Jump to content

Change Mode

The Iraqi Elections


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 500
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How about warmongers ? In the light of negotiations, that's how I see them. Same as in Iraq, a political process is underway, no matter how flimsy, and the way forward is by political means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shall we call them insurgents?

How about patriots, freedom fighters, liberators.................. you know all those terms we use to describe ourselves or Europians when we are under attack or occupied.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If standardisation is important, I'd go along with 'combatants' :P

 

 

 

g'mornin all ;)

Good morning T!

 

Combatants....

 

it's neutral

 

not loaded....

 

I don't think it shows enough bias so I don't think it will catch on..... :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about patriots, freedom fighters, liberators.................. you know all those terms we use to describe ourselves or Europians when we are under attack or occupied.

No, no, no....

 

we can't say that unless they win, then they get to write history.....or if they happen to be on our side.... :rolleyes:

 

 

Hmmmm...it's all very sticky....... :blank:

Link to post
Share on other sites

With around half of ballots counted, Allawi's list is currently in third position with 14 percent of votes, behind the Kurdish alliance which has 25 percent.

 

The United Iraqi Alliance, blessed by Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, is a long way ahead, with 51 percent of the vote.

 

"It is quite obvious that Allawi is trying to build up a political coalition by gathering many political powers to help him keep the post," said Qais al-Azawi, spokesman for the Arab socialist movement and editor of the Jarida newspaper.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?ed...rticle_id=12593

 

Allawi comes last and still leads the parliament ? Now THAT would be a failure of democracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If standardisation is important, I'd go along with 'combatants'

I'm not up with that T. Sounds too much like the heavily abused term enemy combtants employed by the White House in their effort to do an end-run around the Geneva Conventions.

 

I

Link to post
Share on other sites

So is there a non-loaded term that can be applied?

Naw, I don't think so. Plain speaking at every turn appears to be the solution.

 

I

Edited by Iain
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4261035.stm

 

That's that then.

3 days to lodge complaints.

 

One of the biggest challenges will now be keeping the Sunni Muslim minority, which largely boycotted the poll in some areas, engaged in the political process as the job begins of writing a new constitution for Iraq.

I'd suggest they adopted the original, unamended , US constitution verbatim. Nothing like looking in a mirror to see oneself.

 

 

According to UN Security Council Resolution 1546, the mandate of the foreign troops in Iraq will cease when the new fully constitutional government takes office, though the troops could then be asked to stay by the new authorities.

 

However, there will also be a review before this, in June, and at any stage the troops could be asked to leave.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3971635.stm Edited by moon
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4261035.stm

 

That's that then.

3 days to lodge complaints.

 

 

 

I'd suggest they adopted the original, unamended , US constitution verbatim. Nothing like looking in a mirror to see oneself.

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3971635.stm

The US constitution?

 

 

Works fer me. ;):lol:

 

 

 

As far as the ability to ask the Coalition to leave that has been well known and openly spoken of.

 

 

I feel certain it will be a gradual process kicked off by something like halving them.

 

 

I would like to see it happen as the direct result of an order from their government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. It appears that a large proportion of the population were too terrified to vote. You wouldn't call that a democratic result in America and I don't call it a democratic result in Iraq.

The only 'success' about it was that it took place at all.

 

PROVISIONAL RESULTS

Shia list: 48%

Kurdish parties: 26%

Iyad Allawi list: 14%

Others: 12%

 

Turnout: 58%

It will be interesting to see what the three days of complaints turns up.

 

Allawi scored 2% more than the totals of the Abdul's Mobile Kebab Party and the Subterranean Homesick Blues Party combined. The greatest damnation of the exercise will be if he ends up running the country.

Edited by moon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, then my prediction that you would not approve was correct. Actually I never thought there was a chance you would.

 

You claimed at one point that 50% was an important bar to clear, then at another you said it was not necessary in this case.

 

Tell me, what was the measure you used in the end? What proportions would have been acceptable for you?

 

Just curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moon, the only thing that matters is this

 

Turnout: 58%

not once did you claim that 50% of every faction had to vote, and if you did I would have simple laughed because it doesnt happen in any democracy that doesnt require voting by law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moon, the only thing that matters is this

 

 

 

not once did you claim that 50% of every faction had to vote, and if you did I would have simple laughed because it doesnt happen in any democracy that doesnt require voting by law.

Actually, it is an unrealistic expectation. Some parties are very small. If you require something of one then you must require it for all.

 

That would require rejecting any election where an extremely small minority party had a poor turnout.

 

 

Yes, the election did meet the 50% requirement he placed on it at one point. As an extreme skeptic he was given the opportunity to outline his requirements before the election, but he never really did, at least not consistently.

 

I am still curious about how he tailored his requirements in the aftermath though.

 

 

 

What would the results have been if there were a 100% turn out anyway? Would they have differed much? It is an interesting thought to ponder.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

QUOTE  (Chopdoc)

I have stood that ground all along.

 

(moon)

Hmmmmm.

 

OK.

 

 

QUOTE  (Chopdoc)

Please tell me, what realistically could happen to allow you to call it a success?

 

If you can't reasonably answer that question then you have already made up your mind.

 

 

(moon)

I would expect a successful democratic election to adhere to democratic principles, the law of the State in which it was held, to attract at least 50% of all eligible voters and to be declared a fair election by the great majority of neutral international observers.

When the media that I trust announces that my criteria have been met then I'll be happy with it. Until then, I simply don't know, and neither does anybody else.

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

I already said that a 50% minimum was not applicable in Iraq due to the unusual circumstances. It was an election, true, but it wasn't acceptable as a democratic election if in fact large numbers of people have been prevented from voting. Iraq might be on the path to democracy, as your President said yesterday, but a democracy it ain't.

Your ideas of a democracy differ wildly from mine.

 

US President George W Bush on Sunday congratulated Iraqi voters "for defying terrorist threats and setting their country on the path of democracy and freedom".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4263087.stm

 

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world;

Posted Image

Edited by moon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Prevented?

 

It was a boycott.

 

 

Calling a boycott then claiming the election is not valid because you did not vote is not a means of disqualifying an election.

 

 

You gave your criteria before the election. I will even let the more stringent ones stand. According to your criteria the election was quite valid, yet you still consider the election invalid. This supports my claim that ypou were determined to not accept the results of the election regardless of the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're cherry-picking reports, 'doc. A large proportion of Sunnis, in Sunni areas, were prevented from participating by violence or by threat. That wouldn't be tolerated in a normal democracy and lowers the credibility of the results.

 

 

 

You gave your criteria before the election. I will even let the more stringent ones stand. According to your criteria the election was quite valid, yet you still consider the election invalid. This supports my claim that ypou were determined to not accept the results of the election regardless of the outcome.

I don't reject the results at all, I am just pointing out that it failed my criteria for a democratic election. If it doesn't fail yours, then your standards are lower than mine.

 

The extent to which threat and violence influenced the turnout, and the result, should become clearer over the next few days. Perhaps you will be a little more understanding then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...