Jump to content

Change Mode

The Iraqi Elections


Recommended Posts

Iraq's president has predicted that most of his country's people will not go to the polls for a historic election tomorrow, mostly because of security fears

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1401430,00.html

The burning question is, I think, if the coalition can't provide a secure environment for voting then why are the elections running at all ?

This entire operation has always been undermanned, badly planned and viewed out of context with events in Palestine/Israel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 500
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The burning question is, I think, if the coalition can't provide a secure environment for voting then why are the elections running at all ?

This entire operation has always been undermanned, badly planned and viewed out of context with events in Palestine/Israel.

gosh, i hate to sound like Simpleton Sue, but aren't the elections happening come hell or high water because Bush said they would :shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The count won't take long, the way things are looking.

here's a late=breaking AP article....there's going to be a bloodbath

 

http://www.xposed.com/headline_news/54_ds_1573200.aspx

 

i honestly wonder if the risk of life n' limb is worth it....

 

Bush says alot of things  :)

i can't help but think that if Bush said the elections should be postponed, they would be....

Link to post
Share on other sites

For an election that will undoubtably be tainted I doubt that it will be worth what the troops are going to have to go through. I can see many Iraqi's not accepting the outcome of the elections just because they were occupied at the time of the elections.

 

This election is largely for show to let the American people as well as the rest of the world know that the coallition accomplished great things in Iraq, when really they accomplished very little :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

They accomplished alot - in the wrong direction, though. Honestly. Bush going to Iraq becasue of "WMDs" then "Al Quida and Saddam Hussein" then "just Saddam" and now "so the Iraqi people can feel freedom". No doubt Saddam was HORRIBLE, but there are countries with alot worse. And, Saddam posed no threat to the US - I mean, what about North Karea? This entire war has certainly not been worth the lives of our lost soldiers.

 

The worst part? That clown was re-elected :bang: . I'm depressed....

 

Nice pick-me-up here and here... but, too little too late.... :soapbox:

Link to post
Share on other sites

They accomplished alot - in the wrong direction, though. Honestly. Bush going to Iraq becasue of "WMDs" then "Al Quida and Saddam Hussein" then "just Saddam" and now "so the Iraqi people can feel freedom". No doubt Saddam was HORRIBLE, but there are countries with alot worse. And, Saddam posed no threat to the US - I mean, what about North Karea? This entire war has certainly not been worth the lives of our lost soldiers.

 

The worst part? That clown was re-elected :bang: . I'm depressed....

 

Nice pick-me-up here and here... but, too little too late.... :soapbox:

The sequence of reasoning you give is how the media reports it, and it is not correct..

 

The official position of the government has been consistent all along. The invasion was designed to remove Saddam Hussein from power and turn over the nation to the people, all due to the fact that Hussein was unwilling to comply with the UN. That has been consistent from the beginning.

 

WMD was a concern of course and rightfully so. There are still hundreds of tons missing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saddam was a small fish in comparison to many others out there. And, the Bush admin. did say at first that Saddam was a threat because of WMD - that is what they told the UN when they showed them pics of firetrucks, and said "look! they are cleaning up their WMDs!" I think this should have been left in the hands of the international community (the UN) as Saddam was dangerous, but not taken up by the US (led by the hotheaded Bush) with a few allies (Britin, Spain, few people from some other realllly small countries).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, pics of firetrucks was not a joke - this is what many UNBIASED experts said after reviewing the pictures - that one had a firetruck in it instead of the supposied HazMat truck. And Australia, Poland, and Japan did not exactly send tons of troups - they sent a few, so that they could stay on the US's good side. Amazing, how we get allies.... by sheer intimidation, alot of the time.

 

And, he 'admitted' to WMDs so that he could threaten other countries - he was in way over his head, and never expected the US to get involved. Rather stupid, really.

Edited by kigoe
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And, he 'admitted' to WMDs so that he could threaten other countries - he was in way over his head, and never expected the US to get involved. Rather stupid, really.

That is very well said.

 

Except for one thing. The WMD that I speak of was confirmed. Not the empty threats from right before the war but the WMD that went missing a long time before that. The UN knew about it and Iraq was quite open about it. That changed.

 

Saddam admitted to it because he had it. For sure. He used it against Iran and he used it against his own people.

 

If he didn't have it and was only saying he did as a matter of intimidation then how did he use it?

 

There were hudreds of tons left over that mysteriously "disappeared" in direct violation of the UN. And that is the key...the violation of the terms of the cease fire.

 

"Rather stupid, really" Yes, exactly.

 

Regarding the photographs and any bad intelligence, the bulk of the intelligence was very good. But so many choose to ignore that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seriously beginning to think that there are two parallel universes.

 

The first one has US news coverage.

 

And then there's the rest of the world......

Best to not pay too much attention to what the news says the government or leaders say and look at what they actually say.

 

Most of the reporting I have seen is so inaccurate on the matter it's silly. You have to remember they are after ratings, they are an entertainment production for the most part.

 

 

When you see what they say about what was said the best thing to do is read the actual transcrips. It is time consuming but very revealing.

 

 

That is regardless of where you are.

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

When you see what they say about what was said the best thing to do is read the actual transcrips.

Transcripts of what exactly?

 

What the news says?

 

What the government say?

 

What our leaders say?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Transcripts of what exactly?

 

What the news says?

 

What the government say?

 

What our leaders say?

What the leaders and/or governments say of course.

 

 

The documents and speeches are available. Instead most rely on what the media reports. That's a proble, because it is inaccurate.

 

EDIT:

 

An excellent example is the confirmation hearings of Condoleeza Rice. The media reported plenty of little snippets. What was actually said?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/politics...94ef470&ei=5070

That is what was actually said. It's a lot of reading, but to claim that one knows what went on just from the media reports and without reading the transcrips is really not realistic.

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the photographs and any bad intelligence, the bulk of the intelligence was very good. But so many choose to ignore that.

If the bulk of the intelligence was so good then where in the hell are the weapons of mass destruction? why did so many US troops die? why did so many innocent civilians die?

 

Maybe the only bad intelligence was a lack of intelligence was in the White House :( . How can anyone sit at their computer and say this was a success after seeing thousands of dead US troops as well as thousands of dead Iraqi's and only 1 man to show for it? Not to mention a total disregard of the main mission in which they went for. If I goto the grocery store for milk and I come home with a grain of rice then that is not a good thing.

 

I am sure this election will be 100% fair and totally unbaised by the invading coun tries :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The documents and speeches are available. Instead most rely on what the media reports. That's a proble, because it is inaccurate

Naturally you rely on only the most accurate information provided by the US government :lol::rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bulk of the intelligence was so good then where in the hell are the weapons of mass destruction? why did so many US troops die? why did so many innocent civilians die?

 

Maybe the only bad intelligence was a lack of intelligence was in the White House :( . How can anyone sit at their computer and say this was a success after seeing thousands of dead US troops as well as thousands of dead Iraqi's and only 1 man to show for it? Not to mention a total disregard of the main mission in which they went for. If I goto the grocery store for milk and I come home with a grain of rice then that is not a good thing.

 

I am sure this election will be 100% fair and totally unbaised by the invading coun tries :rolleyes:

And what exactly do you expect the result of a war to be?

 

Again, you are ignoring all the good intelligence and concentrating on that one thing. It is very repetitious.

 

Why are so many dead? Because there was a war, and fighing continues, of course. Regardless of having found any WMD or not the purposes of the war as stated clearly before it ever started have been served quite successfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He relies on transcripts of their speaches to see what they say, did he say he believe everything that they say? No, he didn't.

I forgot that politicians only tell the truth, silly me :rolleyes:
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is very well said.

 

Except for one thing. The WMD that I speak of was confirmed. Not the empty threats from right before the war but the WMD that went missing a long time before that. The UN knew about it and Iraq was quite open about it. That changed.

 

Saddam admitted to it because he had it. For sure. He used it against Iran and he used it against his own people.

 

If he didn't have it and was only saying he did as a matter of intimidation then how did he use it?

 

There were hudreds of tons left over that mysteriously "disappeared" in direct violation of the UN. And that is the key...the violation of the terms of the cease fire.

Ah, so that is what you speak of :) . I thought that you were refering to the MWD that Saddam was threating countries with imidiatly prior to the war. As for the WMD Saddam did have, that we know he had, well, I don't think anyone is sure. However, I do know that alot of the bio WMDs went bad long ago - many with a shelf life of a few months. However, there is still a rather large hole, but that is a lack of knowlege. I believe that while we should keep an eye on it, it certainly does not trump areas where we KNOW that there are WMDs.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And what exactly do you expect the result of a war to be?

 

Again, you are ignoring all the good intelligence and concentrating on that one thing. It is very repetitious.

 

Why are so many dead? Because there was a war, and fighing continues, of course. Regardless of having found any WMD or not the purposes of the war as stated clearly before it ever started have been served quite successfully.

I would expect more from my government if I was an American, I could not fathom standing by watching my fellow countrymen die for nothing. They are being marched to hell and they are doing it bravely and heroicly while Bush is sitting is his cushy chair making up the next dose of slanderous :filtered: to feed the American people.

 

I would not ask anymore from the troops, they are working their :filtered: off doing what they deem to be protecting the American people.

 

By the way it is not a war, it is a police action :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturally you rely on only the most accurate information provided by the US government :lol::rolleyes:

It is accurate as far as reporting what they say or write. What could be more accurate about what they say?

 

I did not say that their claims were always accurate did I?

 

So many are claiming to know what the government said yet they only know what the media reported they said. The fact is that the media is inaccurate about it, very much so.

 

I am not saying that I believe everything they have said, I have never said that.

 

 

But at least I know what they said or wrote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saddam openly admitted to weapons of mass destruction, this is why we should be worried about not finding them in Iraq.

Bush & Blair openly insisted he had WMD's, this is why we have no worries of finding them in Iraq.

 

The election is a joke and those Iraqis that risk their lives to vote in it have been duped. I only hope that history shows the monsters running the coalition in their true light. Unholy men and women with less regard for human life than their personal fortunes. I pray they die a long and slow death worthy of their crimes against humanity.

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...