Elections in a more peaceful Iraq

[The Black Ghost]

No matter what your views are on the war or any of Iraq, I think everyone at least can be happy to hear some good news out of the country. The second round of elections are up and they seem to be on track to be much smoother. (i guess we dont know for sure yet, we'll see). Its good to know the people have a say now, and that factions are finally trying to take part in the government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/wo...primer.html?hp

January 31, 2009 A Calmer Iraq Takes Another Try at the Ballot By [COLOR=#000066]TIMOTHY WILLIAMS[/COLOR] BAGHDAD — Four years ago, [COLOR=#000066]Iraq[/COLOR] had its purple finger moment, when voters proudly displayed their ink-stained index fingers as proof that they had participated in the nation’s first free elections in decades. On Saturday Iraqis were going to the polls again, to choose provincial representatives in what many here believe will be a fairer and more widely contested election. The results are expected to mirror more closely the relative numbers and strengths of Iraq’s many ethnic and sectarian groups. Four years ago, balloting took place in nearly all-consuming violence. It was further tainted by a Sunni Arab boycott, which limited the number of voters and office seekers alike. This time around, the ballot is crowded — 14,428 candidates are competing for 440 seats — and the vote comes during Iraq’s most peaceful period since the American invasion in 2003. Instead of purple fingers, the indelible image for this year’s election may well be the tens of thousands of candidates’ posters glued to the nation’s blast walls. (In 2005, it was too dangerous for most candidates to reveal their faces.) The 12-foot-tall walls, built to contain damage by explosives, have now become the primary campaign forum for Iraq’s raw, young democracy. In all, more than 14 million voters are eligible to take part in the elections for local councils in 14 of Iraq’s 18 provinces. The balloting for the provincial councils, which are roughly the equivalent of state legislatures, is expected to convey trends for December’s national elections for Parliament. On the eve of the vote, Iraq was at once fascinated by, and weary of, its democratic experiment. Polls show that three-quarters of people plan to cast ballots, but vote-buying appears to be widespread, rivals regularly tear one another’s posters from walls, and women have received death threats for running. At least five candidates have been killed, and there have been many assassination attempts. Among the many questions is whether the religious parties that now hold sway in Iraq will continue to dominate politics, despite widespread displeasure with what voters say are those parties’ ineptitude and corruption. Significant realignments of power are expected in several provinces west and north of Baghdad, which have majority-Sunni populations, but where most Sunnis boycotted the 2005 vote. In heavily Shiite southern Iraq, a majority of seats are expected to be divided between the [COLOR=#000066]Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq[/COLOR], which is the most influential religious Shiite party, and a coalition headed by Prime Minister [COLOR=#000066]Nuri Kamal al-Maliki[/COLOR]’s Dawa Party, which has taken a secular approach in campaigning. The Sadrists, a third Shiite group, retain significant influence in southern Iraq and in Baghdad but are not competing as a political entity during the election. Iraqi and American military officials fear that some of the expected power shifts could cause renewed sectarian and ethnic clashes, so a curfew began Friday evening. Airports and borders were closed, and thousands of troops were guarding polling stations. While four years ago there was almost no public campaigning for fear of assassination, this time candidates have gone door to door, given speeches and — contrary to Iraq’s election law — doled out cash, cars, watches, food and blankets, among other items, to win votes.

[ironeagle]

Yeah peacful-Iraq ludacris. Military officers garding candidates and a curfew I don't see any peace here.

[The Black Ghost]

I love how no one replies until they can find the negatives in something that should be a positive.

Violence has been almost none, and while there was some problems with the system, the relative peace is a good sign in itself.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost I love how no one replies until they can find the negatives in something that should be a positive. Violence has been almost none, and while there was some problems with the system, the relative peace is a good sign in itself.

But you assume an election is a positive thing in itself, and that there's a such thing as "good governance". Those seem like misguided assumptions to me.

Grandpa h.

[LadiesMan217]

I have a friend in the marines and he says that the job is pretty much done in Iraq, for the most part, and now the focus is shifting back to Afghanistan as things there beginning to escalate. He also gave me a statistic that I don't how much truth there is to it but I assume that he knows what he is talking about, but he said that currently there are more American soldier deaths from car accidents then insurgents because they have gotten rid of them all.

[The Black Ghost]

Luckily, we havent heard any reports of major attacks in Iraq or large numbers of deaths at all, among civilians and troops, for the last half of a year, and before that even the numbers were lowering. I think that we're more or less in the clear militarily, and the Iraqi army has taken over 90% or more of American posts in cities and elsewhere. The government is at least operating without our backing. Positive signs, I think

Afghanistan still has a ways to go.




And grandpa, yes, I do consider the elections to be positive.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Luckily, we havent heard any reports of major attacks in Iraq or large numbers of deaths at all, among civilians and troops, for the last half of a year, and before that even the numbers were lowering. I think that we're more or less in the clear militarily, and the Iraqi army has taken over 90% or more of American posts in cities and elsewhere.

But these people are part of the very large group of
terrorists created by Mr. Bush and his people. It's time to rev your Search Engines.

You have a highly romantic view of things. The US leaves -- rides off into the sunset, as it were -- and the Iraqis have happy elections to elect happy leaders to solve their happy problems.
I doubt it would happen, but it would make the Hollywood movie-version so much better.
That "democracy" won't last a year once we leave.

In fact, there's already considerable trouble regarding the elections:

Iraqi officials moved Wednesday to quell rising tensions between rival Sunni Muslim factions in once restive Anbar province, by recounting some of the votes cast in last weekend's provincial elections — even before offcial results are known. The Independent High Electoral Commission sent a committee from Baghdad Wednesday to recount ballot boxes from some polling stations in the province after tribal leaders accused the Iraqi Islamic Party, IIP, which currently controls the provincial council, of rigging the vote. McClatchy Washington Bureau | 02/04/2009 | With tension rising, Iraq will recount ballots in Anbar

And it's difficult to imagine hostilities decreasing with Western Powers (including Israel, which might as well be considered part of the US government), especially when nuclear weapons are still involved.

It's important to consider this fact, even if our politicians don't:
"Nuclear burden sharing is far less of a foundation stone for the NATO
alliance than it was in the Cold War, and is losing public support.
More than 70% of the population in nuclear weapon states and the
states involved in nuclear sharing believe nuclear weapons have a
negative effect on international security."
["Percentage from a poll taken from Britain, France, Italy, Germany, USA and Israel."]
British American Security Information Council

Grandpa h.

[Darklordabc]

I think this is great news, people might of criticized the war, but hey check it out, democracy is now there!

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: Darklordabc I think this is great news, people might of criticized the war, but hey check it out, democracy is now there!

I hope that wasnt sarcasm?


Just cant tell with some people...

[ironeagle]

Bull crap four candidates where killed before elections that a bunch of lies, they are still killing each other all day long, the job will never be done these people won't stop blowing up everything.

[thebuescherman]

No ironeagle, it isn't very pretty at all. But it sure as hell is a lot better over there then it was a year and a half ago. I still disagree with the invasion of Iraq, but I'm glad the troops remained. We got that country into this mess, so it's our responsibility to fix our mistake as best we can. For now, it looks like some progress has been made, a remarkable achievement from any standpoint. If we pulled out when the going got tough, imagine where it would be right now?

[grandpa]

Quote by: thebuescherman No ironeagle, it isn't very pretty at all. But it sure as hell is a lot better over there then it was a year and a half ago.

Improvement is relative. If you drive a crowded bus off a bridge, you might be able to say, "Well, only half the passengers drowned!" But that's not going to console everybody. With Iraq, America is not likely to console everybody -- especially the many, many people (including Iraqis) who wish America would just leave.

Grandpa h.

[dixon]

Quote by: grandpa It's important to consider this fact, even if our politicians don't: "Nuclear burden sharing is far less of a foundation stone for the NATO alliance than it was in the Cold War, and is losing public support. More than 70% of the population in nuclear weapon states and the states involved in nuclear sharing believe nuclear weapons have a negative effect on international security." ["Percentage from a poll taken from Britain, France, Italy, Germany, USA and Israel."] British American Security Information Council Grandpa h.

What complete irrelevance. We know you would never be happy with conditions in Iraq until they embraced communism.

[grandpa]

Quote by: dixon What complete irrelevance. We know you would never be happy with conditions in Iraq until they embraced communism.

Actually, your post here is what is irrelevant.

Grandpa h.

[dixon]

Quote by: grandpa Actually, your post here is what is irrelevant. Grandpa h.

Its commentary on your post so of course its irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

[grandpa]

Quote by: dixon Its commentary on your post so of course its irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

No, its irrelevant because it had nothing to do with what I posted, and nothing to do with elections in Iraq.

I'll spell it out clearly:
The instability of international relations, and public opinion about nuclear weapon-states, is relevant to Middle East politics -- especially in the long term. Will Iraq have any stability if the rest of the world is still in chaos? If we're assessing whether Iraqi elections will accomplish anything, that's a perfectly relevant question.

Red-baiting is not relevant, however. But if it makes you feel better, yes, I have some Marx-brand Kool-Aid in the fridge at this very moment.

Grandpa h.

[dixon]

Quote by: grandpa No, its irrelevant because it had nothing to do with what I posted, and nothing to do with elections in Iraq. I'll spell it out clearly: The instability of international relations, and public opinion about nuclear weapon-states, is relevant to Middle East politics -- especially in the long term. Will Iraq have any stability if the rest of the world is still in chaos? If we're assessing whether Iraqi elections will accomplish anything, that's a perfectly relevant question. Red-baiting is not relevant, however. But if it makes you feel better, yes, I have some Marx-brand Kool-Aid in the fridge at this very moment. Grandpa h.

Couldnt be more irrelevant. Freakin opinion polls from Britain, France, Italy, Germany, USA and Israel on Nuclear weapons have no bearing what so f#%cking ever on Iraq. Iraq has no nuclear weapons. The elections in Iraq are not going to have any effect on political rights of the tibetans either but most rational people were not expecting it to.

[Plus Ultra]

The elections went well, negligible violence more diverse candidates and less fear in the electorate, a good turnout. I've seen early analyses indicating political candidates more associated with religion did not do very well.

Security measures were intense, no civilian vehicles were allowed at all during the entire election day and there was a curfew, also some monumental screwups with voter registration problems.

[grandpa]

Quote by: dixon Couldnt be more irrelevant. Freakin opinion polls from Britain, France, Italy, Germany, USA and Israel on Nuclear weapons have no bearing what so f#%cking ever on Iraq.

Thsi is precious. So nuclear Israel, India, Pakistan and Iran (alleged to have nuclear weapons ambitions) have nothing to do with the politics of Iraq? What if Israel attacks another country, such as Iran. This wouldn't affect Iraqi politics? I think Iraqis would find it rather important.

Grandpa h.

[thebuescherman]

Quote by: grandpa Improvement is relative. If you drive a crowded bus off a bridge, you might be able to say, "Well, only half the passengers drowned!" But that's not going to console everybody. With Iraq, America is not likely to console everybody -- especially the many, many people (including Iraqis) who wish America would just leave. Grandpa h.

If that same bus last year drove off a bridge and 98% of the people died, I'd call that improvement. Anyone who thought Iraq would miraculously be completely better over the course of any given year are the same people who thought Rome was built in a day.