MonteZuma Posted January 31, 2005 Report Posted January 31, 2005 By most accounts, the Iraqi election was successful. Time will tell on that score I guess. But how bloody was it? One thing that I found weird was that there were practically no reports of violence on the news services that I listened to. However, one news report said that there were 10 suicide bombings on polling day alone. The newsreader seemed to gloss over this. A bloodstained shirt flashed on the screen for about a quarter of a second, and the remainder of the footage and discussion showed old Iraqi ladies giving victory signs with big smiles, and other Iraqis being scanned or whatever before casting their vote. This leads me to think that either there are a lot more regular daily suicide bombings than I realise,and 10 in one day isn't so special(wtf?), or else the media was distracted by election day hubris or coerced or something and chose not to report the violent incidences that did occur. Perhaps many news reporters and cameramen decided to take the safe option and stay in secure areas on a day that was expected to be filled with violence and danger?? What happened on election day and was it reported in an unbiased way?
Yupa Posted February 1, 2005 Report Posted February 1, 2005 fyi - people that care enough to report the truth do not bother to get into makeup and a pricey suit to do it
Dav Posted February 1, 2005 Report Posted February 1, 2005 as far as i know the day went withoutn much violance, people apparently turned up in their millions to vote.
MasterDrake Posted February 1, 2005 Report Posted February 1, 2005 44 people were killed not many, its very inspiring to know I have help get those elections going there WOOO NAVY
Zeke Posted February 1, 2005 Report Posted February 1, 2005 You're forgetting that those who voted were for a new majority (Shiites, I believe)... the same people who're causing most of the violence. (Don't care if I'm wrong on that one though.) Why would they cause violence when they got what they wanted to begin with? They'll be asending into the mists of the power they wanted. - Z
Dav Posted February 1, 2005 Report Posted February 1, 2005 !@#$%^&*e millitant groups are cauing most of the violance however most !@#$%^&*es arnt extreemests or millitants. Its a minority group preforming terror, radical !@#$%^&*es that believe the elections shouldnt happen at all.
A Soldier Posted February 1, 2005 Report Posted February 1, 2005 Perhaps many news reporters and cameramen decided to take the safe option and stay in secure areas on a day that was expected to be filled with violence and danger??I wouldn't be surprised if most of them stay in the secure area. And considering observers were watching the election from jordania... An other thing: can you really give a voter's turnout right after it ends? 60% is good, but I thought you usually give it after all the votes have been compiled, no? Or is it an approximation?
MonteZuma Posted February 1, 2005 Author Report Posted February 1, 2005 I guess it was an approximation. You don't really need to count ballots to have a handle on voter turnout because you can count the names off the rolls. When it comes to Iraq, I think we are being drip fed glossy good news stories (the next one will be the drafting of the cons!@#$%^&*ution), but the deep, underlying problems in Iraq are being ignored by US and allied governments and an ignorant and unthinking press. There seems to me to be no less death and mayhem in Iraq now than there has ever been. My feeling is just that it is being reported less. Maybe I'm wrong. I think the Iraqi people need security more than they need democracy. Could it be that introducing political debate into a country filled with so much unrest could actually be counter-productive?
A Soldier Posted February 2, 2005 Report Posted February 2, 2005 I guess it was an approximation. You don't really need to count ballots to have a handle on voter turnout because you can count the names off the rolls.ok, I wasn't sure, my mistake. Personnally, to answer your post, I think it would have been better to stabilize the country before having elections. Sorry I can't elaborate more, I have to go I'll try to next time
Dav Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 true, but by the same token elections can help stability, should the leader be able to unify his people stability will follow. Just look at palistine.
Lupper Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 Iraqis are prisoners of the American society. They are not free. American PROPAGANDA!!! Dude somebody should start like an anti-american propaganda campaign and make it as big as the McCarthy-communism one..
Sass Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 They do that on a regular basis right here on this forum. BTW, if you don't like America Ophie, surely you should leave it. Or perhaps you could take a moment to consider some things. The sunni muslims who are a minority of like 30% are the main insurgents. Many of whom were part of the tyranical baath party led by Saddam. The majority of the ppl are shiite muslims who desire peace and seek to have representation. This is basically the grounds for the Jan 30 vote. If you are going to believe that this is all part of America's 'neo-colonialism' as some ppl will call it, perhaps you would be better with the facts. The facts are that Allawi's group is not winning the election, but rather a group of people who are completely Iraqi having little to no influence from America are leading. Half the people in this forum are Anti-US and will trash the US at any given moment. They will claim that the US is trying to take over this and that....etc etc etc. Typical liberal jazz - no patriotism, they are only here for one thing....themselves.
»nintendo64 Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 S!@#$%^&*, USA actions throughout the new millenium has been questionable, others has been accepted by the World Community such as the Afghanistan Invasion, but others are just motivated by other interests, rather than "Freedom". Personally, I don't like it when a country proceeds to go to War without UN approval, and that's what a bad decision by the USA, and now they are paying it with an increase of fanatical anti-american groups, and bitter allies. About your claim of Anti-US, i am not Anti-US, in fact i respect the USA because it's one of the few countries that contribute aid to third world countries, and makes sure "free electrions" are present in some of those countries, and more. I am, simply, disappointed with the USA, because of their current actions.
Sass Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 Current actions being? Iraq? If we have to go back down the road of "why US is in Iraq" spare me. I don't care to listen to allegations which simply avoid the facts - that's called spin. How can free elections take place in a country ruled by a dictator? The only possible way is to subdue that person and his faction. There is simply no other way to do it unless you think he would be willing to give up power. Aint happening. Personally I would absolutely LOVE for the USA to not get involved in any other countries affairs. I couldn't care less for other countries, their resources, and their people anymore than they can stand us. I want the immigrants to go home, stay out, get off our back. But that's not what the US is about is it? You think that we just want to own everyone. That's furthest from the truth. I understand that Kosovo is starting to flare up again. There is another Clinton mistake. Now Clinton is going to try to get Kofi Annan's job and when he does, is that how you would like the UN to handle things? False premises? Sadly, it's by death that some resolve happens. Like it or not, look at the immediate change between Israel and Palestine since the death of Arafat. If he was shot dead back 15 years ago, thousands of lives may have been spared. But the US didn't go into Israel or Syria or Lebanon to hunt him down. That was a costly mistake of not taking action.
Sass Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 I have an even better idea. How about the US (being the supreme tyranny that it is) treats it's Arab immigrants the same way that sunni-muslims treat Americans in Iraq. Let's just start shooting anyone here who is Arab. When they are all dead then I'm sure things will be better right? Isn't that how it goes?
»SD>Big Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 I have an even better idea. How about the US (being the supreme tyranny that it is) treats it's Arab immigrants the same way that sunni-muslims treat Americans in Iraq. Let's just start shooting anyone here who is Arab. When they are all dead then I'm sure things will be better right? Isn't that how it goes?<{POST_SNAPBACK}> well, the main problem with that, is that for someone to immigrate to the states the government has to accept them in, so if you have a problem with immigrants, which you apparently do due to your last two posts, then take it up with your goverment, you live in a democracy. however you may find that hard to do. another problem with that is that the americans in iraq aren't there to live there, they are there for war, so really you can't compare the two.... can you?
Paine Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 QUOTE(SD>Big @ Feb 1 2005, 12:20 AM)i hope saddam wins<{POST_SNAPBACK}> ...is he even running? !@#$%^&*e millitant groups are cauing most of the violance however most !@#$%^&*es arnt extreemests or millitants. Its a minority group preforming terror, radical !@#$%^&*es that believe the elections shouldnt happen at all.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> lmao, your spelling of shiite pwns.
»SD>Big Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 i hope saddam wins<{POST_SNAPBACK}> ...is he even running? nah i was just being stupid
Sass Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 The US government allows immigrants because it is a country that believes in equality and fairness for even the meekest of people. America is in Iraq to help Iraqi people who have a rational concern for human life secure a better means of life. Surely that's what you meant. Surely you haven't claimed that America is in Iraq simply to blow up and destroy things at the cost of human lives. Or did you? Spin is bliss to ignorant folks, whomever they may be.
Lupper Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 hahah i dont even have to read half of what S!@#$%^&* is saying to realize that he's been brainwashed... Seriously s!@#$%^&*, listen to the voice of america -- read some Michael Moore's newest book with letters from soldiers who are dissatisified with the actions of Bush -- hurt, sad and homesick... Read Noam Chomsky -- he's talking about how democracy in America does not exist -- because our SUBJECTIVITIES are constantly controlled by those in power.. the powerful CEOs.. and no i am not saying that America is a bad place to live -- i respect it and I think it's a great country -- one that could be better... And I can't get out of AMerica - i live in canada. As well - you made fun of the muslim culture -- you in FACT classify it as a demonic culture... See -- isn't that how the states want you to think? Isn't that how BUSH wants you to think? The society that these people live in are FUNDAMENTAL society and they adhere STRAIGHT from their Koran.. why? because they wanted to do what's best to prevent corruption in society.. that's the whole goal of fundamentalism - to go back to the basics of what their Allah says.. S!@#$%^&*, you're a Christian -- if you lived in a Christian fundamental culture and you were born and raised in one -- lets say.. someone committed adultery, he was stoned to death in PUBLIC -- how would you feel?You would obviously feel a part of the culture and you would ACCEPT it.. you wouldn't question it. In the same way, these muslims are brainwashed.. but how about the americans?
Sass Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 Ophie, do you know what you're even talking about? Or are you like Dav full of myths and fallacy? It's called conjecture - please look it up and understand what it is. US soldiers otherwise known as the Army, is full of sad, dishonorable, homesick screwballs. Regretably some of these folks joined up simply to rake in money for college and little else. Well, I'm sorry to say but it is a military force, and military forces take action in battle. Unless I'm living in your bizzaro world where the soldiers are paid to stay at home. Michael Moore is 100% undeniably looking out for one person....himself. He will cut up anybody and anything for a buck. If you want to take advice from someone like that (which apparently you have) be my guest. While you are so concerned about making America great - why not work on your own country first? What a novel idea that would be.
Lupper Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 i cant believe i voted for a narrow minded person who can't even entertain other people's perspectives.. yes michael moore is out for himself - but in the capitalist world in which we live in, who ISN'T? seriously think about it. and don't say "move somewhere else" -- cuz that's just an immature rebuttal which has no ring of substance at all.
Lupper Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 and i draw not only from Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, i draw my conclusions from famous sociologists like Stuart Hall and Marshall Mcluhan as well who DOES NOT speak directly about US democracy, but about media and how it influences society's freedom..
Sass Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 Do you have any substance at all? Again, I'll be ready to listen to your "perspective" when you can come across without accusations and !@#$%^&*umptions. I've made no inference to your background, or whatever you would like to call it yet somehow you seem to think you've revealed anything about me. Please reread what you post, consider it, and maybe we can talk. Better yet, you know where I am, be a man and come face me in the zone for a chat.
Recommended Posts