View Poll Results: Do you believe there will be elections in Iraq in January?

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, security will get better for some reason, elections in January possible

    4 19.05%
  • Elections will be possile in some areas, but not all, not eveybody will be allowed to vote

    11 52.38%
  • No, the elections will be postponed, e.g. after US elections are over

    5 23.81%
  • Don't know/no opinion

    1 4.76%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39
  1.    #1  
    The questions whether it will be possible to hold elections in Iraq in January (three to four months to go) has become a widely discussed topic. What do you think?

    (1) Do you think that for some reason, the trend towards more violence and chaos in Iraq will be reversed (e.g. by sending more troops or whatever), there will be more security in a few months, and election will become possible.

    (2) Do you think elections will be possible in some places, but not everywhere (e.g. not in the Sunni triangle, in Baghdad's Sadr City or in places controlled by the Mehdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr?)

    (3) Do you think elections will be postponed (e.g. after the elections in the US are over) due to too much violence, and not enough security for voters, etc.

    (4) Don't know/no opinion

    My personal view:
    (1) Elections in January: I can see no reason why security should suddenly get better, after it got worse for months.

    (2) Elections in some but not all places, as suggested by Rumsfeld: Very bad idea, does not make sense. Elections would not take place in the heart land of the Sunni moslems, in cities like Falluja and Samarra, or in important Shiite cities like Najaf. This would make any outcome of the elections worthless, because e.g. the Sunni Iraqis would not be represented and would not accept the result. It would be one step further towards civil war.

    (3) No elections in January: this is what will happen. Because is there any reason to believe the situation in Iraq will suddenly become better, the terrorist will loose power, the killing and the kidnappings will stop?



    BTW, I think this is quite a comprehensive source for what is going on in Iraq on a day-to-day basis (scroll down for more):

    http://www.juancole.com/

    True, Juan Cole (Professor of History at the University of Michigan) is certainly not pro-war, but I get the impression the things he quotes and the information he provides are well documented and sound. And I did NOT base my opinion on his information alone...
    Last edited by clulup; 09/28/2004 at 10:18 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    (1) Do you think that for some reason, the trend towards more violence and chaos in Iraq will be reversed (e.g. by sending more troops or whatever), there will be more security in a few months, and election will become possible.

    (2) Do you think elections will be possible in some places, but not everywhere (e.g. not in the Sunni triangle, in Baghdad's Sadr City or in places controlled by the Mehdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr?)

    (3) Do you think elections will be postponed (e.g. after the elections in the US are over) due to too much violence, and not enough security for voters, etc.

    (4) Don't know/no opinion
    1. I hope it gets better, but I believe that violence will go up in November (our elections) and January (their elections).

    2. I believe the Administration is already getting ready for this option.

    3. I think they will be held no matter what. I just don't see elections being cancelled in the entire country.
    Me = Nokia 5170/Palm III > Kyocera 6035 > Treo 600 > Treo 650 > Treo 700p > Treo 755p > Treo Pro > Palm Pre

    Wife = Treo 600 > Treo 650 > Treo 755p > Palm Centro > Palm Pixi
  3. #3  
    I think number 2, and I fear the worst.
    Animo et Fide
  4. #4  
    Elections will only be held in areas that support US policy, in an effort to validate our invasion and occupation of their county. This would be about as valid an election as one held in the US only in states that supported Bush.
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by cash70
    3. I think they will be held no matter what. I just don't see elections being cancelled in the entire country.
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    I think number 2, and I fear the worst.
    .... the problem I see is if the elections are held "no matter what" (voters being killed, to scared to queue, etc.), or without the participation e.g. of the Sunni Iraqis (number 2), then the elections will be quite meaningless. Democracy only works if everybody can participate freely.
    Last edited by clulup; 09/28/2004 at 10:16 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #6  
    funny video puts it all in perspective

    Mess O' Potamia

    http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play...ines/9036.html
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    True but… “Half full” (as in the bottle idiom) elections are better than “half empty.”
    I doubt this analogy works here. As the king of Jordan put it, one of the closest US allies in the region:

    "It appears to me impossible to organize indisputable elections in the chaos currently reigning in Iraq," the king is quoted as saying.

    The king also expressed concern that partial elections which excluded cities such as Falluja could isolate Sunni Muslims, saying that could create even deeper divisions in the country.

    There is some good news: the two Italian woman are free. Some sources mention a ransom of 1 million.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #8  
    I have serious concerns about whether the election HERE will happen.
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    First: I am glad to hear the two Italian women were freed!
    Second: I find it gullible and fascinating that the King, who wasn’t elected on the merit of democracy, has that to say about Iraq.
    Gullible? Abdullah may not be elected and not live in a democratic country, but from his education and upbringing, I think there is little doubt about him knowing very much about how democracies, armies and muslim countries work (from Wikipedia):

    Born in Amman, the king as a young man attended the Islamic Educational College in the Jordanian capital for his primary education, later attending St Edmund's School in Surrey, England. Abdullah subsequently attended Eaglebrook School and Deerfield Academy in the United States of America for his secondary education. In 1980, he joined the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in the UK as a cadet. He joined the 13th/18th Royal Hussars (Queen Mary's Own) upon commission as a Second Lieutenant the following year. King Abdullah retains close links with the British Army and is the Colonel-in-Chief of The Light Dragoons, a tank regiment and the successor to the 13th/18th Royal Hussars.

    Abdullah ascended to the throne on February 7, 1999 upon the death of his father King Hussein. Hussein had recently decreed him Crown Prince on January 24, replacing Hussein's brother Hassan after many years in the position. It was not a universally popular decision. Abdullah's mother, Antoinette (Toni) Avril Gardiner, was British by birth – she was renamed "Muna al-Hussein" upon her marriage to King Hussein, created a royal princess by her husband, and remains a popular philanthropic figure in Jordan – and many people in Jordan thus considered it unfitting that he should be an heir to the Hashemite throne, which traces its descent directly to the Prophet Muhammad. (King Abdullah claims to be the 43rd generation descendant of the prophet).

    Abdullah is married to a Kuwait-born, Jordan-bred Palestinian, Rania Al-Yassin (now Queen Rania al-Abdullah), who is as praised for her philanthropic work as she is criticized for her frequent interviews to the Western press and her fondness for haute couture. They have three children: Prince Hussein (born 1994), Princess Iman (born 1996), and Princess Salma (born 2000).

    King Abdullah is an acknowledged fan of Star Trek. In 1995, while he was still Prince, he appeared as an extra in an episode of Star Trek: Voyager (#36: "Investigation").


    Not mentioned it that article:
    - In 1982, King Abdullah II attended Oxford University where he completed a one-year Special Studies course in Middle Eastern Affairs.

    - In 1987, King Abdullah II attended the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. as a Mid-Career Fellow. He completed an Advanced Study and Research program in International Affairs, part of the ‘Master of Science in Foreign Service' program.


    I have no doubt Abdullah knows more about the rivalry between Sunni, Shiites and Kurds than Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell and the rest of the crew together.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #10  
    I think we are heading towards option 2, as Rumsfeld hinted at earlier this week. The Iraq/Bush administration would not want Falujah and other insurgent areas voting anyway, so they will just keep them blocked off, and hold elections just in the parts of the country that are friendly to the US. That way the US backed candidates will have a better chance. Obviously this would not be a true democratic election.

    But then again flawed elections are not so bad, as long as you are on the winning team right?



    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/28/2004 at 10:13 PM.
  11. #11  
    Sheesh why dont you just come out and say the whole thing is rigged and the election is BS. What a cynical bunch. It's a good thing we're not Iraq. With people like this we'd never become a free nation.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  12.    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    But then again flawed elections are not so bad, as long as you are on the winning team right?
    Only that in the case of Sunni Iraqis, the losing team will voice its discontent with AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades, car bombs, and civil war. Option No. 2 means planning for civil war.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Sheesh why dont you just come out and say the whole thing is rigged and the election is BS. What a cynical bunch. It's a good thing we're not Iraq. With people like this we'd never become a free nation.
    So you are saying a partly election with a possible civil war is better then postponing the election till it is safe?

    I fear the election will be pushed through before the US election so Bush can use it as a selling point 'see I made iraq a democratic country' and things are done to benefit the current US gov. not the people of Iraq (but what else is new hey? )
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  14. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Obviously this would not be a true democratic election.
    Are you referring to the reelection of Abraham Lincoln in 1864 when the 11 confederate states did not participate, or the election of U.S. Grant in 1868 when the three states that had not yet been readmitted to the union (MS, TX, VA) did not participate?

    I guess Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon were right, this really IS a fascist country. Who knew?
    Talldog
  15. #15  
    The difference between Iraq and the Lincoln election is that the rebel states had the option to vote but chose not to. That is different from what is going on in Iraq, where only the people who like us will get to vote, if option 2 above is taken and it looks that way to me.

    That Lincoln election was followed by one of the most bloody civil wars of all time. So when people feel disenfranchised from the voting process, or if someone disrupts the voting process for the benefit of one group and to the detriment of the other, it is not democratic and it incites people.

    Maybe reflecting on this will help you to realize why democrats feel angry about the last election, they feel disenfranchised.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/29/2004 at 08:10 AM.
  16. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Maybe reflecting on this will help you to realize why democrats feel angry about the last election, they feel disenfranchised.
    And why would that be?
    Talldog
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    I fear the election will be pushed through before the US election so Bush can use it as a selling point 'see I made iraq a democratic country
    Hey Kit...the US Presidential election is Nov2, the election in Iraq is slated for January so no need to fear.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    And why would that be?
    voters were selectively disemphranchised in Florida 2000 election, US Commission on Civil Rights made this exceedingly clear.
    http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps1...3588/exsum.htm

    Republican Florida election Officials are being sued for selectively keeping voters out of the 2000 election:
    http://vevo.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2412

    So if these groups were allowed to vote, Florida would have gone to Gore. And because it worked so well last time, Kathy Harris' replacement will keep the same policies and the election will be flawed again in Florida.
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...r_040927140201
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/29/2004 at 10:22 AM.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    So you are saying a partly election with a possible civil war is better then postponing the election till it is safe?

    I fear the election will be pushed through before the US election so Bush can use it as a selling point 'see I made iraq a democratic country' and things are done to benefit the current US gov. not the people of Iraq (but what else is new hey? )

    I reread my post and I dont see that I alluded to that idea at all. I said it seems that most of the posters in this thread think the election is bogus. I said nothing about safety. Regarding your civil war comment, could you tell the difference between that and all that is going on now?

    As far as the elections go your statement was funny. That would mean the election would have to take place in the next month. US election is November 2. That doesnt give them much time. All I have heard is January for Iraq. Would you care to expound on the rationale for your fear Iraq will have theirs first?
    Bush doesnt need the Iraqi election as a selling point. He'll already be re-elected when it happens.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    voters were selectively disemphranchised in Florida 2000 election, US Commission on Civil Rights made this exceedingly clear.
    http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps1...3588/exsum.htm

    Republican Florida election Officials are being sued for this:
    http://vevo.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2412

    So if these groups were allowed to vote, Florida would have gone to Gore. And because it worked so well last time, Kathy Harris's replacement will keep the same policies and the election will be flawed again in Florida.
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...r_040927140201

    And I suppose you're all for California's idea that it is wrong to ask for ID beyond the voter reg card?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions