Saturday, November 13, 2004
US Election Results – An Iraqi Perspective
Most Americans Don't Care!
Quite a number of readers have written to me in disenchantment, some even apologizing for, the election results! I can understand their disappointment over those results and the choice of a president they didn't elect. Almost half of America did not vote for Bush they said. Quite true. However, I have to look at it differently. Here is how I see the election results:
40% ... did not vote.
31% ... voted for Bush (roughly 51% of the 60% who voted)
29% ... voted for Kerry (roughly 48% of the 60% who voted)
More than 70% or more than 136 million Americans effectively voted for Bush or did not care to vote (for a variety of reasons but I cannot expect that many of them cared much for what is happening in Iraq).
I also venture to guess that not all those 29% who voted for Kerry had Iraq uppermost on their minds. There are so many other important economic, political and social issues at stake.
Is it a coincidence that 80% of US army personnel voted for Bush?
Conclusion: about 4 out of 5 Americans do not care about the massacres, the chaos or the incompetence taking place in Iraq or about the devastation of Iraq or about what the rest of the world thinks about America.
This is so fair and appropriate – a similar percentage of Iraqis do not care much for the American presence in Iraq, or believe that the Americans are sincere about why they are here.
Quite a number of readers have written to me in disenchantment, some even apologizing for, the election results! I can understand their disappointment over those results and the choice of a president they didn't elect. Almost half of America did not vote for Bush they said. Quite true. However, I have to look at it differently. Here is how I see the election results:
40% ... did not vote.
31% ... voted for Bush (roughly 51% of the 60% who voted)
29% ... voted for Kerry (roughly 48% of the 60% who voted)
More than 70% or more than 136 million Americans effectively voted for Bush or did not care to vote (for a variety of reasons but I cannot expect that many of them cared much for what is happening in Iraq).
I also venture to guess that not all those 29% who voted for Kerry had Iraq uppermost on their minds. There are so many other important economic, political and social issues at stake.
Is it a coincidence that 80% of US army personnel voted for Bush?
Conclusion: about 4 out of 5 Americans do not care about the massacres, the chaos or the incompetence taking place in Iraq or about the devastation of Iraq or about what the rest of the world thinks about America.
This is so fair and appropriate – a similar percentage of Iraqis do not care much for the American presence in Iraq, or believe that the Americans are sincere about why they are here.
# posted by Abu Khaleel @ 1:20 PM 
Comments:
Hello Abu Khaleel,
You are spinning it too unfairly!
Remember that even if Kerry had won,he could not have prevented the Fallujah offensive until he was inaugerated in January. A Kerry victory might have given a pause to a normal human , but not to Bush.
On Bush's 'mandate'(he is crowing about his political 'capital', but he has none with the Democrats), he will just bulldoze his issues, tax cuts, preemptive war, attacking the courts as he always has over the objections of sensible people.
For the 48% there will be continued mortification and lamentations. We really did try to defeat Bush( not a lot of support for Kerry personally-in fact his military record turned out to be a big minus).Iraq-terror war is his only policy except the tax cuts, so the election was a referendum on Iraq(despite Kerry's unprincipled vagueness, in hindsight the anti-war Dean might well have won). On the 40%, Michael Moore tried hard to get them moving with us but it was too little too late. Bush's political team just was too smart for us-Hurrah for Bush!. Now comes the morning-after hangover, with an Iraqi civil war with American and Iraqi misery. I say Red American voters have collective guilt for this continuing war, not me!
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu-
I'm an American that has been reading your blog for some time. The US press is quite filtered and I would like to know the whole story or what is happening in Iraq. I feel compelled to give you an American's view on why Americans didn't come out in mass for this past election, even though it's the largest turn out in decades.
In the opinion polls during the election, only 17% of the people that voted based their decision on the events in Iraq. I'm sure you think all Americans should have found Iraq a top line priority, but it seems most Americans don't. I think it's the fault of our press, who, while claiming to be a free press, are guided by what the party in power wants. To be in the news business and be locked out of any news related to government can be devistating. Therefore, the press is unwilling to anger George Bush's adminstration. As a result we have news that claims the events in Fallugia are a "mopping up" operation of a few "insurgents", that the true Iraqi people are 100% behind our efforts to "free" their country, and democracy doesn't come easy but we will suceed.
To most Americans, taxes, jobs, religious concerns, homeland security, and the economy outweigh the events in Iraq. George W Bush's stance on religious issues won him the election because he made promises to the Ecumenical Christians to focus on their issues. There was broad support in the churches for him and the churches came out in force to support him.
Many Americans believe that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans. I think the world believes there would be great changes if Kerry were elected. Most Americans believe nothing would change. The 40% you state don't care, or passively voted against the war, is a mistake. Those people are fed up with the "democratic" system in America and refuse to take part in the farce. The parties are so alike as almost to be one.
As for myself, I vote in every election. I voted for Ed Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate. The Libertarians get less than 1% of the vote, so we'll most likely never win a Presidential election, but I sleep well at night knowing I voted for the best man for the job. Had a Libertarian won the presidency, the troops would have been out of your country by New Year's Day.
I have an opinion on how to straighen the mess in Iraq out, and I'd like to hear your opinion. My peace plan would be for the withdrawal of nearly all American troops. A Peacekeeping force made up of troops from a coilition of Arab countries would take their place. Iraq would be allowed free trade to sell it's oil, and buy goods from any country as it sees fit. Some American forces would stay behind to train police and military in combat readiness, but would not engage in combat. The rebuilding of the country would be financed with a combination of aid and loans from the United Nations, and the sale of oil and other products, to other countries. The US would remove itself from the political process as long as everyone was allowed to participate in the election process. Iraq would be allowed to choose it's own course as long as it does so as a peaceful member of the world community. Agression against other nations, or it's citizens would not be tolerated and would be met with a heavy hand. I think the US could be a very good partner with Iraq, helping with modern manufacturing and business issue, but I think it should be at the bequest of the Iraq government.
my.02
Curt!
_____________________________________________________________________
well first of all, to the libertarian, troops wouldnt have been out by new years because bednarik wouldnt even have taken office until mid jan. im from PA, but go to college in indiana...i saw a libertarian commercial ONCE and laughed really hard. anyway, its hard for a guy to win an election when people think he is going to raise taxes and the bush campaign did a great job making kerry, the war hero, look like kerry the huge pussy. his wife probably cost him 1%-3%. she was a hideous witch that nobody liked. thank god he lost so i dont have to put up with that woman any longer.
_____________________________________________________________________
Curt,
I'm afraid there would be too many objections to an Arab force to replace the US army. Many political parties have already expressed such objections - particularly against forces from neighboring countries (Arab or otherwise).
However, the second part of your suggestion is certainly worth pondering and discussing. I will make a point of addressing in detail when we get back to discussing possible solutions, if ever!
_____________________________________________________________________
Post a Comment
<< Home
Hello Abu Khaleel,
You are spinning it too unfairly!
Remember that even if Kerry had won,he could not have prevented the Fallujah offensive until he was inaugerated in January. A Kerry victory might have given a pause to a normal human , but not to Bush.
On Bush's 'mandate'(he is crowing about his political 'capital', but he has none with the Democrats), he will just bulldoze his issues, tax cuts, preemptive war, attacking the courts as he always has over the objections of sensible people.
For the 48% there will be continued mortification and lamentations. We really did try to defeat Bush( not a lot of support for Kerry personally-in fact his military record turned out to be a big minus).Iraq-terror war is his only policy except the tax cuts, so the election was a referendum on Iraq(despite Kerry's unprincipled vagueness, in hindsight the anti-war Dean might well have won). On the 40%, Michael Moore tried hard to get them moving with us but it was too little too late. Bush's political team just was too smart for us-Hurrah for Bush!. Now comes the morning-after hangover, with an Iraqi civil war with American and Iraqi misery. I say Red American voters have collective guilt for this continuing war, not me!
# posted by 
: 13/11/04 9:25 PM
: 13/11/04 9:25 PM Abu-
I'm an American that has been reading your blog for some time. The US press is quite filtered and I would like to know the whole story or what is happening in Iraq. I feel compelled to give you an American's view on why Americans didn't come out in mass for this past election, even though it's the largest turn out in decades.
In the opinion polls during the election, only 17% of the people that voted based their decision on the events in Iraq. I'm sure you think all Americans should have found Iraq a top line priority, but it seems most Americans don't. I think it's the fault of our press, who, while claiming to be a free press, are guided by what the party in power wants. To be in the news business and be locked out of any news related to government can be devistating. Therefore, the press is unwilling to anger George Bush's adminstration. As a result we have news that claims the events in Fallugia are a "mopping up" operation of a few "insurgents", that the true Iraqi people are 100% behind our efforts to "free" their country, and democracy doesn't come easy but we will suceed.
To most Americans, taxes, jobs, religious concerns, homeland security, and the economy outweigh the events in Iraq. George W Bush's stance on religious issues won him the election because he made promises to the Ecumenical Christians to focus on their issues. There was broad support in the churches for him and the churches came out in force to support him.
Many Americans believe that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans. I think the world believes there would be great changes if Kerry were elected. Most Americans believe nothing would change. The 40% you state don't care, or passively voted against the war, is a mistake. Those people are fed up with the "democratic" system in America and refuse to take part in the farce. The parties are so alike as almost to be one.
As for myself, I vote in every election. I voted for Ed Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate. The Libertarians get less than 1% of the vote, so we'll most likely never win a Presidential election, but I sleep well at night knowing I voted for the best man for the job. Had a Libertarian won the presidency, the troops would have been out of your country by New Year's Day.
I have an opinion on how to straighen the mess in Iraq out, and I'd like to hear your opinion. My peace plan would be for the withdrawal of nearly all American troops. A Peacekeeping force made up of troops from a coilition of Arab countries would take their place. Iraq would be allowed free trade to sell it's oil, and buy goods from any country as it sees fit. Some American forces would stay behind to train police and military in combat readiness, but would not engage in combat. The rebuilding of the country would be financed with a combination of aid and loans from the United Nations, and the sale of oil and other products, to other countries. The US would remove itself from the political process as long as everyone was allowed to participate in the election process. Iraq would be allowed to choose it's own course as long as it does so as a peaceful member of the world community. Agression against other nations, or it's citizens would not be tolerated and would be met with a heavy hand. I think the US could be a very good partner with Iraq, helping with modern manufacturing and business issue, but I think it should be at the bequest of the Iraq government.
my.02
Curt!
# posted by : 13/11/04 9:39 PM
: 13/11/04 9:39 PM well first of all, to the libertarian, troops wouldnt have been out by new years because bednarik wouldnt even have taken office until mid jan. im from PA, but go to college in indiana...i saw a libertarian commercial ONCE and laughed really hard. anyway, its hard for a guy to win an election when people think he is going to raise taxes and the bush campaign did a great job making kerry, the war hero, look like kerry the huge pussy. his wife probably cost him 1%-3%. she was a hideous witch that nobody liked. thank god he lost so i dont have to put up with that woman any longer.
# posted by : 16/11/04 2:37 PM
: 16/11/04 2:37 PM Curt,
I'm afraid there would be too many objections to an Arab force to replace the US army. Many political parties have already expressed such objections - particularly against forces from neighboring countries (Arab or otherwise).
However, the second part of your suggestion is certainly worth pondering and discussing. I will make a point of addressing in detail when we get back to discussing possible solutions, if ever!
<< Home
