Would You Vote in Iraq?

You won't find this info in mainstream USA media

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,339016,00.html
from JoeUser Forums
Would you vote in Iraq, given that you'd be taking your life in your hands if you tried? Would you even know who you'd be voting for? What about where to vote?

These are questions that Iraqis are facing with regard to the "elections" on Sunday. In this article from Speigel, a German website, you'll find some interesting info that our mainstream media won't print. Like the burning truth. First of all, "Meanwhile, many Iraqis say they are not only too scared to vote, but know little to nothing about the some 7,000 candidates from 256 political groups and independents running."

Seven thousand (7,000) candidates? Holy freakin' bomb scare!!! Two hundred fifty six (256) political groups? What's a voter to do?

How about this:
"Here's a quick roundup of Iraq violence from 8 a.m. Thursday to 8 a.m. Friday. We have just one question: Amid all this, would you vote?

*Insurgents attacked a Marine base about 50 kilometers south of Baghdad, killing one soldier and injuring others.

*Street fighting broke out between American soldiers and rebels in central Baghdad.

*Jordanian terrorist and al-Qaida affiliate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi posted a videotape on the Internet showing the murder of Salem Jaafar Abed, a National Assembly candidate and the secretary of interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

*In Baghdad, a car bomb near an Iraqi police station killed four policemen.

*A car bomb exploded in Samarra (95 kilometers north of Baghdad) killing three Iraqis.

*Two polling stations in Samarra were attacked. One -- a school administration building -- was blown up. Staff had been warned beforehand to leave.

*Sporadic clashes erupted in Samarra between US soldiers and armed men. One Iraqi died.

*In the city of Kirkuk north of Baghdad, rebels attacked seven polling stations with mortar shells and machine guns.

*Also in Kirkuk, insurgents attacked an Iraqi police patrol, killing one.

*In Beiji, also in the north, a suicide bomber struck a US military convoy.

*In Mahmoudiya, 30 kilometers south of Baghdad, three Iraqis died when a roadside bomb missed a US convoy.

*Near Tikrit, a roadside bomb aimed at a US convoy killed an Iraqi.

*On the military base, a US soldier died of gunshot wounds.

*In Ramadi, west of Baghdad, an Iraqi National Guard soldier died when insurgents attacked a school voting center.

*In Baqouba, the body of a former Saddam Hussein loyal was found. He had been abducted by armed men.

*Insurgents shelled the US Marine base south of Baghdad.

*In Baghdad, a car bomb near an Iraqi police station killed four policemen.

*In Basra, four polling stations were attacked. "

Now, I'd venture a guess that if Dubya and his dummies had to vote, they'd sure not risk their lives to go and vote. And, given the mess surrounding this "election", how valid do you think the outcome will be? I'd say not valid at all. An exercise in American hubris, is all. After all, I'm betting that after the elections, nothing, absolutely nothing will change. It will make no fucking difference. Time, I suppose, will tell.

1,600 American soldiers dead
10,000 American soldiers injured
100,000 Iraqis dead
Untold numbers of Iraqis injured
Bin Laden still at large
Saddam still not tried
Afghanistan still not rebuilt
Bagdad still not in control
Iraq in ruins
Dubya still selling his con job about how rosy everything is.

Oh yeah, the elections will really make the difference. And, OJ was innocent.
politics
12,278 views 26 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's not forget that all of the name recognition people over there (allawi, etc.) are Iraqi exiles that worked for the CIA or for U.S. based corporations. Remember when we liberated Afghanistan and the interim president Karzai was elected to the presidency? He got the interim job since he used to do consulting work for a Houston based company called Unical. Oh yeah, they're an oil - natural gas, etc. company. Do we really think that Iraq will be any different? Liberation in this case is really just the creation of more U.S. client states. Anyone who believes otherwise is either naiive or an ideologue.

So, no, I wouldn't vote.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, I would have a back bone to fight for freedom. Good old Teddy realy is showing his spinless back bone at not letting others elect thier Governmental representatives. It is a sad time when members of a major (will be minor at this rate) America political party does not want to give others a chance at freedom and liberty.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Heeeeeeeelllllllll no I wouldn't vote.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Are you kidding me? I'm WAY too much of a coward to vote in those conditions.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
i would vote....to make life better for my children, and their children.....why should I be afraid of death?

What is interesting to me, and it would be funny, if not so shamefully, sadly pathetic.....is that Dabe, the "fighter of freedom" doesn't think ppl should vote.....the democratic party, not for democracy....yet again....
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm sorry, but you can't just hand democracy and freedom over to people like it's some kind of packaged gift . . . as you might have noticed, our "gift" isn't welcome in Iraq. The place is a mess . . . would you want to live there? And now we are asking people to vote, even though they aren't even informed enough to know who stands for what or what impact any given choice will make, while bombs are going off in the polling places and people are being murdered indescriminately. I would not risk my life to vote for something I knew nothing about . . . I would be too busy trying to keep my children safe in a savage, chaotic environment such as Iraq, and trying to make good use of the limited water, electricity, and resources I had so that my family could survive.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

If I were a Shi'ite Muslim, I would stay home, and hope that the majority (who represents me) would cast a ballot in my favor.


If I were a Sunni Muslim, I would raise hell because I know that I'm "gonna get it" once the results come in.


If I weren't religious, I would look at them all: Shi'ite, Sunni, and Christian invaders in contempt.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
What you are asking is:

If you were just freed from slavery in 1870's Southern U.S., would you vote?
If you were a sheriff, militia member or federal troop, would you defend a newly freed man's right to vote?

If you were a Black student in 1960's U.S., would you go to school on the first day of "integration?
If you were a sheriff, National Guardsmen or federal troop, would you defend the Black student's right to attend the school?

If you were a woman in 1920's U.S. would you vote?
If you were a sheriff, militia member or federal troop, would you defend a woman's right to vote?

It was not that long ago in our own country that people faced abuse, torment, bigotry and yes even death to exercise their newly won right to vote. We look back and applaud the bravery it took to stand up and tell the world that come what may, they were going to exercise their rights!!!

I, for one, am in complete and utter awe of all Iraqis who are willing to defy death to exercise their rights (as I am with those who did the same in Afghanistan... especially the women who faced an added threat). They are truly heroes and deserve nothing less than the deepest respect and honor of all who claim to love liberty!!!

Look at those who aren't in Iraq, but are still eligible to vote at one of the many voting places around the world. Here in America there are 4 polling places. Thousands of Iraqis are spending who knows how much money and travel up to hundreds of miles in order to cast ballots.

Compare that with the whining and total BS that went on in our own election.

"But my polling place is a whole mile further away than this one. Why can't I just vote here?"
"An ID to register to vote? Why, that is just too much to ask!"
"I had to wait in line for hours, just to vote. Why don't they understand that I need to get to the store before dinner?"

Why(ne) Why(ne) Why(ne)!!!!

Many so-called Americans care so little about their right to vote that they either don't bother, or they take part in registration and voter scams because they are too immature and hate filled to see that they are destroying what others killed and died to give them.

We are witnessing something of eathshaking historic importance here. Freedom has a foothold and the only way it will fail is if those who love freedom fail to recognize that! We already know that there are people willing to kill to prevent it, now we must put all our hope and trust in those who are willing to face death to realize it.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bravo, ParaTed2k.

Of those questions you asked, I would say yes to all. But especially the second half of each question.

It is those who will help other people to vote for freedom, that will most likely keep their own.

It is those who refuse to help others to receive the freedom to vote, that are most likely to lose their own freedoms.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anyone who believes otherwise is either naiive or an ideologue


Oh no, sqrrldrw called me names!!! How on earth is my fragile self esteem to recover?? ;~D
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Excellent riposte, ParaTed2K. Insightful to you.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay, I guess it's time for my serious response.

If the question is would I, personally, vote in Iraq, then no. I am a coward, and however much I wanted freedom, I would be scared out of my mind.
If the question is do I want Iraqis to have a Democracy, then yes. I think they deserve to be free.

The thing is, I have always had something against invading a country to change their ideals to yours. There was once a man who convinced himself that his ideals were right. And so he invaded other countries to change theirs. This man's name, of course, was Adolf Hitler.

Now, I know what you're saying. "But that's different, Hitler had terrible ideals and wanted to murder people. We're right." I will agree that Hitler's ideals were wrong. But is anything ever really right? It is true that our government is fair to the people, and has worked for us, but any form of government can work if the right people control it. Take this analogy. Julius Caesar toppled a Republic and became dictator of Rome, and his succesors became Emperor. The Republic was evil and corrupt and oppressed the people. Caesar was fair and just, and beloved. So really, it isn't the government, it is the person.

I am in no way suggesting we are evil. We are benevolent, and we are trying to change things for the good. These are just my thoughts on war for the purpose of changing the government. Again, I do hope Iraqis can achieve their Democracy. They deserve it.

Well, that's all I really have to say. All that's left is to sit back and get me and my views torn apart.

Until I have to defend my position,
NJF
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The thing is, I have always had something against invading a country to change their ideals to yours.


Excellent post NJF, the only thing I would say in rebuttal to the above quote is, in invading Iraq we are not forcing the the people to change their ideals, we have given them an opportunity to voice their ideals a form a government around them.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
NJF, I agree with paraTed. Excellent response. And yes, I posted the question seriously. Of course, I do not want the elections to fail. Of course, I'd like to see democracy thrive in Iraq. These are clearly givens.

But, I am very skeptical of the process. First of all, as is no secret, going to the polling places will be very dangerous. Will the insurgents succeed in disrupting the elections? Yes, to some degree I think they will, and already have. As reports are coming in, 29 people have already been killed at the polls. This is really sad.

But, I disagree with paraTed's assertion that the US has given the Iraqis the opportunity to voice their ideals. In some remote way, I do concede the point. But, the ends to achieve this means is as horrific as they come. Democracy at the end of a gun, resulting in upwards of 100,000 dead Iraqis. I do not trust the Bush adiminstration in their "lofty" goals for Iraq. They lied their way into this war, they lie every day about the "progress", and they will lie about the outcome. In fact, I would find it very hard to believe that the US will eventually leave Iraq to its own devices

if a hardline Islamic cleric is elected, then we Americans will have succeeded in nothing but altering the government from one of a secular dictatorship to one of an islamist tyranny. If Allawi is elected, then USA will have succeeded in setting up its puppet government in Iraq, enabling the US to stay forever and expoloit the oil fields, which is what I do think was the primary goal, the thinly veiled hidden agenda, in the first place. No matter how we look at it, the Iraqis will not see a true democracy. And, the point of course to my original article is that whoever they choose, they'll do so at great peril to themselves and their families. The choices are bogus. The neocons' intent is bogus. Hopeffylly, the desired outcome, true democracy, will some day come to fruition.

I would fight for freedom. I would fight for the right to a democracy. But, I woldn't risk my life, limb and family for what is happening today. But, I remain an optimistic skeptic.

Thanks all for your replies.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Despite all the terrorist insurgent intimidation, despite Zarqawi's declaration of "all-out war" on the election, despite the last-minute designation of polling places; despite all those logistical & psychological hurdles, somewhere between 60% and 70% of eligible voters braved the risks and went to the polls. That's a great turnout here in the US, where "disenfranchisement" means missing out on the Sausage-McMuffin with Cheese because the polling line was too long & they stopped serving them @ 10:30.

Let no one minimize the significance of this day for the Iraqi people. They deserve our highest respect and have earned our continued support. It may be taken for granted by many, but freedom is as powerful as ever.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa, I do have my fingers crossed for the Iraqis. I'm going to look for poll numbers now. 77% seems really high. I hope you're right.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
dabe -

I, too, have my fingers crossed for the Iraqi people and I'm glad to have you with me in that. It looks like 60% is going to be closer to the number. But whatever the number, the Iraqi people have won a great battle against the insurgent cowards. The video clips of them dancing and singing after voting have been very heartwarming. Their courage is a little hard for us to get our arms around but cannot be denied.

Let me take this opportunity, dabe, to extend an apology if my somewhat indelicate words in another thread offended you. Your passion is a good thing, and I'll try to keep that in mind when you slide over the edge a bit.

Cheers,
Sorry Ass Daiwa
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks Daiwa. I guess you're OK, as far as righties go.

I am a passionate person. I do tend to go a tad over the edge. But, it's to make a point, usually. And, I do not suffer fools gladly. There are a few complete and utterly iliterate fools here, who shall remain nameless, and I'll never give them any slack or benefit of the doubt. That's me. But, I am a fair and reasonable person, and I thank you for the lattitude you offer me. As I do for you.

I guess we're buddies, huh?

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
One thing I forgot to mention, as I was getting all gooey emotional there, was that the outcome of the elections, who was actually voted in, and what he/she stands for will be the most telling result. As I said above, I have no faith in the neocon plant, Allawi, and if an Islamist extremist gets the nod, then we will not have succeeded in much of anything. Time will tell.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
No one was "voted in" as this election was not held to pick a leader. This election was held to choose basically "delegates" for the "National Assembly" and for the "Governorate council". Roughly speaking they are the equivolent of the U.S. "Constitutional Convention" and "Continental Congress".

The iraqis are voting for "parties" more than people (although there are people on the ballot too). Once the votes are counted, each "party" will be given the percentage of seats equal to the percentage of the vote they received.

That way it will truly be an election of the people of Iraq, and when the new government is set up, it will be done by those elected by the people to do so.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
dabe -

It's OK to have a token Sorry Ass or two as buddies, long as you don't flaunt it too much.

And ParaTed2k is quite correct - this vote was to establish the makeup of the delegates to the Iraqi equivalent of our Constitutional Congress. Interestingly, the ballot, by design, included at least one woman for every 2 men and no matter what the distribution of parties, at least a quarter to 1/3 of the delegates will be women. We can argue from the comfort of our chairs with the 2-to-1 ratio, but even that is a remarkable thing in a Muslim country and bodes well for the ultimate success of the movement toward democracy. Hillary & Boxer aside, women are generally a force for good in politics.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
ParaTed is correct, and my skeptisism gets in the way of that. I have to admit that I'm amazed at the reported turnouts in Iraq. As much as I am a skeptic of anything Dubya, this really is about he Iraqi people, and success can only be measured by them.

As for Dubya, I still really detest the guy, along with the rest of his neocon cohorts. They lied their way into Iraq, and nothing will convince me otherwise. The reason for going was an "imminent threat" to the US because of Saddam's WMD. That never materialized, so they just made it up as they went along. I do hope that the outcome of their extremely expensive disaster, and the human sacrifice for their folly is ultimately freedom for Iraqis. If they pull that off, and bail themselves out of this mess, I will be amazed. However, I remain very skeptical.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh yeah, the elections will really make the difference. And, OJ was innocent.


1 out of 2 ain't bad, dabe. A .500 batting average would smash the MLB record by 60 points (Hugh Duffy, Boston, 1894).

And one of the things that still puzzles me is why so many of you (I'm using the general "you" to designate folks on the left as passionate as you) reserve your disdain and hatred for Dubya alone (throw in Wolfowitz & a couple of others, if you want) - with the exception of Howard Dean, all the Democrat candidates for President accepted and believed the same intelligence. Same with most of the Democrat Congressional leadership. By your standards, they were all liars, too. Either, that or really stupid.

It ascribes way too much Machiavellian brilliance to Dubya to claim that he alone snookered everyone, and completely contrived the whole Iraq endeavor, especially when most of you consider him a total dimwit. I just don't understand the logic employed in arriving at this "Liar! Liar!" intransigence.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
ParaTed is correct, and my skeptisism gets in the way of that. I have to admit that I'm amazed at the reported turnouts in Iraq. As much as I am a skeptic of anything Dubya, this really is about he Iraqi people, and success can only be measured by them.


True, this day was not about any president, policy or person, it was about the Iraqi people as a whole. Over the last year and a half, we have heard from politician, pundits and reporters, all trying to tell us what the Iraqi people think about this war. Well, today the people were finally given the chance to tell the world how they felt, and their message was as plain as the ink on their finger.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa, I don't detest Dubya alone. When I single his name out, I am referring to the whole lot of neocon death cult and hate mongers. Dubya is only their figurehead. A dumbass figurehead, but he represents them all. And, I do believe that the impetus for the original invasion had nothing to do with "freeing the Iraqi people" or "creating democracy". That only came into play when everything else failed and fell apart.

Remember, there were no WMD's, which was the main focus and buildup to why we needed to invade Iraq in the first place. And, that the players who pushed for this war, the neocons, and Dubya himself, were so riddled with conflicts of interest that the whole mess was originally created because of their business dealings.

The elections are certainly part of the exit strategy, and for that I remain hopeful. But, I would be amazed if, when all the dust clears, and the Iraqis have their democracy (or whatever itteration of democracy they develop), that the US will just leave. We will have succeeded in creating a stronghold there to exploit the Iraqi oil. America is not going to ever walk away from the oil. That's a given. And, those who will benefit most financially are the Bush's, and various American oil interests. Wouldn't it have been a whole lot cheaper to just buy the freakin' oil, rather than steal it?

I still maintain that war should have been the very last resort. Dubya made it a first action, and the death toll is horrific. Taxpayers will be paying war reparations for years to come, and the oil magnates will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Oh yeah, I remain skeptical and distrustful of our administration, even though I do hope that the Iraqis do achieve their democracy. The elections were a good first step. I'm waiting for step two.