voting, namely the Sunni arab contingent. Without representative voters from this community, how can the result reflect the will of the majority?

I've already addressed this issue!! The majority of the population did participate! Many Sunni neighborhoods had 60% or better turnout, depsite the efforts of terrorists to kill the voters.

 

4. There was no place on the ballot for the voters to express their desire to be rid of yank interference.

But there were no US citizens on the ballot. Moreover, the election was for members of an interim government, not a referendum on foreign security provision.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

So to re-phrase: Certain elements led to Coalition/Iraqi action preventing the election from being "democratic".

 

Spider Al didn't say the reasons for the things he listed were not good, Wilhuf. He said that the things he listed made the election un-democratic. To which I may add: As it were.

 

It's like a car running off the road and onto a grassy field. The reasons for the driver throwing it onto the field might be good (for example, he might otherwise have hit a deer or dog on the road), but that doesn't change the fact that the car did drive off of the road.

 

Show me a record documenting US military elements firing on Iraqi voters.

Metaphore, friend. Metaphore (if that's a word in English, too;)). They weren't litteraly shooting at the voters. They were interfering with the election.

[Wilhuf]

They were interfering with the election.

Administrative sponsorship and political interference are two entirely different actions. The coalition were protecting the election, and spilling blood to make it happen, for the benefit of Iraqi citizens.

 

The point is, all of the undemocratic flavor in the election can be attributed to terrorist activity, not US action. The election wasn't a 'sham.' The election was actually a tremendous success, considering the dangers the anticoalition posed.

 

Are you saying the US was 'metaphorically shooting at Iraqi voters.' What does that mean and does it have any practical significance?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Administrative sponsorship and political interference are two entirely different actions. The coalition were protecting the election, and spilling blood to make it happen, for the benefit of Iraqi citizens.

Once again: When I and Spider Al say they were "interfering", we are referring to removal of condidates, etc.

 

As for "it was justified": Let me quote what I put in my last post:

Certain elements led to Coalition/Iraqi action preventing the election from being "democratic".

 

Spider Al didn't say the reasons for the things he listed were not good, Wilhuf. He said that the things he listed made the election un-democratic. To which I may add: As it were.

Where does it say that I disagree that the reasons for what the USA did (keeping names secret, etc.) were not good? I'm agreeing with you, Wilhuf.

 

Are you saying the US was 'metaphorically shooting at Iraqi voters.' What does that mean and does it have any practical significance?

I repeat: The election was being interfered with, and thus you can say it was under fire. Figure of speech. Have you really never heard that term before? I doubt it.

[Spider AL]

Let me remind you Wilhuf, an occupying force has no right to decide which Iraqi citizens of legal age can or can not vote. Yes, people who hate American invaders have the right to vote in their own country too. Shooting at them is distinctly undemocratic.

 

It was very difficult for me to vote Kerry, however, because of his flip-floppy stand on Iraq.

Ohhh yeah. You're a neocon alright. Only a neocon could deny that he was a neocon and then proceed to come out with some stock neocon line from the election.

 

"flip floppy"... Give me strength.

 

Review my statements on the need to protect the identity of candidates so that they wouldn't be killed by terrorists.

More buffoonery... that doesn't address the point that it was undemocratic.

 

I don't care if the names were witheld to protect the last colony of pregnant Chinese pandas! It doesn't matter. Undemocratic. You haven't even TRIED to deny it. Your case is disproven. Live with it.

 

There were candidates whose criminal and terrorist activity prevented them from running for election.

Buffoonery. America doesn't GET to decide who criminals are in Iraq. That's for an official Iraqi government and judiciary to decide, not some mock puppet neocon regime.

 

They vetted those candidates because they were ANTI AMERICAN. THAT is both undemocratic, and amoral to boot.

 

Many Sunni neighborhoods had 60% or better turnout

That's a meaningless statement. It's like saying that the turnout in Hicksville USA was 100%!!!111

 

When the population of Hicksville is two people. And a lame ferret.

 

But there were no US citizens on the ballot.

Buffoonery. How does this lacklustre retort address the point that:

 

4. There was no place on the ballot for the voters to express their desire to be rid of yank interference.

[Wilhuf]

They vetted those candidates because they were ANTI AMERICAN. THAT is both undemocratic, and amoral to boot.

Noone had any 'moral problems' when NAZIs were banned from politics in Germany (and continue to be). I don't know AL, maybe you should defend NAZI 'rights' to participate in elections.

 

America doesn't GET to decide who criminals are in Iraq.

Correct. The Iraqis vetted the list, in coordination with the US.

 

n occupying force has no right to decide which Iraqi citizens of legal age can or can not vote.

And you haven't provided the smallest shred of evidence that voters were turned away at the ballot box.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Many Sunni neighborhoods had 60% or better turnout

So? If, say, 172 neighbourhoods has a voter turnout of 60%, who's to say the remaining 100 000 neighbourhoods in Iraq didn't have a turnout of 0-17%?

 

Noone had any 'moral problems' when NAZIs were banned from politics in Germany (and continue to be). I don't know AL, maybe you should defend NAZI 'rights' to participate in elections.

We're talking about an occupational force denying candidates the right to run. The current German government hardly "occupies" Germany.

 

If, on the other hand, the Germans wanted to allow nazi candidates (heck, it's not like more than <1% of Germans vote for them anyhow, to my knowledge:p) and the USA stepped in and disallowed it, I'd feel that was out of line, even if it was the USA who brought democracy to Germany months earlier.

 

Besides, are you finally admitting that the candidates were booted due to American politics, not their safety? For your post seems to imply that. Good.

 

It was very difficult for me to vote Kerry, however, because of his flip-floppy stand on Iraq.

Read: Because he did what a democratic leader is supposed to do: Listen to the people.

 

I realize you'd, for some reason, have Bush, who keeps doing what he's doing regardless of what the nation and world says, but in a democratic nation (cough, US, cough), a leader is supposed to follow the will of the people.

[Wilhuf]

More buffoonery... that doesn't address the point that it was undemocratic.

Why was concealing the identities of candidates until the last moment possible a democratic action? Because the action kept them safe from terrorist attack, and alive long enough to run for office. To reveal the identitites too early would be fundamentally undemocratic because it would expose them to unnecessary risk of kidnapping, torture, extortion, intimidation, or assassination.

 

Which is more democratic, 1. exposing a candidate's name and therefore exposing them to certain intimidation and possibly assassination, thereby eliminating the possibility of even voting for the candidate or 2. concealing a candidate's name until before the election, protecting them from terrorist influence and attack, and allowing them to represent the Iraqi elctorate? The Iraqis chose option 2.

 

In the final analysis, the candidate names were available for inspection, to all Iraqi voters.

 

Where is the evidence that coalition units shot at voters? Where is the evidence that the coalition or the interim Iraqi government turned away voters? There is about as much evidence of that as there is for WMDs! You've got nothing!

 

You're a neocon alright.

Skin, tell AL to stop with the insulting labels. Tell him to stop making the discussion about the poster, and about the topic.

[ET Warrior]

It certainly SEEMS very democratic to not know the names of the people you're going to vote for in an election. That certainly makes it easy to come to an informed decision.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Skin, tell AL to stop with the insulting labels. Tell him to stop making the discussion about the poster, and about the topic.

With all due respect, Al, I agree with Wilhuf here. First you say Wilhuf is using the Hitler card, then you go off and repeatedly call him a nazi?

 

I think this thread can do without anti-Americanism and nazi accusations:p.

[SkinWalker]

I must say that I've got some agreement and disagreement with both sides of the issue that this thread has taken a turn for.

 

But I also have to say that Wilhuf's point about the ad hominem remarks is valid, Spider_Al. Try to tone down a little, please. I'm not saying agree with him, just attack the issue rather than the person with whom you're debating.

 

But, Wilhuf, you're pressing some buttons with Spider, too. I like having both of you guys here because you each are good debaters and often present facts rather than just rhetoric. But let's keep it clean guys.

 

I'm actually thinking of splitting out the Iraq election posts into a separate thread unless either of you are opposed.

 

On topic

 

I have to agree with Wilhuf's point about the coalition forces not being overtly obstructive. There's certainly no indication that they've shot, or threatened to shoot, voters or potential voters. It might be possible that some of the security measures by their very nature were obstructive, but I've not seen evidence of this either.

 

I would, however, have to agree with Spider that there's a lot to improve when it comes to the democratic experience in the country. I find it absurd that voters went to the polls not knowing who the candidates were, much less their positions. It seems clear that the polls reflected the demographics of the nation (Sunni, Shiites, Kurds, etc.) rather than the democratic process of voting for the most qualified candidate lead.

 

But the reason for this secrecy is clear: the candidates were immediate targets of opposition forces (insurgents, terrorists, anarchists, other candidates, etc.).

 

As long as such conditions exist in the nation, can it truly be called "democratic?"

[toms]

brain... melting... out... of... ears...

 

I've kind of lost track of all that, but i agree with skin that there is some truth on both sides, but (as tends to happen) you've both been pushed out to the extremes of your argument and the more extreme you get in either direction the further from the truth you get.

 

I did spot:

Don't be childish. I never even used the word 'hitler' (sic). What I did was illustrate that the US historically has intervened to defend foreign democracies.

and choke on my diet coke and big mac though!

 

The US has a record of intervening when it is in their commerical/political interests to do so, the political system they support has nothing to do with it.

 

They have overthrown as many democracies (and installed friendly (for a while) dictators) as they have defended, if not more.

.

Still, personally i was impressed by the elections in iraq. They wer far from perfect, but considering the mess the country is now in they were remarkably successful.

 

A number of the rights and freedoms freshly inscribed in the iraqi constitution are ones that the UK and US have either never had, or recently given up.

 

As for so-called Al-Quaida, i'm beginning to firmly believe that it has been entirely cooked up in the minds of US republicans.

Its very convienient to label every nutter who is anti US ( or any of its allies ) as being from big bad Al Quaida, but i've yet to see ANY evidence of such an internations SUPER TERRORIST network. (And if there is one, shouldn't it be called SPECTRE or something cool? )

 

There are hundreds of groups out there who are disgruntled at the US (or the regimes it supports), but to suggest they are all part of some co-ordinated network that works together under a fixed leadership is just illogical. They may indeed have contact with each other, but that doesn't make them all part of the same organisation. (as the IRA does when it buys training or weapons from other terrorist groups, but that doesn't make them linked )

 

Many intelligence experts think this whole Al Quaida is a big smokescreen, and i have to say i agree.

 

Even IF you happen to believe in this unproven theory... there is no evidence that more than a handful of the insurgents in iraq are Al Quaida. Many are religious leaders, or local warlords, or diverse groups vying for power. Others are ex baathists, or just people from surrounding countries who happen to hate the US (there are quite a few of those you know).

 

In the same way that Saddam Hussien conned the world into thinking he was more tooled up than he was (though he ultimately pushed his bluff to far), a few Al Quaida people just have to pop up every so often and release a video taking responsibility for recent things in iraq and it makes them look like they organised it all.

 

Of course, bush NEEDS an Al Quaida threat to keep power and keep the population pliable... and bin laden needs a US military threat to keep up his support... so they are feeding off each other.

[Spider AL]

Why was concealing the identities of candidates until the last moment possible a democratic action?

Um... IT WASN'T. Once again you appear confused. Concealing the names of candidates TOTALLY foils the democratic process. Without knowing whom you're voting for, you can't know WHY you're voting for them, what their policies are, you can't go and see them at rallies, can't get to know their party or entourage, in short, can't make an informed decision.

 

Concealing the identities of candidates is firmly undemocratic. It doesn't matter WHY you think it was done, the fact remains, it was done. It was undemocratic.

 

Noone had any 'moral problems' when NAZIs were banned from politics in Germany (and continue to be). I don't know AL, maybe you should defend NAZI 'rights' to participate in elections.

I think that in a textbook democracy, EVERYONE has the right to cast his or her vote. In the UK, we have a fascist party called the BNP. I think they're nazis and highly ignorant to boot, but I certainly wouldn't stop them from running for office, nor from casting their vote. The second you stop people from participating in a democratic process, it becomes UNDEMOCRATIC. That's why the elections in Iraq were undemocratic, and you haven't come up with ANYTHING to challenge these purely logical points.

 

The Iraqis vetted the list, in coordination with the US.

Mmkay. EVEN IF the Iraqi interim government wasn't headed by American stooges, which IT WAS, the very fact that you ADMIT American involvement in vetting the list, proves that the election was undemocratic.

 

 

Eagle:

I agree with Wilhuf here. First you say Wilhuf is using the Hitler card, then you go off and repeatedly call him a nazi?

Wilhuf implied that I was a neo-nazi. That was when he played the Hitler card. I then called him a neoconservative, because he comes out with all the same, flawed, fascist rhetoric as neoconservatives do. Since Skinwalker deems that calling someone a neoconservative is illegal on these forums, I will naturally have to abide by that decision in order to continue the debate. But I don't have to agree with his decision. And to be honest I AM anti-America, due to America's actions on the world stage. America should clean up it's damn act.

[toms]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Concealing the identities of candidates is firmly undemocratic. It doesn't matter WHY you think it was done, the fact remains, it was done. It was undemocratic.

 

Not sure I agree with that. It depends whether the voters know the POSITIONS of the candidates before hand in order to help them make up their mind... knowing the actual identities of the candidates is only really important in personality politics (of the type we have in the UK or US) which is the worst form of democracy. Or, of course, if the candidate has something to hide.

 

You could argue that systems such as proportional representation are actually MORE democratic, but in such systems it becomes less important to know WHO exactly you are voting for, as you are voting for a party/set of policies rather than the individual themselves.

 

It isn't perfect to have to hide identities in advance, but neither would it be perfect to (a) delay the elections too far, or (b) have people not represented cos candidates that held their views were to scared to stand.

[Spider AL]

knowing the actual identities of the candidates is only really important in personality politics

Knowing someone's position before the election is important, but it's less important than getting to know them, so that you can make an informed choice as to their character,.. as to whether they'll STICK to their pre-election position.

 

The Iraqi people simply weren't given an opportunity to get to know the candidates. Such a thing is totally counter to the democratic ideal.

 

It isn't perfect to have to hide identities in advance, but neither would it be perfect to (a) delay the elections too far, or (b) have people not represented cos candidates that held their views were to scared to stand.

As it was, candidates didn't eschew standing because they were afraid, the reason they didn't stand was because America and its hangers-on prevented them from standing. Many Iraqis held and still hold the view that America should leave Iraq the heck alone. Where were their views represented in a list of candidates from which America had excised anti-coalition sentiment?

 

As for delaying the elections, I think they should have been delayed at LEAST until the whole country was able to vote without the risk of being shot.

 

Sorry, are you saying that an election in which the voters didn't know who the candidates were until the last minute, and in which an occupying foreign force vetted the list of candidates for those they found undesirable, in which voters eschewed voting for fear of violence... was democratic?

 

[Wilhuf]

re you saying that an election in which the voters didn't know who the candidates were until the last minute, and in which an occupying foreign force vetted the list of candidates for those they found undesirable, in which voters eschewed voting for fear of violence... was democratic?

Yes, because in the final analysis, it was an election in which the majority of eligible voters participated. Brought to you by the US and her allies.

 

As to delaying the election, no that is a very poor policy choice. The election undermines the insurgency by establishing that the Iraqi people have a choice in their future, rather than letting their fate be decided by militant foreign religious extremists (such as Al-Qa'ida). To delay the election would be akin to failing to use one of the best weapons available against all forms of extremism: self-determination.

 

And now I see in today's New York Times that even Iraqi civillians are now taking up arms against the insurgents.

[Spider AL]

Yes, because in the final analysis, it was an election in which the majority of eligible voters participated. Brought to you by the US and her allies.

You're still in denial, seemingly. You can't seem to find any response to the point that the election was undemocratic. Your only response so far has been: "It was an election!"

 

It was an election. An undemocratic one. Even more undemocratic than the elections in our own countries, which are hardly the ideal.

 

As to delaying the election, no that is a very poor policy choice. The election undermines the insurgency by establishing that the Iraqi people have a choice in their future,

I should think that it showed them that AMERICA has a choice when it comes to Iraq's future. America and its stooges invade the country, blatantly rig the election in their favour and squelch all the opposition they can. How is that good for the Iraqi people? How does it preserve their identity, their culture and their free will?

 

And now I see in today's New York Times that even Iraqi civillians are now taking up arms against the insurgents.

Does that prove any of your points? Does it in fact, mean anything?

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

The election undermines the insurgency by establishing that the Iraqi people have a choice in their future,

 

If you can tell me that MCDonald's and WalMart have no project for Iraqi in the near future, I'll believe that they can control their future.

If the only contracts given are by American contractors, the only investors they have are American, I'm sorry, they have zero control over their future.

 

Originally posted by Wilhuf

one of the best weapons available against all forms of extremism: self-determination.

 

Yes, America, a democratic nation, is not under the control of the extremists. Of course not...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

one of the best weapons available against all forms of extremism: self-determination.

I don't get you. Are you saying that if you're very determined, you can't be an extremist?

 

In that case, I have to tell you that you are about as wrong as you can be. Extremists are determined - that's part of what makes them extremists.

[coupes.]

Self-determination means that the people of a territorial unit decide of their own political status, social and cultural developpment, economical policies, etc. without coercion from an outside power.

[Spider AL]

That's a very succinct and accurate definition coupes, and pertinently, it proves that the recent undemocratic election in Iraq does NOT qualify as a self-determinatory event for the Iraqi people. Coersion? They vetted the candidate list. Now that's what I call interference.