Saturday, January 29, 2005
Election Night Jitters
Recklessness and Irresponsibility
I have some difficulty unraveling my own complex feelings regarding the big election day tomorrow.
On the one hand, I am passionately for democracy in principle. It is the only hope for Iraq. On the other hand, I am passionately against these particular elections. They are only an ugly, distorted imitation of democracy. I am convinced that they will not lead to stability … or even democracy.
I agree with fellow Iraqis who want these elections postponed or even boycotted. We have already seen these elections boycotted by the vast majority of expatriate Iraqis.
But I cannot blame the people who want to take part in them! In fact, I have nothing but admiration for those people who are going to risk their lives to cast their vote tomorrow.
These people are not corrupt politicians greedy for power and wealth. They are not “collaborators”. They are people going out to vote for issues or people they believe in whether their motives are ethnic, religious, sectarian, political, economic or nationalistic. Most of them want to exercise their right to have their say for the first time in more than 50 years.
I may disagree with many of these people; some may be misguided… but they certainly don’t deserve to die!
Their safety is the responsibility of those who are running the country.
Imagine that it is known that there were bombs on a number of the planes leaving JFK airport on a certain day. What should the authorities do? What would you do? Ask the people to go about their business, make a stand against terrorism, show courage and board those planes – telling them not to be intimidated by terrorists? The show must go on? Would that be a responsible thing to do? Later, when the worst comes to the worst… blame the terrorists for the unfortunate loss of life… and call it a day? Wouldn’t that be reckless and irresponsible? Yet, this is what we have.
Let us have a look at those different people urging the Iraqi people to go out and vote.
1. The US administration’s representatives in Iraq, the US army and the Interim government running the country from heavily defended fortresses… and cannot even protect those fortresses. Yet, they hope to protect more than 6000 polling stations across the country… where people are to go, to vote.
2. These people in charge do not venture out of their fortresses unless heavily armored and covered by a blanket of security. Yet they ask unarmed men and women to go out and expose themselves to danger.
3. Candidates who are not prepared to go out and take a risk and campaign for themselves. Some do not even have the courage to have their names published and be known. Secret candidates! Yet, they want Iraqis to take the risk and vote for them.
4. Many American super-patriots who are still shivering with anger or fear of attacks carried out on three buildings in their country more than three years ago. Yet, they ask Iraqi housewives (eg Rose) not to be frightened or intimidated by terrorists… in a country that is going through multitudes of 9/11’s regularly.
5. A country that is wisely taking measure after measure to protect its frightened citizens and ensure their safety through stringent finger print and eye retina scans for visitors… is so eager to expose Iraqis to grave danger.
6. President Bush who did not return to his seat of government immediately after those attacks, fearing for his safety. Yet, he asks Iraqis to show courage.
7. The UN Secretary General, who withdrew his entire staff from Iraq following one attack. Now he is asking Iraqis to vote in a dangerous situation and telling them that the UN will do everything to help them.
Reckless and irresponsible!
Isn’t it enough for Iraqis to live under the constant threat of random violence, just going about their shattered lives? Governments should be less reckless and more responsible than that! People should be more caring for fellow human beings.
Make no mistake! The decision to go on with these elections was made in Washington DC. I still remember that day. Several parties in Iraq started requesting a postponement. President Bush promptly announced that there will be no postponement. Hours later, Ambassador Negroponte, who was on a visit to Fallujah, re-iterated. Several hours later, a spokesman for Mr. Allawi re-iterated the same position. The decision was already made. The show must go on!
People are going to die tomorrow. Who will be responsible? Zarqawi? Terrorists? Insurgent? Extremist fundamentalists? Possibly. But it is the responsibility of those in charge of the country to create a secure environment so that people can participate in elections… in safety.
Postponement alone is useless if the current track is maintained. There will be more, not less, violence. A new approach has to be attempted to attack the roots of the problem. But this may be too much to hope for from the same people who were partly responsible for creating the current violent environment in the first place.
Apparently, it is so easy for some “freedom fighters” to risk other people’s lives for the sake of noble ideals. But when those armchair freedom lovers do it while they are completely safe, there is nothing noble about that.
It is reckless and irresponsible.
I am so full of anxiety, apprehension, bitterness and misgiving tonight. I hope that not many innocent people will die tomorrow. Above all, I only wish that it was all for something worthwhile and noble, like true democracy… and not for a charade that is conducted by people in positions of responsibility… who are reckless and irresponsible.
I have some difficulty unraveling my own complex feelings regarding the big election day tomorrow.
On the one hand, I am passionately for democracy in principle. It is the only hope for Iraq. On the other hand, I am passionately against these particular elections. They are only an ugly, distorted imitation of democracy. I am convinced that they will not lead to stability … or even democracy.
I agree with fellow Iraqis who want these elections postponed or even boycotted. We have already seen these elections boycotted by the vast majority of expatriate Iraqis.
But I cannot blame the people who want to take part in them! In fact, I have nothing but admiration for those people who are going to risk their lives to cast their vote tomorrow.
These people are not corrupt politicians greedy for power and wealth. They are not “collaborators”. They are people going out to vote for issues or people they believe in whether their motives are ethnic, religious, sectarian, political, economic or nationalistic. Most of them want to exercise their right to have their say for the first time in more than 50 years.
I may disagree with many of these people; some may be misguided… but they certainly don’t deserve to die!
Their safety is the responsibility of those who are running the country.
Imagine that it is known that there were bombs on a number of the planes leaving JFK airport on a certain day. What should the authorities do? What would you do? Ask the people to go about their business, make a stand against terrorism, show courage and board those planes – telling them not to be intimidated by terrorists? The show must go on? Would that be a responsible thing to do? Later, when the worst comes to the worst… blame the terrorists for the unfortunate loss of life… and call it a day? Wouldn’t that be reckless and irresponsible? Yet, this is what we have.
Let us have a look at those different people urging the Iraqi people to go out and vote.
1. The US administration’s representatives in Iraq, the US army and the Interim government running the country from heavily defended fortresses… and cannot even protect those fortresses. Yet, they hope to protect more than 6000 polling stations across the country… where people are to go, to vote.
2. These people in charge do not venture out of their fortresses unless heavily armored and covered by a blanket of security. Yet they ask unarmed men and women to go out and expose themselves to danger.
3. Candidates who are not prepared to go out and take a risk and campaign for themselves. Some do not even have the courage to have their names published and be known. Secret candidates! Yet, they want Iraqis to take the risk and vote for them.
4. Many American super-patriots who are still shivering with anger or fear of attacks carried out on three buildings in their country more than three years ago. Yet, they ask Iraqi housewives (eg Rose) not to be frightened or intimidated by terrorists… in a country that is going through multitudes of 9/11’s regularly.
5. A country that is wisely taking measure after measure to protect its frightened citizens and ensure their safety through stringent finger print and eye retina scans for visitors… is so eager to expose Iraqis to grave danger.
6. President Bush who did not return to his seat of government immediately after those attacks, fearing for his safety. Yet, he asks Iraqis to show courage.
7. The UN Secretary General, who withdrew his entire staff from Iraq following one attack. Now he is asking Iraqis to vote in a dangerous situation and telling them that the UN will do everything to help them.
Reckless and irresponsible!
Isn’t it enough for Iraqis to live under the constant threat of random violence, just going about their shattered lives? Governments should be less reckless and more responsible than that! People should be more caring for fellow human beings.
Make no mistake! The decision to go on with these elections was made in Washington DC. I still remember that day. Several parties in Iraq started requesting a postponement. President Bush promptly announced that there will be no postponement. Hours later, Ambassador Negroponte, who was on a visit to Fallujah, re-iterated. Several hours later, a spokesman for Mr. Allawi re-iterated the same position. The decision was already made. The show must go on!
People are going to die tomorrow. Who will be responsible? Zarqawi? Terrorists? Insurgent? Extremist fundamentalists? Possibly. But it is the responsibility of those in charge of the country to create a secure environment so that people can participate in elections… in safety.
Postponement alone is useless if the current track is maintained. There will be more, not less, violence. A new approach has to be attempted to attack the roots of the problem. But this may be too much to hope for from the same people who were partly responsible for creating the current violent environment in the first place.
Apparently, it is so easy for some “freedom fighters” to risk other people’s lives for the sake of noble ideals. But when those armchair freedom lovers do it while they are completely safe, there is nothing noble about that.
It is reckless and irresponsible.
I am so full of anxiety, apprehension, bitterness and misgiving tonight. I hope that not many innocent people will die tomorrow. Above all, I only wish that it was all for something worthwhile and noble, like true democracy… and not for a charade that is conducted by people in positions of responsibility… who are reckless and irresponsible.
# posted by Abu Khaleel @ 5:53 PM 
Comments:
Hello Abu Khaleel,
I can't think of any election I've ever voted in as even close to perfect, usually they are entirely unsatisfactory. Don't tell me I voted in the election last November to give 'legitimacy' to the megalomaniac Bush???
A very respectable way to vote is by ethnicity or religion-I do it too!
'Now ev'ry man
To aid his clan
Should plot and plan
As best he can.'
But if you want the the cleanest vote, vote 324 as they oppose US intervention but still believe in elections.
As to the possibility of being killed..
'I heard one day
A gentleman say
That voters who
Are blown in two
Can hardly feel
The fatal peel,
And so are slain, are slain
Without much pain.
If this is true,
It's jolly for you;
So your courage screw
To bid us adieu.'
_____________________________________________________________________
"Iraq is awash with cynicism."
For once I agree with something Charles says. However we probably disagree on why this is so.
I think you’re being an old misery-guts, Abu. Look on the bright side. However few Iraqis vote, there will still be a Government. I know there’s still the Constitutional Referendum and a further election to come, but as I understand it, from Monday or a few weeks thereafter Iraq will once again be a sovereign and independent state.
Presumably this means that the coalition forces will no longer be there as occupiers, they will be there as honoured and fraternal guests, providing military assistance at the request of the new Government. They will no longer be able to take any action - roll a convoy, set up a checkpoint, flatten a city - unless they are specifically asked to do so by their Iraqi military advisers, acting on behalf of the Iraqi Parliament.
Have I got that right, guys? You will no longer have any legal right to decide what’s best for the Raghead natives in their own country, they will be all grown up and independent and in charge?
Or have I caught that Iraqi cynicism bug?
Circular, naturally
_____________________________________________________________________
They are only an ugly, distorted imitation of democracy. I am convinced that they will not lead to stability … or even democracy.
from keith van brunt. I live in Philadelphia PA birthplace of the USA and liberty. with the Bell 2 miles from my house. I feel the same way every time i vote. I vote anyway. The goal is a representive republic. based on rule of law not on whims of dictators. I don't have people committed to blowing me up when i go to vote, but there are thugs in this City who have beaten up innocent people and have jailed people for protesting things they believe in.
vote
_____________________________________________________________________
It’s half past 10 EST. Curfew in Iraq has been lifted, the polls open with the hour.
What if the violence is no less no more than what has been endured over the past months?
What if the boycott is effective, the results judged to be fraudulent, illegitimate?
What then you ask? You get a do-over, December 15, 2005.
On CBC last night, they quoted a young man in Ontario who wanted to decide by the ballot, not the bullet. By boycotting, you participate by not participating.
I’d like to believe that if I was unable to vote for fear of losing my life, I would hope that my neighbors, my countrymen, that those that could would vote. You've got to trust in collective wisdom. I know this has been a flawed, tragic, some would say criminal process, I wish I could make it otherwise.
You can start to put into play what you would like to see take place 12/15/05.
_____________________________________________________________________
Your post exemplifies the reason your country is in such bad shape. Young Americans are dying in the streets of Iraq in the hope that your countrymen can muster the courage to build a democracy built on the principles of decency toward fellow man, and you can't muster the courage to go out and vote.
Building a free society has never been free. If you don't quit whining and get off your duff and vote, another Saddam might take charge and put you right back where you've been for the better part of 40 years. Is that the future you want?
You can either be part of the solution or part of the problem. It appears you've chosen the latter. Watching in fear in the hopes that everyone else solves your safety problems and makes life perfect for you to vote.
My suggestion, quit hiding in your home, get off the computer and go down to your local voting office and volunteer to help.
Then vote and usher in a new age for your nation.
_____________________________________________________________________
Turns out that voting in Iraq has been safer today than driving in America. Every day in America, we lose 110 people in automobile accients--and another 70 people to murder.
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu, I'm actually a big fan of your blogs and I've always considered your postings amongst the most intelligent of all the Iraqi blogs out there.
You've disappointed me on ths ocassion however. I find the sentiments expressed in your last post, frankly, pathetic.
This election might not by any means be perfect, but it does present the best and only choice available to you and your countrymen to reassert some measure of control over your destiny. Sitting on your hands and whining about the unfairness of it all isn't going to get you anywhere.
Sure, I'm not Iraqi. I don't live there and cannot therefore understand how difficult and dangerous day to day life is for you over there.
Nonetheless, many of your fellow citizens are casting their ballots as we speak. These people are no less fearful for their lives than you are for your own.
Ultimately, whether you chose to vote or not is entirely up to you. But should you fail to exercise your obligations as a citizen, then you can neither share of the blame if democracy fails, nor of the accolades should it succeed.
Phil, London.
_____________________________________________________________________
What do Americans mean when they say "Democracy"?
In the early 1980's the Soviets occupied Afghanistan and held elections. Somehow, a population that was mostly not sympathetic to communism "elected" the Soviet choice, a communist, as their leader. Was that democracy?
More recently the most pro-Israeli politician was "elected" in Palestine and the US appointed stooge was "elected" by the Afghan people. Democracy?
Before the election, before anyone officially has any idea of who will win and what that person's stance towards the Americans will be, the United States has earmarked $1.5 billion dollars to create the largest US embassy in the world in Baghdad. That will be larger than the current largest US embassy which is in Pakistan.
It is openly acknowledged that one of the tasks of the embassy in Pakistan was to draw up plans to take power from the elected government if Washington decided the need arose. No US involvement has been confirmed in the takeover of power by pro-US dictator Musharraf from Pakistans democratic government but you can only wonder.
Did the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Iraqis who died because of US policies (such as deliberately targetting urban water supplies) over the last 15 years die for democracy?
If democracy had been the aim, would this really have been the most effective way to reach it from anyone's point of view?
I do not think democracy has ever been the aim. I think the US soldiers who die in Iraq are dying for the same two reasons Soviet soldiers died in Afghanistan - 1) Their leaders perceive a strategic benefit in controlling the country 2) Their leaders hope to impose a foreign and unwanted set of values on the occupied people.
The claim that this is a fight for "democracy" is a pungent mixture of irony and hypocrisy.
I don't think it matters if anyone votes or not. The Americans will "count" the votes and decide who wins and by what margin.
I hope the Iraqis who understand the intentions of the Americans are wise enough to forgive those who are fooled. I hope the Iraqis who have come up with a way to trust the Americans can come up with a way to trust their fellow Iraqis as much.
If so, we can still avoid the civil war America claims not to want.
Mr. Democracy
_____________________________________________________________________
What do Americans mean when they say "Democracy"?
In the early 1980's the Soviets occupied Afghanistan and held elections. Somehow, a population that was mostly not sympathetic to communism "elected" the Soviet choice, a communist, as their leader. Was that democracy?
More recently the most pro-Israeli politician was "elected" in Palestine and the US appointed stooge was "elected" by the Afghan people. Democracy?
Before the election, before anyone officially has any idea of who will win and what that person's stance towards the Americans will be, the United States has earmarked $1.5 billion dollars to create the largest US embassy in the world in Baghdad. That will be larger than the current largest US embassy which is in Pakistan.
It is openly acknowledged that one of the tasks of the embassy in Pakistan was to draw up plans to take power from the elected government if Washington decided the need arose. No US involvement has been confirmed in the takeover of power by pro-US dictator Musharraf from Pakistans democratic government but you can only wonder.
Did the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Iraqis who died because of US policies (such as deliberately targetting urban water supplies) over the last 15 years die for democracy?
If democracy had been the aim, would this really have been the most effective way to reach it from anyone's point of view?
I do not think democracy has ever been the aim. I think the US soldiers who die in Iraq are dying for the same two reasons Soviet soldiers died in Afghanistan - 1) Their leaders perceive a strategic benefit in controlling the country 2) Their leaders hope to impose a foreign and unwanted set of values on the occupied people.
The claim that this is a fight for "democracy" is a pungent mixture of irony and hypocrisy.
I don't think it matters if anyone votes or not. The Americans will "count" the votes and decide who wins and by what margin.
I hope the Iraqis who understand the intentions of the Americans are wise enough to forgive those who are fooled. I hope the Iraqis who have come up with a way to trust the Americans can come up with a way to trust their fellow Iraqis as much.
If so, we can still avoid the civil war America claims not to want.
Mr. Democracy
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu Hadi,
I can see some of those signs too, but I cannot be optimistic yet.
I am glad that you have noticed the significance of Feith’s dismissal. I hold this man personally responsible for much of the devastation of Iraq after the invasion. See what Tommy Franks had to say about him! But perhaps more appropriate are the words of his own friend Michael Ledeen: "Remember one of the early dicta of Machiavelli: If you are victorious, everyone will judge your methods to have been appropriate. If you lose, you're a bum."
___________________________
Mr. Democracy,
So many people seem to have no notion that there can be a difference between elections and democracy.
___________________________
Circular,
You have wondered where some of these people come from.
Some time ago, I blamed myself for the sudden rush of super-patriot comments on this blog. I thought it was something provocative I had written. But sometime later, I came across a blog with the name “tigerhawk”. It had this to say on one of my posts (please note the title):
“Carnival of the Commies Just as the supporters of the American war in Iraq have their favorite local bloggers, the anti-war forces have their own Iraqi "witnesses." For example, Abu Khaleel, the author of the Iraqi Letter to America blog, had this to say about Tony Blair's suggestion that the misconduct of British soldiers was confined to a few bad apples:
[A lengthy quote of my post is then followed by:]
Thirty hours after the time stamp of that post, it had not been tracked by a single warblogger. The left, however, was all over it… Anybody want to take a crack at a rebuttal?”
This explains the assumptions some of these people make about this blog without reading what I have said! They are just doing their “national” duty with the minimum possible effort of doing any research before jumping to the keyboard.
Have a look at some of the comments above. Some of these people are so selfish, self-centered and insensitive that anything anybody says has to originate from a selfish view of the world.
Several have “interpreted” my words as expressing fear and concern for my own personal safety! Some seem to be totally devoid of any human compassion. They simply confirm the thesis outlined in the post.
I hope it all makes sense now.
_____________________________________________________________________
@Charles
I guess we've reached the point where you stop trying to make arguments and now you want to see how many ad hominem attacks you can fit into one post.
World Stalinism? Thick head?
Whatever. I think I've explained why I believe what I believe. I think you've given up on explaining. I think I know why.
I hope this election will lead to a later election where the US does not determine how candidates are selected or influence what resources the various candidates have to campaign (and then count the votes to boot). That would be the difference between a free election and the elections in occupied Afghanistan (US or Soviet), Palestine and Iraq today.
I'm not as optimistic as I was earlier, but whether that happens depends on how well the Iraqis can work with the Iraqis. And it depends on whether all Iraqis at some point come to understand who their true enemy is.
But Charles, you certainly made me laugh. I thank you for that.
Mr. Democracy
_____________________________________________________________________
"President Bush who did not return to his seat of government immediately after those attacks, fearing for his safety. Yet, he asks Iraqis to show courage."
Give me a break! The Pentagon had a plane driven into it and another flight crashed on its way to DC with its target unknown. What idiot would condemn the security measure of delaying the President's return to DC? Your remark is ironic given other Iraqis risked their lives voting yesterday while you babbled at your computer screen in safety and comfort.
1300 plus Americans, my countrymen, have died on Iraqi soil so that a superficial fool like you can from the safety of your house ignore the efforts of decent Iraqis that voted yesterday. You expose yourself as an elitist spoiled non-democratic ex-Baathist.
Democracy is an effort, a process, a sacrific. It will be wasted on you.
--------------------------------------------------------
And to the last poster of extreme hyperbole and factual nonsense:
"millions" of Iraqi civilians died? Get a grip! Here's the AP's nonpartisan estimate at the end of military action in Iraq in June '03 - less than 4000 casualties.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0610aptallies.htm
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Abu Khaleel,
If my insensitive little plagerized poems offended, let me apologize. As enthusiastic as I am for Iraqi voting-a basic human right, let me say that I am sickened at the triumphant neocon spinning this morning by Condo Rice and Richard Perle on my TV. After all the mistakes and outright lies, which you have exposed, the shameless Bushies want to pervert the natural human right to vote into an endorsement for their war, their destruction and their occupation. If there is any justice make them pay for their recklessness and irresponsibility!
But the dog barks and the caravan moves on. Or do Iraqis have long memories?
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Charles,
Yes, it is wonderful that Iraqis can vote in the midst of war, massive destruction and a dangerous military occupation. Yes, Iraqis do claim that they are under threat daily from American 'oh-so-friendly fire' as well as from fanatic jihadis drawn into Bush's Iraq kill-zone(which you cannot recognize as a war crime!-Remember 'Bring'em on!'?). Oh but they voted! I suppose I should thank Bush that the sun rises everyday, that babies are born and that it rains occasionally too.
Humility, yes.
Now how about shame, having to make them live thru hell in bombed out Bagdad, so Bush can win an election!
_____________________________________________________________________
@Charles
Yes- I'm sure its all quite funny to you!
No. You're quite funny to me. Everything you've written applies equally well to the elections in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan or Poland, or to Saddam Hussein's elections.
People actually went out and voted in those "elections". They were just as pure and clear then as now.
So to stop laughing at Charles and be serious for a moment (but not to hang my head in shame for whatever reason Charles thinks :) ):
Now that the election is over, Sistani and the Iraqis have, or will soon have, on paper, the power to order the Americans to leave. That is a very good development.
I have been up to now focusing on what Sistani should do, but the insurgency also has to reach out to Sistani. If they can convince him that they would not fight a majority-Shiite government that orders the Americans out and begins a new fair electoral process, then this may end up working out.
One party has to reach out to the other, it does not matter which goes first.
If Sistani decides he'd rather work with the Americans than with the insurgents, that will be a huge mistake that a lot of Iraqis will end up paying for. That mistake would be not only his fault, but also the insurgency's because each party has a responsibility to reach out to the other.
This is still a very nervous time. I hope for the best.
But I think the past 15 years have proven that the American agenda for Iraq is not a good one for the Iraqi people.
If Sistani agrees, a bad future can be averted.
Mr. Democracy
_____________________________________________________________________
"Hello" anon,
I'm sorry that you considered my sharp response directed at you. It was not. It was my fault... I should have been more specific. You have been posting long enough for me to know where you stand. I apologize if I offended you in anyway.
I rather enjoyed those lines actually. Your last post reminded me of a line of Arabic poetry that is close to the theme you mentioned. It roughly says...
"If I cast a stone at every barking dog...
... soon the price of stone would be a dinar each!
(That was when the dinar had some value!)
By the way, I have added a comment on the genie election result prediction!
Please accept my sincere apologies.
_____________________________________________________________________
Looks like everyone has to have their say, so I better put in my tuppence worth.
Regard this as the voice of your leftist Commie American-hating atheistic liberal gay-lover. (As long as I don’t have to put the last one into practice.)
1) It went much better than I expected - it appears that the insurgents were outmanoeuvred by the security measures. I’ll eat some humble pie.
2) Low Sunni participation in this election may historically come to be seen as not so significant - non-participation, or withholding of one’s vote, is a legitimate voter response. (People - ‘haters’ like me - make much of the low US voter turnout. It would be interesting to know what it was in say the 1930s or the 1950s.)
3) The significance of the government set-up that was devised may take a while to sink in. From other sites, I gather that despite certain veto powers over legislation, the Presidential Council will not have any real day-by-day say in administration: power will reside in the PM and Cabinet. And from figures such as those provided by Abu’s ‘genie’ in his last post, it seems clear that no one party can possibly dominate the Assembly - it would need over 138 seats to do so, and nobody comes close. So even if the PC chose Allawi as PM, because so many Iraqis see him as ‘strong,’ his preference for a long-term US presence would be outweighed by the views of the parties he has to work in coalition with. (Without being a ‘hater,’ I wonder whether the US administration fully understood the implications of a proportional, coalition Cabinet. It is so radically different to the system they are used to.)
4) And as I’ve suggested above, the real acid test will be when the new Cabinet starts flexing its muscles and telling the US forces what to do. Or starts reversing any existing US-imposed financial agreements that it doesn’t like.
It looks like you will now have to enact the old Chinese curse, Abu: "May you live in interesting times."
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
Further to the last point above, and putting it another way: seems to me that the US presence since Najaf has been poised rather uneasily on top of a potential volcano of Shia unrest - their forces definitely couldn't handle a Shia revolt as well as the present one.
So the key factor in the next few months may be the extent to which a Shia-dominated Assembly presses for a rapid US exit? Any predictions on that?
_____________________________________________________________________
something worthwhile and nobleI have been moved to tears several times while reading the accounts and viewing the photographs. I am in awe of the Iraqi people's courage, dignity and resilience.
I do pray this world can deliver on the promise of today.
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Abu Khaleel,
In truth, I was just being cute, I didn't really think you were talking about me, but for goodness sakes nobody was paying any attention to me!;)
The first lines were stolen from Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado, an amusing western caricature of a complex and ancient culture.
I know that Iraqis will not play their 'part' in the neocon pantomime and will subtly rewrite their 'roles'. But will Americans ever really understand what they are seeing? Clearly we Americans, need more 'training'and less propaganda, right Charles?
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu Khaleel didn't vote. He sat carping and whining at his computer while his fellow Iraqis risked their lives voting.
His description of the election as an "ugly, distorted imitation of democracy" betrays his basic privileged ex-Baathist mind frame that the Saddam past was more comfortable to him.
Refusing to participate in this election, even being conflicted about voting, is the hallmark of his elitism.
Democracy is at times a messy and imperfect process. It has to start somewhere. Iraqi voters took that risk yesterday. Abu will someday reap the rewards off of the backs of others.
_____________________________________________________________________
To answer your question of who is responsible for the security of the election poll? It is not just the government's but it is also yours and every other Iraqi citizen. Americans will not allow terrorists to roam our streets and without second thought will turn them in. This vote is not necessarily to elect a candidate, but for Iraqis to say NO MORE KILLING! You are obviously a misguided coward only willing to let somebody else do your fighting for you. I see little old ladies going out to the polls in Iraq to vote in the threat of danger. Now that is COURAGE!
_____________________________________________________________________
Democrasy is about the will of the people. The Iraqi people have spoken. The terrorists are a small minority using terror to get their way. They can only succeed when the majority of decent people idly stand by. The elections remind the decent people of how much power they have. When the decent people stand firm, the terrorists will flee. Yesterday the terrorists lost. They can kill a few innocent people in the meantime but they will lose in the long run.
_____________________________________________________________________
Some thoughts:
There seems to be an article of faith that these elections are different from other elections held during occupations that happened to produce the leaderships that the occupying forces favored.
Maybe coincidently, it seems that every single one of the people the US chose to lead Iraq will be back in the government. So when leaders were chosen entirely by the US embassy, the results seem to have been just as democratic as when the Iraqis voted.
It is such an article of faith that it inspires real anger to even question it. It seems like a real religious heresy.
Ask a religious person how they know their book was written by God and not some human or group of humans and you will not get an answer, you'll get anger.
What is the X that fills the following sentence?
The elections in Iraq were different than the Soviet-sponsored elections in Poland because X.
Avoiding the question by saying the question stems from a belief in a worldwide conspiracy is no different from avoiding the question by saying the question stems from being possessed by the devil.
Moving on:
The Iraqi government has banned Al Jazeera. When it was first banned, it was widely reported that it was done at the behest of the Americans.
Will the "representative" government keep the ban in place?
It is reported that the Americans are currently staging raids into Iran from US bases in Iraq. Have the Iraqi people agreed to be today's Kuwait?
Will the "representative" government set limits to US military action on Iraqi soil?
There is currently a ban on non-US companies bidding on development contracts in Iraq, a ban that seems to extend to Iraqi companies.
Will the "representative" government lift that ban?
Moving on:
People did vote in this election, but people have voted in a lot of elections that clearly were not democratic. Maybe it means they believe the people behind it, maybe it does not.
But either way, those who oppose this election should offer as clear as possible a choice between real democracy and "guided" democracy.
Those opposed to "guided" democracy, I hope will gather as wide a consensus as possible and determine and broadcast exactly they believe the requirements are for a free and fair democracy. How should the candidates be chosen? How should campaigns be paid for? What limits should be put on what organizations for participation in elections? What issues, if any should be put before the people directly?
Moving on:
Will there be another Fallujah? If there is, will it be blamed on those in Southern Iraq who are cooperating more with the Americans? If it is, will the people of Central Iraq believe them?
If Americans stand for what I think they stand for, the trigger for the long-term destablizing civil war will be another Fallujah - maybe in Mosul.
It is very important for the people of central Iraq to reach out to the southern region as soon as possible to begin reduce the chance of that happening.
Mr. Democracy
_____________________________________________________________________
Post a Comment
<< Home
Hello Abu Khaleel,
I can't think of any election I've ever voted in as even close to perfect, usually they are entirely unsatisfactory. Don't tell me I voted in the election last November to give 'legitimacy' to the megalomaniac Bush???
A very respectable way to vote is by ethnicity or religion-I do it too!
'Now ev'ry man
To aid his clan
Should plot and plan
As best he can.'
But if you want the the cleanest vote, vote 324 as they oppose US intervention but still believe in elections.
As to the possibility of being killed..
'I heard one day
A gentleman say
That voters who
Are blown in two
Can hardly feel
The fatal peel,
And so are slain, are slain
Without much pain.
If this is true,
It's jolly for you;
So your courage screw
To bid us adieu.'
# posted by 
: 29/1/05 9:19 PM
: 29/1/05 9:19 PM "Iraq is awash with cynicism."
For once I agree with something Charles says. However we probably disagree on why this is so.
I think you’re being an old misery-guts, Abu. Look on the bright side. However few Iraqis vote, there will still be a Government. I know there’s still the Constitutional Referendum and a further election to come, but as I understand it, from Monday or a few weeks thereafter Iraq will once again be a sovereign and independent state.
Presumably this means that the coalition forces will no longer be there as occupiers, they will be there as honoured and fraternal guests, providing military assistance at the request of the new Government. They will no longer be able to take any action - roll a convoy, set up a checkpoint, flatten a city - unless they are specifically asked to do so by their Iraqi military advisers, acting on behalf of the Iraqi Parliament.
Have I got that right, guys? You will no longer have any legal right to decide what’s best for the Raghead natives in their own country, they will be all grown up and independent and in charge?
Or have I caught that Iraqi cynicism bug?
Circular, naturally
# posted by : 30/1/05 12:30 AM
: 30/1/05 12:30 AM They are only an ugly, distorted imitation of democracy. I am convinced that they will not lead to stability … or even democracy.
from keith van brunt. I live in Philadelphia PA birthplace of the USA and liberty. with the Bell 2 miles from my house. I feel the same way every time i vote. I vote anyway. The goal is a representive republic. based on rule of law not on whims of dictators. I don't have people committed to blowing me up when i go to vote, but there are thugs in this City who have beaten up innocent people and have jailed people for protesting things they believe in.
vote
# posted by : 30/1/05 5:00 AM
: 30/1/05 5:00 AM It’s half past 10 EST. Curfew in Iraq has been lifted, the polls open with the hour.
What if the violence is no less no more than what has been endured over the past months?
What if the boycott is effective, the results judged to be fraudulent, illegitimate?
What then you ask? You get a do-over, December 15, 2005.
On CBC last night, they quoted a young man in Ontario who wanted to decide by the ballot, not the bullet. By boycotting, you participate by not participating.
I’d like to believe that if I was unable to vote for fear of losing my life, I would hope that my neighbors, my countrymen, that those that could would vote. You've got to trust in collective wisdom. I know this has been a flawed, tragic, some would say criminal process, I wish I could make it otherwise.
You can start to put into play what you would like to see take place 12/15/05.
# posted by : 30/1/05 6:50 AM
: 30/1/05 6:50 AM Your post exemplifies the reason your country is in such bad shape. Young Americans are dying in the streets of Iraq in the hope that your countrymen can muster the courage to build a democracy built on the principles of decency toward fellow man, and you can't muster the courage to go out and vote.
Building a free society has never been free. If you don't quit whining and get off your duff and vote, another Saddam might take charge and put you right back where you've been for the better part of 40 years. Is that the future you want?
You can either be part of the solution or part of the problem. It appears you've chosen the latter. Watching in fear in the hopes that everyone else solves your safety problems and makes life perfect for you to vote.
My suggestion, quit hiding in your home, get off the computer and go down to your local voting office and volunteer to help.
Then vote and usher in a new age for your nation.
# posted by : 30/1/05 1:34 PM
: 30/1/05 1:34 PM Turns out that voting in Iraq has been safer today than driving in America. Every day in America, we lose 110 people in automobile accients--and another 70 people to murder.
# posted by : 30/1/05 1:51 PM
: 30/1/05 1:51 PM Abu, I'm actually a big fan of your blogs and I've always considered your postings amongst the most intelligent of all the Iraqi blogs out there.
You've disappointed me on ths ocassion however. I find the sentiments expressed in your last post, frankly, pathetic.
This election might not by any means be perfect, but it does present the best and only choice available to you and your countrymen to reassert some measure of control over your destiny. Sitting on your hands and whining about the unfairness of it all isn't going to get you anywhere.
Sure, I'm not Iraqi. I don't live there and cannot therefore understand how difficult and dangerous day to day life is for you over there.
Nonetheless, many of your fellow citizens are casting their ballots as we speak. These people are no less fearful for their lives than you are for your own.
Ultimately, whether you chose to vote or not is entirely up to you. But should you fail to exercise your obligations as a citizen, then you can neither share of the blame if democracy fails, nor of the accolades should it succeed.
Phil, London.
# posted by : 30/1/05 2:50 PM
: 30/1/05 2:50 PM What do Americans mean when they say "Democracy"?
In the early 1980's the Soviets occupied Afghanistan and held elections. Somehow, a population that was mostly not sympathetic to communism "elected" the Soviet choice, a communist, as their leader. Was that democracy?
More recently the most pro-Israeli politician was "elected" in Palestine and the US appointed stooge was "elected" by the Afghan people. Democracy?
Before the election, before anyone officially has any idea of who will win and what that person's stance towards the Americans will be, the United States has earmarked $1.5 billion dollars to create the largest US embassy in the world in Baghdad. That will be larger than the current largest US embassy which is in Pakistan.
It is openly acknowledged that one of the tasks of the embassy in Pakistan was to draw up plans to take power from the elected government if Washington decided the need arose. No US involvement has been confirmed in the takeover of power by pro-US dictator Musharraf from Pakistans democratic government but you can only wonder.
Did the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Iraqis who died because of US policies (such as deliberately targetting urban water supplies) over the last 15 years die for democracy?
If democracy had been the aim, would this really have been the most effective way to reach it from anyone's point of view?
I do not think democracy has ever been the aim. I think the US soldiers who die in Iraq are dying for the same two reasons Soviet soldiers died in Afghanistan - 1) Their leaders perceive a strategic benefit in controlling the country 2) Their leaders hope to impose a foreign and unwanted set of values on the occupied people.
The claim that this is a fight for "democracy" is a pungent mixture of irony and hypocrisy.
I don't think it matters if anyone votes or not. The Americans will "count" the votes and decide who wins and by what margin.
I hope the Iraqis who understand the intentions of the Americans are wise enough to forgive those who are fooled. I hope the Iraqis who have come up with a way to trust the Americans can come up with a way to trust their fellow Iraqis as much.
If so, we can still avoid the civil war America claims not to want.
Mr. Democracy
# posted by : 30/1/05 3:06 PM
: 30/1/05 3:06 PM What do Americans mean when they say "Democracy"?
In the early 1980's the Soviets occupied Afghanistan and held elections. Somehow, a population that was mostly not sympathetic to communism "elected" the Soviet choice, a communist, as their leader. Was that democracy?
More recently the most pro-Israeli politician was "elected" in Palestine and the US appointed stooge was "elected" by the Afghan people. Democracy?
Before the election, before anyone officially has any idea of who will win and what that person's stance towards the Americans will be, the United States has earmarked $1.5 billion dollars to create the largest US embassy in the world in Baghdad. That will be larger than the current largest US embassy which is in Pakistan.
It is openly acknowledged that one of the tasks of the embassy in Pakistan was to draw up plans to take power from the elected government if Washington decided the need arose. No US involvement has been confirmed in the takeover of power by pro-US dictator Musharraf from Pakistans democratic government but you can only wonder.
Did the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Iraqis who died because of US policies (such as deliberately targetting urban water supplies) over the last 15 years die for democracy?
If democracy had been the aim, would this really have been the most effective way to reach it from anyone's point of view?
I do not think democracy has ever been the aim. I think the US soldiers who die in Iraq are dying for the same two reasons Soviet soldiers died in Afghanistan - 1) Their leaders perceive a strategic benefit in controlling the country 2) Their leaders hope to impose a foreign and unwanted set of values on the occupied people.
The claim that this is a fight for "democracy" is a pungent mixture of irony and hypocrisy.
I don't think it matters if anyone votes or not. The Americans will "count" the votes and decide who wins and by what margin.
I hope the Iraqis who understand the intentions of the Americans are wise enough to forgive those who are fooled. I hope the Iraqis who have come up with a way to trust the Americans can come up with a way to trust their fellow Iraqis as much.
If so, we can still avoid the civil war America claims not to want.
Mr. Democracy
# posted by : 30/1/05 3:06 PM
: 30/1/05 3:06 PM Abu Hadi,
I can see some of those signs too, but I cannot be optimistic yet.
I am glad that you have noticed the significance of Feith’s dismissal. I hold this man personally responsible for much of the devastation of Iraq after the invasion. See what Tommy Franks had to say about him! But perhaps more appropriate are the words of his own friend Michael Ledeen: "Remember one of the early dicta of Machiavelli: If you are victorious, everyone will judge your methods to have been appropriate. If you lose, you're a bum."
___________________________
Mr. Democracy,
So many people seem to have no notion that there can be a difference between elections and democracy.
___________________________
Circular,
You have wondered where some of these people come from.
Some time ago, I blamed myself for the sudden rush of super-patriot comments on this blog. I thought it was something provocative I had written. But sometime later, I came across a blog with the name “tigerhawk”. It had this to say on one of my posts (please note the title):
“Carnival of the Commies Just as the supporters of the American war in Iraq have their favorite local bloggers, the anti-war forces have their own Iraqi "witnesses." For example, Abu Khaleel, the author of the Iraqi Letter to America blog, had this to say about Tony Blair's suggestion that the misconduct of British soldiers was confined to a few bad apples:
[A lengthy quote of my post is then followed by:]
Thirty hours after the time stamp of that post, it had not been tracked by a single warblogger. The left, however, was all over it… Anybody want to take a crack at a rebuttal?”
This explains the assumptions some of these people make about this blog without reading what I have said! They are just doing their “national” duty with the minimum possible effort of doing any research before jumping to the keyboard.
Have a look at some of the comments above. Some of these people are so selfish, self-centered and insensitive that anything anybody says has to originate from a selfish view of the world.
Several have “interpreted” my words as expressing fear and concern for my own personal safety! Some seem to be totally devoid of any human compassion. They simply confirm the thesis outlined in the post.
I hope it all makes sense now.
@Charles
I guess we've reached the point where you stop trying to make arguments and now you want to see how many ad hominem attacks you can fit into one post.
World Stalinism? Thick head?
Whatever. I think I've explained why I believe what I believe. I think you've given up on explaining. I think I know why.
I hope this election will lead to a later election where the US does not determine how candidates are selected or influence what resources the various candidates have to campaign (and then count the votes to boot). That would be the difference between a free election and the elections in occupied Afghanistan (US or Soviet), Palestine and Iraq today.
I'm not as optimistic as I was earlier, but whether that happens depends on how well the Iraqis can work with the Iraqis. And it depends on whether all Iraqis at some point come to understand who their true enemy is.
But Charles, you certainly made me laugh. I thank you for that.
Mr. Democracy
# posted by : 30/1/05 6:35 PM
: 30/1/05 6:35 PM "President Bush who did not return to his seat of government immediately after those attacks, fearing for his safety. Yet, he asks Iraqis to show courage."
Give me a break! The Pentagon had a plane driven into it and another flight crashed on its way to DC with its target unknown. What idiot would condemn the security measure of delaying the President's return to DC? Your remark is ironic given other Iraqis risked their lives voting yesterday while you babbled at your computer screen in safety and comfort.
1300 plus Americans, my countrymen, have died on Iraqi soil so that a superficial fool like you can from the safety of your house ignore the efforts of decent Iraqis that voted yesterday. You expose yourself as an elitist spoiled non-democratic ex-Baathist.
Democracy is an effort, a process, a sacrific. It will be wasted on you.
--------------------------------------------------------
And to the last poster of extreme hyperbole and factual nonsense:
"millions" of Iraqi civilians died? Get a grip! Here's the AP's nonpartisan estimate at the end of military action in Iraq in June '03 - less than 4000 casualties.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0610aptallies.htm
# posted by : 30/1/05 6:50 PM
: 30/1/05 6:50 PM Hello Abu Khaleel,
If my insensitive little plagerized poems offended, let me apologize. As enthusiastic as I am for Iraqi voting-a basic human right, let me say that I am sickened at the triumphant neocon spinning this morning by Condo Rice and Richard Perle on my TV. After all the mistakes and outright lies, which you have exposed, the shameless Bushies want to pervert the natural human right to vote into an endorsement for their war, their destruction and their occupation. If there is any justice make them pay for their recklessness and irresponsibility!
But the dog barks and the caravan moves on. Or do Iraqis have long memories?
# posted by : 30/1/05 7:48 PM
: 30/1/05 7:48 PM Hello Charles,
Yes, it is wonderful that Iraqis can vote in the midst of war, massive destruction and a dangerous military occupation. Yes, Iraqis do claim that they are under threat daily from American 'oh-so-friendly fire' as well as from fanatic jihadis drawn into Bush's Iraq kill-zone(which you cannot recognize as a war crime!-Remember 'Bring'em on!'?). Oh but they voted! I suppose I should thank Bush that the sun rises everyday, that babies are born and that it rains occasionally too.
Humility, yes.
Now how about shame, having to make them live thru hell in bombed out Bagdad, so Bush can win an election!
# posted by : 30/1/05 8:53 PM
: 30/1/05 8:53 PM @Charles
Yes- I'm sure its all quite funny to you!
No. You're quite funny to me. Everything you've written applies equally well to the elections in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan or Poland, or to Saddam Hussein's elections.
People actually went out and voted in those "elections". They were just as pure and clear then as now.
So to stop laughing at Charles and be serious for a moment (but not to hang my head in shame for whatever reason Charles thinks :) ):
Now that the election is over, Sistani and the Iraqis have, or will soon have, on paper, the power to order the Americans to leave. That is a very good development.
I have been up to now focusing on what Sistani should do, but the insurgency also has to reach out to Sistani. If they can convince him that they would not fight a majority-Shiite government that orders the Americans out and begins a new fair electoral process, then this may end up working out.
One party has to reach out to the other, it does not matter which goes first.
If Sistani decides he'd rather work with the Americans than with the insurgents, that will be a huge mistake that a lot of Iraqis will end up paying for. That mistake would be not only his fault, but also the insurgency's because each party has a responsibility to reach out to the other.
This is still a very nervous time. I hope for the best.
But I think the past 15 years have proven that the American agenda for Iraq is not a good one for the Iraqi people.
If Sistani agrees, a bad future can be averted.
Mr. Democracy
# posted by : 30/1/05 9:04 PM
: 30/1/05 9:04 PM "Hello" anon,
I'm sorry that you considered my sharp response directed at you. It was not. It was my fault... I should have been more specific. You have been posting long enough for me to know where you stand. I apologize if I offended you in anyway.
I rather enjoyed those lines actually. Your last post reminded me of a line of Arabic poetry that is close to the theme you mentioned. It roughly says...
"If I cast a stone at every barking dog...
... soon the price of stone would be a dinar each!
(That was when the dinar had some value!)
By the way, I have added a comment on the genie election result prediction!
Please accept my sincere apologies.
Looks like everyone has to have their say, so I better put in my tuppence worth.
Regard this as the voice of your leftist Commie American-hating atheistic liberal gay-lover. (As long as I don’t have to put the last one into practice.)
1) It went much better than I expected - it appears that the insurgents were outmanoeuvred by the security measures. I’ll eat some humble pie.
2) Low Sunni participation in this election may historically come to be seen as not so significant - non-participation, or withholding of one’s vote, is a legitimate voter response. (People - ‘haters’ like me - make much of the low US voter turnout. It would be interesting to know what it was in say the 1930s or the 1950s.)
3) The significance of the government set-up that was devised may take a while to sink in. From other sites, I gather that despite certain veto powers over legislation, the Presidential Council will not have any real day-by-day say in administration: power will reside in the PM and Cabinet. And from figures such as those provided by Abu’s ‘genie’ in his last post, it seems clear that no one party can possibly dominate the Assembly - it would need over 138 seats to do so, and nobody comes close. So even if the PC chose Allawi as PM, because so many Iraqis see him as ‘strong,’ his preference for a long-term US presence would be outweighed by the views of the parties he has to work in coalition with. (Without being a ‘hater,’ I wonder whether the US administration fully understood the implications of a proportional, coalition Cabinet. It is so radically different to the system they are used to.)
4) And as I’ve suggested above, the real acid test will be when the new Cabinet starts flexing its muscles and telling the US forces what to do. Or starts reversing any existing US-imposed financial agreements that it doesn’t like.
It looks like you will now have to enact the old Chinese curse, Abu: "May you live in interesting times."
Circular
# posted by : 30/1/05 10:00 PM
: 30/1/05 10:00 PM Further to the last point above, and putting it another way: seems to me that the US presence since Najaf has been poised rather uneasily on top of a potential volcano of Shia unrest - their forces definitely couldn't handle a Shia revolt as well as the present one.
So the key factor in the next few months may be the extent to which a Shia-dominated Assembly presses for a rapid US exit? Any predictions on that?
# posted by : 30/1/05 10:17 PM
: 30/1/05 10:17 PM something worthwhile and nobleI have been moved to tears several times while reading the accounts and viewing the photographs. I am in awe of the Iraqi people's courage, dignity and resilience.
I do pray this world can deliver on the promise of today.
# posted by : 30/1/05 11:15 PM
: 30/1/05 11:15 PM Hello Abu Khaleel,
In truth, I was just being cute, I didn't really think you were talking about me, but for goodness sakes nobody was paying any attention to me!;)
The first lines were stolen from Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado, an amusing western caricature of a complex and ancient culture.
I know that Iraqis will not play their 'part' in the neocon pantomime and will subtly rewrite their 'roles'. But will Americans ever really understand what they are seeing? Clearly we Americans, need more 'training'and less propaganda, right Charles?
# posted by : 30/1/05 11:26 PM
: 30/1/05 11:26 PM Abu Khaleel didn't vote. He sat carping and whining at his computer while his fellow Iraqis risked their lives voting.
His description of the election as an "ugly, distorted imitation of democracy" betrays his basic privileged ex-Baathist mind frame that the Saddam past was more comfortable to him.
Refusing to participate in this election, even being conflicted about voting, is the hallmark of his elitism.
Democracy is at times a messy and imperfect process. It has to start somewhere. Iraqi voters took that risk yesterday. Abu will someday reap the rewards off of the backs of others.
# posted by : 30/1/05 11:42 PM
: 30/1/05 11:42 PM To answer your question of who is responsible for the security of the election poll? It is not just the government's but it is also yours and every other Iraqi citizen. Americans will not allow terrorists to roam our streets and without second thought will turn them in. This vote is not necessarily to elect a candidate, but for Iraqis to say NO MORE KILLING! You are obviously a misguided coward only willing to let somebody else do your fighting for you. I see little old ladies going out to the polls in Iraq to vote in the threat of danger. Now that is COURAGE!
# posted by : 31/1/05 3:06 AM
: 31/1/05 3:06 AM Democrasy is about the will of the people. The Iraqi people have spoken. The terrorists are a small minority using terror to get their way. They can only succeed when the majority of decent people idly stand by. The elections remind the decent people of how much power they have. When the decent people stand firm, the terrorists will flee. Yesterday the terrorists lost. They can kill a few innocent people in the meantime but they will lose in the long run.
# posted by : 31/1/05 8:03 PM
: 31/1/05 8:03 PM Some thoughts:
There seems to be an article of faith that these elections are different from other elections held during occupations that happened to produce the leaderships that the occupying forces favored.
Maybe coincidently, it seems that every single one of the people the US chose to lead Iraq will be back in the government. So when leaders were chosen entirely by the US embassy, the results seem to have been just as democratic as when the Iraqis voted.
It is such an article of faith that it inspires real anger to even question it. It seems like a real religious heresy.
Ask a religious person how they know their book was written by God and not some human or group of humans and you will not get an answer, you'll get anger.
What is the X that fills the following sentence?
The elections in Iraq were different than the Soviet-sponsored elections in Poland because X.
Avoiding the question by saying the question stems from a belief in a worldwide conspiracy is no different from avoiding the question by saying the question stems from being possessed by the devil.
Moving on:
The Iraqi government has banned Al Jazeera. When it was first banned, it was widely reported that it was done at the behest of the Americans.
Will the "representative" government keep the ban in place?
It is reported that the Americans are currently staging raids into Iran from US bases in Iraq. Have the Iraqi people agreed to be today's Kuwait?
Will the "representative" government set limits to US military action on Iraqi soil?
There is currently a ban on non-US companies bidding on development contracts in Iraq, a ban that seems to extend to Iraqi companies.
Will the "representative" government lift that ban?
Moving on:
People did vote in this election, but people have voted in a lot of elections that clearly were not democratic. Maybe it means they believe the people behind it, maybe it does not.
But either way, those who oppose this election should offer as clear as possible a choice between real democracy and "guided" democracy.
Those opposed to "guided" democracy, I hope will gather as wide a consensus as possible and determine and broadcast exactly they believe the requirements are for a free and fair democracy. How should the candidates be chosen? How should campaigns be paid for? What limits should be put on what organizations for participation in elections? What issues, if any should be put before the people directly?
Moving on:
Will there be another Fallujah? If there is, will it be blamed on those in Southern Iraq who are cooperating more with the Americans? If it is, will the people of Central Iraq believe them?
If Americans stand for what I think they stand for, the trigger for the long-term destablizing civil war will be another Fallujah - maybe in Mosul.
It is very important for the people of central Iraq to reach out to the southern region as soon as possible to begin reduce the chance of that happening.
Mr. Democracy
# posted by : 1/2/05 12:35 PM
: 1/2/05 12:35 PM << Home
