I hope the elections in Iraq are hopeful.

Former Member

Over 72% of the registered voters are voting in Iraq and there's lines of over one thousand people long in some of the Sunni areas like (spelling) Fallujah.

I hope something good comes out of this war. I was never for it. I am against letting Muslims be tortured. The UN sucks and not in a good way. :thumb:

So maybe after all of this mess, there can be hope in the MiddleEast for people to pursue life and not death.

Former Member

Let's hope so.

Or it could come back to bite us in twenty years time.

Former Member

Couldnt agree more.

Im staggered how many people have turned out, I really thought the Iraqi people werent as supportive towards this as they are, they must really have some hope now.

Shame their are a hardcore of insurgants and terrorists over there readey to kill and maim with the object of never having democracy, bastards.

Former Member

Tommo100 wrote:

Shame their are a hardcore of insurgants and terrorists over there readey to kill and maim with the object of never having democracy, bastards.

You're referring to the "foreign fighters" from the USA and UK surely?

:yes:

Former Member

are they trying to avoid democracry in Iraq then?

Former Member

Tommo100 wrote:

are they trying to avoid democracry in Iraq then?

Well, if installing the #2 (ex Baathist) CIA stooge is "democracy", then I guess thats what happening.

The consensus seems to be that they're looking foir an exit strategy - so that more US and UK kids can go die in Iran.

Which is nice

Former Member

lukesh wrote:

freethepeeps for once in your life look on the bright side you misrable sod!

Yeah, okay!

I just found a good example of the USA bringing democracy to the Middle East. ........

The tiny state of Qatar is a crucial American ally in the Persian Gulf, where it provides a military base and warm support for American policies. Yet relations with Qatar are also strained over an awkward issue: Qatar's sponsorship of Al Jazeera, the provocative television station that is a big source of news in the Arab world.

Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other Bush administration officials have complained heatedly to Qatari leaders that Al Jazeera's broadcasts have been inflammatory, misleading and occasionally false, especially on Iraq.

The pressure has been so intense, a senior Qatari official said, that the government is accelerating plans to put Al Jazeera on the market, though Bush administration officials counter that a privately owned station in the region may be no better from their point of view.

:chin:

Former Member

lukesh wrote:

how sad.


well i must admit its very pleasing to see both men and woman contributing to free elections for the first time ever in iraq. this is the first stage to democracy being implemented.

indeed. and they're having a blast ........

Insurgents killed a total of 30 civilians and six police on the election day, the interior ministry said.

A ministry official, quoting police reports, said that 96 people - 83 civilians and 13 police - had been injured.

The official said 26 Iraqi and three Egyptian suspected insurgents had been detained.

Seven suicide attacks were staged in Baghdad, the US army said.

Still, it'll all be okay once the new "government" is installed, right?

:no:

Former Member

lukesh wrote:

be happy for the iraqis, even the observer and the independant have bee. read their articles to find out.

No lukesh - I am not happy for the Iraqis - not the dead ones, or the injured ones, or the tortured ones or the desperate ones.

I do not believe for even a millisecond that Bush has ever thought about what is best for the people of Iraq, only what is best for the oil men and neo-cons.

And seeing as I think British and American democracy are a total fucking joke, theres no way I'm going to be impressed by a blood splattered rubber stamping campaign for the #2 CIA stooge.

BTW, the ad homs bore me .....

Former Member

What do you make of this?
Iraq election declared "success" (BBC News)

Former Member

According to this article, the elections may not even be legal ......

First, no election held under a foreign military occupation resulting from an unjustified war is legal under international law. During the Cold War, elections staged by the Soviets after invading Afghanistan, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were rightly denounced by the U.S. as "frauds" and the leaders elected as "stooges."

Which is exactly what this election is, a FRAUD that will lead to a STOOGE being elected .......

Former Member

freethepeeps wrote:

Which is exactly what this election is, a FRAUD that will lead to a STOOGE being elected .......

What's your point? Exactly the same thing happened in 2000.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote:

What's your point? Exactly the same thing happened in 2000.

I think you'll find I've covered that base .......

On the whole this thread is about people pretending that the elections are a good thing ..... me, I can't see that theres a lot of difference between the #2 CIA stooge and Rumsfeld handshake buddy.

:banghead:

Former Member

Yes these elections arent as good as they could be, yes they are flawed, but, I fail to understand why anyone can see them as anything but a good thing.

Of course the US and UK are looking for a way out of Iraq, isnt that what you want?!

More people than anyone thought turned out and voted, the terrorists did attack but not actually that much. I for one was expecting a blood bath.

Its a glimmer of hope, dont piss on it just because you didnt want the US there in the first place.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

Yes these elections arent as good as they could be, yes they are flawed, but, I fail to understand why anyone can see them as anything but a good thing.

Of course the US and UK are looking for a way out of Iraq, isnt that what you want?!

More people than anyone thought turned out and voted, the terrorists did attack but not actually that much. I for one was expecting a blood bath.

Its a glimmer of hope, dont piss on it just because you didnt want the US there in the first place.

I don't see one thing to get excited about in your post.

Ali Dhahi Hamad al-Qaisy, a moderate minded Sunni who welcomed the invading troops can't see what the elction offers either:

the al-Qaisys are from Fallujah. When the Americans attacked the town, his house was destroyed and his son was killed by an American sniper as they were trying to escape.

"As far as the elections are concerned, why should I vote? For my ruined house? For my dead son, or for my other son who is injured? The house which sheltered me and the children from rain and cold is ruined. I am left in misery - and now I should go and vote?"

Should we just forget about the destroyed homes, the dead sons, the crippled daughters, and welcome an election held under occupation, and controlled by stooges of the occupying forces and CIA?

Gen John Abizaid of US Central Command doesn't see that elections will bring the resistance to an end either:

Speaking on the eve of Iraq's first free election for 51 years, the officer conceded: "Iraqis are the ones who will have to defeat the insurgency, not multi-national forces.


"It is not necessarily a growing insurgency but it is a resilient one," he told The Telegraph. "We're looking at a long-term insurgency, probably at a lower level of violence than now. Historically, you look at a decade – and this is no different."

And are they leaving? They're hoping to half the number of troops and "mentor" Iraqi soldiers, but other reports suggest that as many as 18 permanent US bases are being built in Iraq as we speak.

Carl Mirra of Historians Against the War reminds us of the US past misdeeds in the region:

Recent U.S. behavior in Iraq is entirely at odds with a peaceful, orderly solution. During the 1980s, we now know that the U.S. supported the Ba’athists, providing logistics and support to the murderous Hussein, even during the Halabja massacre in 1988. As for the Kurds, the U.S. double crossed them twice—1975 and 1991. In 1972, Iraq nationalized its petroleum and the Nixon team drafted a covert plan to disrupt the Iraqis move. It entailed a Kurdish uprising, aided by Iranian Shah Pahlavi. But, the Shah was able to cut a deal in 1975 turning a strategic waterway over to Iran at the last moment, and the covert program was aborted. Kurds desperately fled into Iran, with almost no assistance. Kurds also seek statehood, a complicated matter, but one that is opposed by U.S. ally, Turkey. To be sure, recent U.S. Behavior in Iraq is incompatible with stability and democracy.

Historically, the U.S. also hindered democracy in the Middle East. Shah Pahlavi was installed in Iran in 1953, replacing the democratically elected Mosssadeq. In 1949, the U.S. encouraged a military chief, Hunsai Zaim, to overthrow the existing government of Syria, setting the stage for a military dictatorship. According to the historian Douglas Little, Ziam immediately authorized a Western pipeline project. Of course, the reasons for these interventions are complicated, but they illustrate that the U.S. Is most successful in subverting democracy in the region rather than building it. Such observations are not lost on those living in the region, nor were they lost on Eisenhower who admitted that U.S. actions in the Middle East fomented hate.[vii]

John Nicholls reminds us of some of the shortcomings of the elections:

Under pressure from the Bush Administration, political parties campaigning in this weekend's so-called "election" in Iraq did not proposed timetables for the withdrawal of US troops from their homeland.

This constraint upon the debate effectively denied the Iraqi people an honest choice. Polls suggest that the majority of Iraqis favor the quick withdrawal of US forces, yet the voters of that battered land were cheated out of a campaign that could have allowed them to send a clear signal of opposition to the occupation.

Despite this disconnect, when the voting was done, Administration aides declared a victory in President's Bush's crusade for "liberty." And thus was born the latest lie of an Administration that has built its arguments for the invasion and occupation of Iraq on a foundation of petty deception and gross deceit.

That democracy has been denied in Iraq is beyond question. The charade of an election, played out against a backdrop of violence so unchecked that a substantial portion of the electorate-- particularly Sunni Muslims--avoided the polls for reasons of personal safety, featuring candidates who dared not speak their names and characterized by a debate so stilted that the electorate did not know who or what it is electing.

and so it goes on. Iraqis are caught between a humvee and a suicide truck, not through their own making. After years of being starved into submission bt the US and its cronies, they have had to put up with a liberating force that is more deadly than the insurgents, and it looks as if the killings will continue for many years yet.

If you think the fact that they hope that some kind of order can come out of this fraudulent election, and the imposition of a CIA stooge as their "leader", in any way vindicates the US causing them this amount of suffering for so long, then I think you are desperate to make hay despite the fact that the sun hasnt shone all season.

Its sick enough that Bush and Blair should claim the elections as a success, and its madness if we start telling them they did ok!

THEY DID NOT - THEY SHOULD BE IN THE CELLS NEXT TO SLOBADAN......

Former Member

So none of them should have voted at all, those who risked their lives to vote, thats all bollox isnt it.

Those who lined up knowing they could die just so they could vote, thats all just bollox?

I'm not suggesting this is a good situation, its clearly not, we've fucked iraq quite badly.

But, to just piss on everything and not actually accept this is a possitive move, no, I actually want them to succeed. Not fail so I can feel smug and self satisfied.

Former Member

You've yet to explain what the fuck is positive about an election under occupation, where they weren't even allowed to campaign on ending the occupation, and where many of the voters had no way of knowing what candidates stood for or EVEN WHO THEY WERE!!!

Former Member

So whats your suggestion?

That we just leave?

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

So whats your suggestion?

That we just leave?

:yes:

Former Member

like everything that has happened in Iraq, any "good" thing that has happened is totally over-rated and hailed as a sucess, and on the face value, it does look like a sucess, i also want the people of Iraq to have free elctions and have a proper democratic society, but, just like politics in general, the elections are a mighty sham, America will always have an influence in the new Iraqi government whether we like it or not

Former Member

lukesh wrote:

but anything bad that happens in iraq isn't over rated?

the difference is, the people who want the best for the iraqis and them who want to continually congratulate the terrorists who are preventing democarcy taking place.

I presume you think the coalition are the ones who want the best for the Iraqis?

And yet they kill more iraqi civilians than the "insurgents"

We only hear about the insurgents' attacks, so yes, thats over-rated