Full Version: Iraqi elections-how will they go?
With Iraqi elections slated to begin in two days, there are some positive and negative news out there about this round of Iraqi democratic participation. On the positive side, the Washington Times has an interesting article on American based Iraqis casting their ballots. Iraqis also voted in neighboring Iran as well. The formerly mentioned instance is important as there are over 6,000 citizens living here. Iraq's borders have been closed and al necessary items put in place in preparation for the election and placing troops at polling areas. An optimistic Philadelphia Inquirer opined that the election of Iraq's first permanent parliament will broaden Sunni representation no matter what and that it will definitely be the most credible election to date. On the negative end of things, the largest Shiite political party has promised to fight and refuse to acknowledge a political win by Sunni Ba'athists.
Questions for debate:
By what criteria should we judge this election as a success or as a failure?
Will this round of elections be successful or unsuccessful?
Do these elections matter any more with fighting still occuring? South Vietnam held elections between 1962-1970 and look what happened-how will this be any different?
Questions for debate:
By what criteria should we judge this election as a success or as a failure?
Will this round of elections be successful or unsuccessful?
Do these elections matter any more with fighting still occuring? South Vietnam held elections between 1962-1970 and look what happened-how will this be any different?
1. I think the Inquirer editorial got this just about right.
2. It could go either way. I think there's a decent chance that it will be a moderate success. I certainly hope there is no major disruption of the election, or of the resulting political structure, but it would be too optimistic to think that there will be no violence at all.
3. They do matter, unless the whole Iraqi society falls apart. I don't think it will, and I certainly hope that things become as stable and as democratic as possible.
(There may be a few lefties around who hope for failure in Iraq, as a proof that the war was not justified, but I am not one of them. I hope for as much success as possible. This does not mean the war was justified.)
QUOTE
Let us devoutly wish that the balloting takes place with no assassinations, no bombs, no revelations of Shiites committing revenge murders on Sunnis.
But the key marker of success - and a determining factor in whether the disorder cools - will be if Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis come together after the election to create democratic structures that protect the interests of all Iraqis.
But the key marker of success - and a determining factor in whether the disorder cools - will be if Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis come together after the election to create democratic structures that protect the interests of all Iraqis.
2. It could go either way. I think there's a decent chance that it will be a moderate success. I certainly hope there is no major disruption of the election, or of the resulting political structure, but it would be too optimistic to think that there will be no violence at all.
3. They do matter, unless the whole Iraqi society falls apart. I don't think it will, and I certainly hope that things become as stable and as democratic as possible.
(There may be a few lefties around who hope for failure in Iraq, as a proof that the war was not justified, but I am not one of them. I hope for as much success as possible. This does not mean the war was justified.)
By what criteria should we judge this election as a success or as a failure?
I would opt by how easy it is for people to vote all around Iraq, and of course number of voter turn outs around Iraq. If you study local polling in Iraq or certain areas it alone lets you get a feel for how those particular places feel about the current situation in their nation. If the vote runs smoothly(relatively speaking), large turnouts and everything goes rather timely I will be happy with it in terms of success, barring some large discrepancy with people claiming cheating or something.
Will this round of elections be successful or unsuccessful?
I posted my criteria above.
Do these elections matter any more with fighting still occuring? South Vietnam held elections between 1962-1970 and look what happened-how will this be any different?
Being the two conflicts are separate in terms of why anything occurs in them, cant really say you know. The only thing is I can add to it is if the elections are positive the U.S really should put forth its effort in the country to reflect care about such and foster it, not only to tow the line on what we give for reason for still occupying, but it would also I imagine give the Iraqis some hope for a timeline to things maybe going back to normal, or at least getting closer, I cant imagine living in a constant war zone.
I would opt by how easy it is for people to vote all around Iraq, and of course number of voter turn outs around Iraq. If you study local polling in Iraq or certain areas it alone lets you get a feel for how those particular places feel about the current situation in their nation. If the vote runs smoothly(relatively speaking), large turnouts and everything goes rather timely I will be happy with it in terms of success, barring some large discrepancy with people claiming cheating or something.
Will this round of elections be successful or unsuccessful?
I posted my criteria above.
Do these elections matter any more with fighting still occuring? South Vietnam held elections between 1962-1970 and look what happened-how will this be any different?
Being the two conflicts are separate in terms of why anything occurs in them, cant really say you know. The only thing is I can add to it is if the elections are positive the U.S really should put forth its effort in the country to reflect care about such and foster it, not only to tow the line on what we give for reason for still occupying, but it would also I imagine give the Iraqis some hope for a timeline to things maybe going back to normal, or at least getting closer, I cant imagine living in a constant war zone.
By what criteria should we judge this election as a success or as a failure?
If things go smoothly the election will be judged a political success for the Bush Administration and temporarily raise his polling numbers slightly. They are unlikely to make a real difference in the chaotic situation in Iraq.
Will this round of elections be successful or unsuccessful?
Lots of bombing, vote fraud, or a lack of Sunni voting would be politically damaging to our President. I don't see a combination of winners and participants that could be judged a success for Iraqis.
Do these elections matter any more with fighting still occurring? South Vietnam held elections between 1962-1970 and look what happened-how will this be any different?
They matter because they will determine the political landscape upon which the struggle in Iraq will be fought next. They won't come close to solving the fundamental problems in Iraq. See this comprehensive article on the situation by Pepe Escobar.
If things go smoothly the election will be judged a political success for the Bush Administration and temporarily raise his polling numbers slightly. They are unlikely to make a real difference in the chaotic situation in Iraq.
Will this round of elections be successful or unsuccessful?
Lots of bombing, vote fraud, or a lack of Sunni voting would be politically damaging to our President. I don't see a combination of winners and participants that could be judged a success for Iraqis.
Do these elections matter any more with fighting still occurring? South Vietnam held elections between 1962-1970 and look what happened-how will this be any different?
They matter because they will determine the political landscape upon which the struggle in Iraq will be fought next. They won't come close to solving the fundamental problems in Iraq. See this comprehensive article on the situation by Pepe Escobar.
QUOTE
It takes just a little political acumen to tell which way the (desert) wind blows. By the end of November, Shi'ite firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had made his move, coming out with all his political guns blazing to promote a "pact of honor", which he called Iraqi parties to subscribe to.
Last Thursday, in the Baghdad neighborhood of Kadhimiya, the 14-point pact was signed by an impressive array of political heavyweights. Among them: the two main Shi'ite parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and Da'wa; the Sadrists; the Iraqi Concord Front (which is a coalition of the three major Sunni Arab parties); Ahmad Chalabi (in person); members of the de-Ba'aathification committee; a number of tribal chiefs; unions; social associations; and government employees.
Among the crucial points of the pact are: withdrawal of the occupiers and setting of an objective timetable for their withdrawal from Iraq; elimination of all the consequences of their presence, including any bases for them in the country , while working seriously for the building of [Iraqi] security institutions and military forces within a defined schedule; no more immunity for the occupation troops; no relations whatsoever with Israel; a condemnation of terrorism ("We condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing, abducting and expulsion aimed at innocent citizens for sectarian reasons."); a condemnation of the Ba'ath Party as "a terrorist organization" and an urge "to speed up the trial of overthrown president Saddam Hussein"; and a decision to "postpone the implementation of the disputed principle of federalism".
................................................................................
..........................................................................
None of this points to national cohesion. "Iraq" as we know it - the unified, heavily centralized state with arbitrary borders drawn on a paper napkin by Britain after World War I - may be on its way to extinction after these elections.
(empahsis added)Last Thursday, in the Baghdad neighborhood of Kadhimiya, the 14-point pact was signed by an impressive array of political heavyweights. Among them: the two main Shi'ite parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and Da'wa; the Sadrists; the Iraqi Concord Front (which is a coalition of the three major Sunni Arab parties); Ahmad Chalabi (in person); members of the de-Ba'aathification committee; a number of tribal chiefs; unions; social associations; and government employees.
Among the crucial points of the pact are: withdrawal of the occupiers and setting of an objective timetable for their withdrawal from Iraq; elimination of all the consequences of their presence, including any bases for them in the country , while working seriously for the building of [Iraqi] security institutions and military forces within a defined schedule; no more immunity for the occupation troops; no relations whatsoever with Israel; a condemnation of terrorism ("We condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing, abducting and expulsion aimed at innocent citizens for sectarian reasons."); a condemnation of the Ba'ath Party as "a terrorist organization" and an urge "to speed up the trial of overthrown president Saddam Hussein"; and a decision to "postpone the implementation of the disputed principle of federalism".
................................................................................
..........................................................................
None of this points to national cohesion. "Iraq" as we know it - the unified, heavily centralized state with arbitrary borders drawn on a paper napkin by Britain after World War I - may be on its way to extinction after these elections.
QUOTE
Questions for debate:
By what criteria should we judge this election as a success or as a failure?
By what criteria should we judge this election as a success or as a failure?
Turnout will be the criteria esp of the Suni’s. And as of now it is HEAVY.. The election seems to be a hugh success. Now the political (rather than military) battles will begin.
QUOTE
Will this round of elections be successful or unsuccessful?
Very
QUOTE
Do these elections matter any more with fighting still occuring? South Vietnam held elections between 1962-1970 and look what happened-how will this be any different?
Huh? In Vietnam we NEVER took control of the north, never even slowed the flow of men and material from the north, never stopped the flow of Russian and Chinese weapons and advisors, never controlled the countryside in the south where Viet Cong troops moved by the thousands. There is no way to compare the two. Period. And our military strategy was asinine from day one. LBJ had not the slightest clue as to what he was doing. He ignored him military and they hated him for it.
As the political process solidifies the "fighting" will become more political than military.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 14 2005, 06:39 PM)
By what criteria should we judge this election as a success or as a failure?
In the near term I think "turnout" is a fair measure. At this point it appears to be a resounding success.
A more fundamental question might be: Will Democrats dispute the Iraqi election results?
It appears the Democrats have lost yet another election, this one a half a world away. I can hardly wait to see what angle the Kerry/Dean camp will find to pick it apart. If Yimmie Carter himself gave it his blessing, they would be calling him names in the DNC. I'm still waiting to see a Democrat get up in front of a camera and say what a beautiful thing this is...
Let's stay focused on the questions for debate. If you'd like to debate something else, please start another thread.
Questions for Debate:
By what criteria should we judge this election as a success or as a failure?
Will this round of elections be successful or unsuccessful?
Do these elections matter any more with fighting still occuring? South Vietnam held elections between 1962-1970 and look what happened-how will this be any different?
1) The criteria is simply the turnout, i.e., such will show just how much some are committed to the political process, or if one prefers, committed to a political solution.
2) So far, this election is going much better than last time, and since last time was a resounding success, well,....
3) Yes, these elections matter, and never mind any other factor, but the fact that these elections have all the hallmark of being free and fair, unlike some others in some other land, is what serves to make the distinction and put the same beyond any reasonable dispute.
Will the violence continue? Certainly, but there's hope:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1216/p01s01-woiq.html
The fact that they WALKED for two miles to vote, well, what more need be said? Frankly, whatever else might be said about Iraq, in that respect, they put us to shame and are otherwise giving us a rather valuable lesson in democracy. Maybe that can be our "reward" or "compensation" for our efforts there.
And to demonstrate that some things are just the same, the world over:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/a-shot...4500913474.html
Want me to vote Dem? Better promise me that place in heaven.....and a phonecard wouldn't hurt...
And one more, and can someone please pass the tissue....
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=5641
2) So far, this election is going much better than last time, and since last time was a resounding success, well,....
3) Yes, these elections matter, and never mind any other factor, but the fact that these elections have all the hallmark of being free and fair, unlike some others in some other land, is what serves to make the distinction and put the same beyond any reasonable dispute.
Will the violence continue? Certainly, but there's hope:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1216/p01s01-woiq.html
The fact that they WALKED for two miles to vote, well, what more need be said? Frankly, whatever else might be said about Iraq, in that respect, they put us to shame and are otherwise giving us a rather valuable lesson in democracy. Maybe that can be our "reward" or "compensation" for our efforts there.
And to demonstrate that some things are just the same, the world over:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/a-shot...4500913474.html
Want me to vote Dem? Better promise me that place in heaven.....and a phonecard wouldn't hurt...
And one more, and can someone please pass the tissue....
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=5641
In regards to the first question, a lot of members posted that turn out is the standard to measure success. In browsing the morning headlines, I found a great Washington Post article that reports a 70% turn out among the Kurds, 80% turnout among the Sunnis in Ramadi, an area that was quite a battle scene months ago. There were some minor bumps as mortar rounds were fired at the polls, including one that killed three children. 
I would say by this standard, the election was a great success. It will only turn out not be a success in the long run if the Sunni groups do not obey the results of the election, but for now, I'm willing to say this is a smashing success for us. I'm quite surprised by it to be honest with all of you.
In regard to the third question, yes Ted, we didn't occupy the north. However, we did occupy the southern region. They held numerous elections at the national and local level(that usually alternated with coups) Yes, the conflicts are different, but they are also similar. You have a new government whose people are trying to find out what they want for themselves. You have an "insurgency" and some domestic instability. You also have a heavy U.S. presence and an unstable government. All of these characteristics, both nations share(I suppose one no longer exists, but work with me here) I guess that I look at the fact that elections were held in S.Vietnam and they didn't accomplish a darn thing. My fear is that the enemies of the U.S. are merely playing the electoral game, and then are picking up their games when the elections are over.
I would say by this standard, the election was a great success. It will only turn out not be a success in the long run if the Sunni groups do not obey the results of the election, but for now, I'm willing to say this is a smashing success for us. I'm quite surprised by it to be honest with all of you.In regard to the third question, yes Ted, we didn't occupy the north. However, we did occupy the southern region. They held numerous elections at the national and local level(that usually alternated with coups) Yes, the conflicts are different, but they are also similar. You have a new government whose people are trying to find out what they want for themselves. You have an "insurgency" and some domestic instability. You also have a heavy U.S. presence and an unstable government. All of these characteristics, both nations share(I suppose one no longer exists, but work with me here) I guess that I look at the fact that elections were held in S.Vietnam and they didn't accomplish a darn thing. My fear is that the enemies of the U.S. are merely playing the electoral game, and then are picking up their games when the elections are over.
By what criteria should we judge this election as a success or as a failure?
The election should be as reliable as any other in a democratic/republican/paliamentary system that we know of today.
It should accomplish what it set out to do: bring in an Iraqi government.
The new government should band its supporters together, being as they are a clear majority of the Iraqi people, grab their AKs and defend themselves from the minority.
Will this round of elections be successful or unsuccessful?
Failure is not an option.
Do these elections matter any more with fighting still occuring? South Vietnam held elections between 1962-1970 and look what happened-how will this be any different?
Iraq held elections before we invaded. I don't see the point or any other connection. Elections themselves are meaningless. What the people do after casting their votes is what counts, and in the Iraqi situation, this means either their survival or fall.
Meanwhile, we have finally accomplished our mission. Iraq has a democratically elected government, for better or worse. Pull our troops back and see what happens. Obviously, the present leadership does not have a clue, nor do any of the others who would take the leadership. We don't have a clue either.
Ergo, try something different. Pull out. See if the Iraqi people deserve their own country.
Or do we have other motives for hanging around? If so, what are they? If these motivations cannot be expressed, then we will never know when anything is successful. I'm sorry to say that this is probably the case. Carry on.
The election should be as reliable as any other in a democratic/republican/paliamentary system that we know of today.
It should accomplish what it set out to do: bring in an Iraqi government.
The new government should band its supporters together, being as they are a clear majority of the Iraqi people, grab their AKs and defend themselves from the minority.
Will this round of elections be successful or unsuccessful?
Failure is not an option.
Do these elections matter any more with fighting still occuring? South Vietnam held elections between 1962-1970 and look what happened-how will this be any different?
Iraq held elections before we invaded. I don't see the point or any other connection. Elections themselves are meaningless. What the people do after casting their votes is what counts, and in the Iraqi situation, this means either their survival or fall.
Meanwhile, we have finally accomplished our mission. Iraq has a democratically elected government, for better or worse. Pull our troops back and see what happens. Obviously, the present leadership does not have a clue, nor do any of the others who would take the leadership. We don't have a clue either.
Ergo, try something different. Pull out. See if the Iraqi people deserve their own country.
Or do we have other motives for hanging around? If so, what are they? If these motivations cannot be expressed, then we will never know when anything is successful. I'm sorry to say that this is probably the case. Carry on.
QUOTE
By what criteria should we judge this election as a success or as a failure?
I believe participation is the big indicator of success for me. And participation was high. The more and more Iraqis understand that the past practice of violence, fear and intimidation of the baathist regime is a thing of the past the better...political solutions is what Iraq needs.
I am also judging the success of Iraq's transition by the influence she is having on her neighbors...obviously this whole campaign of ours is part of a bigger picture which is to change or influence the Middle East entirely. Looks like the "rejectionists" are getting less and less support these days and I feel Iraq is an important influencer on their behavior and how they are now being perceived.
With Iran frightening her neighbors America's military presence becomes more legitimate and wanted.
With Syria attempting to bomb and murder Lebanon into submission the support for a military confrontation and/or aggression towards Syria is becoming more and more popular. My family's friend..a Lebanese man said this past weekend after the Syrians slaughtered his personal friend .... Gebran Tueini....I hope the Americans bomb Syria!
I doubt his opinions are alone as Gebran Tueini was a national hero.
I know Americans are becoming more and more focused on the role or perceived destabilization our troops play in the ME with our presence in Iraq but most of those who actually live in the Middle East seem to be becoming more and more concerned with the
destabalizing roles Syria, Iran and the many institutions of terror they lend their support to. I think this changing of perception is very important to success in Iraq.
First of all, I think the elections went very well. A UN envoy said themselves that the election was a success. So kudos on that point. However, the 3rd question as to the impact of this election is the important one.
I disagree.
I’m beginning to believe that the long term success of Iraq is going to be dependent on Iran and the actions we toward Iran. If you take a step back you’ll realize that the big winner in this election was Iran. Many of the future political leaders of Iraq, have political ties to Iran and a pro-Iran policy. Some of the groups now in power in Iraq were exiled to Iran during the Iraq-Iran war in the 80’s and were part of the Shiite uprising after the first Gulf War. Militia members of the “Badr Brigades” have been patrolling Shiite cities looking for Sunni insurgents, number around 20,000 and have been joining the Iraqi police and national guard. The only problem with all this “good news” is that Badr Brigades was formed, trained, and equipped by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Furthermore, Iraq is also home to Najaf and Karbala, two holy cities for the Shias and it is estimated that 2 million Shiites make the pilgrimage to Najaf from Iran per year. Iranically, (pardon the pun) the new government in Iraq is making deals with a member of the “axis of evil.” The connections between the two countries was solidified in summer of 2005 when Iraq and Iran signed military cooperation agreements, agreements to open diplomatic facilities in Basra and Karbala and transportation, oil, and energy deals.
Don’t expect everything to go to heck in Iraq though. If Iraq’s government gets overthrown or Iraq falls into civil war, Iran stands to loose just as much as the US does. Iran wants a stable, self-sufficient Iraq just as much as the US does. The US, EU, and IAEA’s policies toward Iran will probably dictate what course of action or inaction Iran takes in Iraq. If Iran begins to fear an impending invasion from the US, they’ll most likely step up their activities in Iraq using it as a proxy and thus tying down US forces in Iraq.
I’m starting to get off topic though but the fact of the matter is that this “successful” election just put in power a new government in Iraq that has extensive ties to Iran. And while I personally believe that Iraq should be allowed to elect whoever they want and make deals with whoever they want, I think that the hawks would be less inclined to call this a success if they realized the full implications of these elections.
QUOTE
With Iran frightening her neighbors America's military presence becomes more legitimate and wanted.
I disagree.
I’m beginning to believe that the long term success of Iraq is going to be dependent on Iran and the actions we toward Iran. If you take a step back you’ll realize that the big winner in this election was Iran. Many of the future political leaders of Iraq, have political ties to Iran and a pro-Iran policy. Some of the groups now in power in Iraq were exiled to Iran during the Iraq-Iran war in the 80’s and were part of the Shiite uprising after the first Gulf War. Militia members of the “Badr Brigades” have been patrolling Shiite cities looking for Sunni insurgents, number around 20,000 and have been joining the Iraqi police and national guard. The only problem with all this “good news” is that Badr Brigades was formed, trained, and equipped by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Furthermore, Iraq is also home to Najaf and Karbala, two holy cities for the Shias and it is estimated that 2 million Shiites make the pilgrimage to Najaf from Iran per year. Iranically, (pardon the pun) the new government in Iraq is making deals with a member of the “axis of evil.” The connections between the two countries was solidified in summer of 2005 when Iraq and Iran signed military cooperation agreements, agreements to open diplomatic facilities in Basra and Karbala and transportation, oil, and energy deals.
Don’t expect everything to go to heck in Iraq though. If Iraq’s government gets overthrown or Iraq falls into civil war, Iran stands to loose just as much as the US does. Iran wants a stable, self-sufficient Iraq just as much as the US does. The US, EU, and IAEA’s policies toward Iran will probably dictate what course of action or inaction Iran takes in Iraq. If Iran begins to fear an impending invasion from the US, they’ll most likely step up their activities in Iraq using it as a proxy and thus tying down US forces in Iraq.
I’m starting to get off topic though but the fact of the matter is that this “successful” election just put in power a new government in Iraq that has extensive ties to Iran. And while I personally believe that Iraq should be allowed to elect whoever they want and make deals with whoever they want, I think that the hawks would be less inclined to call this a success if they realized the full implications of these elections.
psyclist I am not really sure why you singled my comments out because I don't feel you really disputed or addressed my claims.
Saying war in Iraq is beneficial to Iran is one opinion (not one I share) but I was claiming that the political positioning Iran is currently pursuing in the region is worrisome to not only Iraqis but to all Gulf States. Would you agree or disagree ?
Compound that with Syria's insanity and I am sure many are a bit relieved that Israel isn't the only opposing force capable of taking them on in the region.
Take a look at what has been happening on the world stage today one nation after another has condemned Iran and her vocal policy towards Israel and the NPT. The calls are for more isolation...I have a debate here I tried to start about the financial ramifications Iran is suffering because of international pressure and isolation..from EU, to France, to Germany, to China, to Russia and even to KSA! How much more of it can Iran withstand before the true reformists start to gain more and more support?
Saying war in Iraq is beneficial to Iran is one opinion (not one I share) but I was claiming that the political positioning Iran is currently pursuing in the region is worrisome to not only Iraqis but to all Gulf States. Would you agree or disagree ?
Compound that with Syria's insanity and I am sure many are a bit relieved that Israel isn't the only opposing force capable of taking them on in the region.
Take a look at what has been happening on the world stage today one nation after another has condemned Iran and her vocal policy towards Israel and the NPT. The calls are for more isolation...I have a debate here I tried to start about the financial ramifications Iran is suffering because of international pressure and isolation..from EU, to France, to Germany, to China, to Russia and even to KSA! How much more of it can Iran withstand before the true reformists start to gain more and more support?
QUOTE(bucket @ Dec 16 2005, 04:05 PM)
Saying war in Iraq is beneficial to Iran is one opinion (not one I share) but I was claiming that the political positioning Iran is currently pursuing in the region is worrisome to not only Iraqis but to all Gulf States. Would you agree or disagree ?
Sorry for not being clear. I would disagree with your above statement. I dont' see why Djibouti or Yemen would really care what Iran is up to. Israel obviously worries about Iran and the Sunni's in Iraq due as well. But, I don't think the GCC is expecting Iran to invade them any time soon.
The answer to debte question #1 ha been answered. here's something to ponder while everyone is thrilled(myself included) With that being said, I believe comparisons to an earlier conflict are more than apt. While the stories regarding elections in both South Vietnam and Iraq are similar, time will tell if Iraq has a similar fate.
Yes, it's a true account, I found it on Snopes.
Source
QUOTE
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote:
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 — United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.
The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 — United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.
The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.
Yes, it's a true account, I found it on Snopes.
Source
By what criteria should we judge this election as a success or as a failure?
Have you changed the criteria by which you judge the election results? The turnout was high but many dispute the results which indicate the new government will be dominated by religious Shiites heavily influenced by Iranian officials.
Will this round of elections be successful or unsuccessful?
Was it successful? It is my contention that it solved nothing and may have even exacerbated the sectarian tensions in Iraq.
Do these elections matter any more with fighting still occurring? South Vietnam held elections between 1962-1970 and look what happened-how will this be any different?
I believe they did matter because they were the last chance for the emergence of a secular power base in the electorate and the secularists were decimated. Hopefully, the administration will declare our defeat a victory and get out. There are signs that they might move in this direction.
Several links to articles on the election results follow:
LA Times Analysis of Election
Election Dominated by Sectarian Voting
Juan Cole Analysis of Election
Sunni Threaten Boycott over Elections
Sunni Want Bagdad Election Rerun
Iraqis Protest Elections
Chalabi's Defeat
US Negotiates with Insurgents (good news)
By what criteria should we judge this election as a success or as a failure?
I guess this is the place to write about our troops being drawn down. This morning's news (12/23) brought the great news that 7,000 troops, on top of the 20,000 that were sent to Iraq for securing the election, will be brought home. The Iraqi people will have to protect their own nation as further troops come on home.
That's what I call success and victory.
Now I suppose it might be a ploy for the 2006 election season, but if it means getting as many service personnel out of harm's way as possible, I don't care. If it means forcing Iraqis to swallow their differences and protect their own country, I don't care. How this plays out at the polls in the US is anyone's guess, as local issues will likely be more important.
Anyway, 7,000 (estimated, no official word yet) coming home. That's the best news yet.
I guess this is the place to write about our troops being drawn down. This morning's news (12/23) brought the great news that 7,000 troops, on top of the 20,000 that were sent to Iraq for securing the election, will be brought home. The Iraqi people will have to protect their own nation as further troops come on home.
That's what I call success and victory.
Now I suppose it might be a ploy for the 2006 election season, but if it means getting as many service personnel out of harm's way as possible, I don't care. If it means forcing Iraqis to swallow their differences and protect their own country, I don't care. How this plays out at the polls in the US is anyone's guess, as local issues will likely be more important.
Anyway, 7,000 (estimated, no official word yet) coming home. That's the best news yet.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Dec 23 2005, 12:21 PM)
Now I suppose it might be a ploy for the 2006 election season, but if it means getting as many service personnel out of harm's way as possible, I don't care. If it means forcing Iraqis to swallow their differences and protect their own country, I don't care. How this plays out at the polls in the US is anyone's guess, as local issues will likely be more important.
Anyway, 7,000 (estimated, no official word yet) coming home. That's the best news yet.
It's not completely official yet, but the units have received confirmation. One Brigade at Ft. Riley and one Brigade from Germany are not rotating to OIF at the first of the year as intended. The Brigade from Ft. Riley may send small teams to augment the training of the Iraqi Army however.
I think it's a bit pessimistic to call this an election season ploy. After all, any move by any administration can be an election ploy, since every administration and each party starts campaigning the day after the vote is held.
A reduction plan has been in the works for around a year now, mainly hinging on the absence of violence surrounding the December elections and the build up of the Iraqi Army.
QUOTE
Will this round of elections be successful or unsuccessful?
I think it is still early to tell if the elections are successful.
Some factions in Iraq aren't happy with the elections and the procedures involved in the elections
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1437644
QUOTE
BAGHDAD, Iraq Dec 23, 2005 — Protesters gathered across the country Friday to denounce parliamentary elections that demonstrators called rigged in favor of the main religious Shiite coalition.
As many as 20,000 people demonstrated after noon prayers in southern Baghdad Friday in a protest organized by Sunni Arab groups and attended by representatives of secular Shia parties.
Top Stories
* Iraqis March, Say Elections Were Rigged
* Enemy of the State or Savvy Campaigner?
* Troop Cuts in Iraq
Many Iraqis outside the religious Shiite coalition allege that the elections were unfair to smaller Sunni Arab and secular Shiite groups.
"We refuse the cheating and forgery in the elections," read one banner among many decrying the elections.
Sheik Mahmoud al-Sumaidaei of the Association of Muslim Scholars, a major Sunni clerical group, told followers during Friday prayers at Baghdad's Umm al-Qura mosque that they were "living a conspiracy built on lies and forgery."
Maybe this election may not be as successful as King George would have us believe.
Or Diebold may be in charge of the Iraq elections?
This thread has become obsolete as the election has been held and new types of speculation and analysis can be explored about how the elections went etc.
Topic Closed
Topic Closed
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.