It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Iraq Votes: Defiant Iraqis Vote in Their Millions Despite Bombs

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Kerry has already said, "It's hard to say that something is legitimate when whole portions of the country can't vote and doesn't vote."




posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Kerry has already said, "It's hard to say that something is legitimate when whole portions of the country can't vote and doesn't vote."


Kerry based his entire platform it seems around Iraq and the failures we were having there. No doubt he hoped politicaly at least it was a disaster and yes people died, but people also voted. Short of Turkey and Isreal, what other Middle East country has done this???

You would have to go back to Mossadeq in Iran and the CIA killed off any chance of a demopcracy and put the Shah in power (See my post on Operation Ajax)



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Kerry has already said, "It's hard to say that something is legitimate when whole portions of the country can't vote and doesn't vote."


This is true of every country in the world....a large amount of people just don't vote for whatever reason....so then all the "supposedly free countries" in the world are just a sham because large portions of their population don't vote.....

This is a tactical move done by Kerry, he continues to try to bring out anything that he can use against the administration..... It is his way of saying "I could have done better".....yeah right....

[edit on 30-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   





In this aerial photograph released by the US Air Force, voters are seen queuing outside a polling station in Baghdad Sunday, Jan. 30, 2005. Iraqis turned out to vote Sunday in their country's first free election in a half-century.
(AP Photo/US Air Force, MSgt Dave Ahlschwede)



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I think it is a very positive thing, that people are out and voting in the elections.

I saw on the news just now an Iraqi official estimating that about 6 million votes will be made. This was based on how many had been made so far. My only concern at this time is that 6 million equates to less than 25 percent of the population.

Although it is a very positive step for elections to take place, I am concerned that this event may have happend too soon. I am concerned that the conditions in Iraq are not yet suitable for the population to feel they can go and vote.

I guess my only gripe is that I wish more people were able to vote.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   


As estimated 8 million people — 60 percent of eligible voters — braved violence and calls for a boycott to vote in Iraq A string of homicide bombings and mortar volleys killed at least 44 people, including nine attackers.

Turnout



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
FredT...
Remember back when ATS had discussions on the amount of money that each country was giving for the Tsunami relief? Remember how people compared the US amount as being "stingy" as compared to GNP?

Let's apply that same logic here, k?

You have just reported that Iraq had a 60% voter turnout among eligible voters. Lets also add that these Iraqi 'heroes' had the added caution of being blown apart and shot by those insurgents and terrorist groups backed by Zarqawi. Well, here in the US, we are considered 'free,' and as such, during the 2004 Presidential elections, of the total eligible voters that could vote in the Presidential elections, guess what the percent was that voted?


120 million Americans, 60% of eligible voters, turned out to vote the 2004 election -- the highest voter turnout since 1968.

Voter Turnout 2004 Presidential Elections

No threat of being shot. No threat of being blown apart. And yet, in Iraq, 35+ individuals were killed for wanting to freely vote. Amazing...truly amazing.




seekerof



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by MERC
Pro-government dribble. Thats all the residue your spilling in my direction is. Enjoy work tommorow morning, you free, free thinkers you.

P.S. Dont forget to watch whichever News Station that declared this election a success while you eat your toast before departing to undertake your pleasant day of corporate slavery. Perhaps you could also watch the evening news while you eat your dinner, before tucking the kids into bed and repeating the process all over again, every day, for the rest of your life. Barring your allocated holiday leave of course. Well, enjoy the watered down with piss definition of freedom you cling to while it lasts, because its going out the window quick fast.

Good day ladies.



[edit on 30-1-2005 by MERC]


This is classic
If you work for a living your a corporate slave




Corporate slave? Heck, you can actually choose not to work here in the 'free thinking' America. We'll still give you a home, food on your table, and all the medical you may need as you 'rot' your body away in the processed foods and drugs you inhale! (We'll even take care of your kids!)


:shakes head:



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I thought it sounded too good to be true, so I checked to see what Al-Jazeera was saying.




Confusion surrounds turnout statistics in Iraq's election, with the country's election commission backtracking on a statement that 72% had voted and top politicians insisting the turnout was high.

The commission said its initial tally had been little more than a guess based on local estimates.

"Turnout figures recently announced represent the enormous and understandable enthusiasm felt in the field on this historic day," a commission statement said.

"However, these figures are only very rough, word-of-mouth estimates gathered informally from the field. It will take some time for the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq to release accurate figures on turnout."

english.aljazeera.net...



More spin. Like the man says, it will take time to run the real figures.


.sp

[edit on 30-1-2005 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
soficrow...
Your Al-Jazeera reporting indicates numbers of 72%. I do believe that the backtracking has been taken. FredT's article mentions 60%. How much more backtracking would you like to satisfy your tastes?




seekerof



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   

More spin. Like the man says, it will take time to run the real figures


I suppose all American estimates are false, too? How about the estimates of turnout given right after the elections in the Ukraine?

That Al Jazeera article is to play down the election to the Arab world. They know in a week (after the hype dies down) that if what is said is verified, they can simply beary the story and no one will really worry. Of course, if by some longshot they turned out to be right, they'd be all over the story.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
How about the estimates of turnout given right after the elections in the Ukraine?


Even at the best of times in the best of places, it takes time to develop accurate figures.

The Ukraine was chock full of international election monitors, and covered with news cameras. ...There were lots of independent estimates, and a variety of functioning communications systems.

Iraq is closed up tight, with travel restrictions. There are no independent monitors. There is active insurgency, bombings and more. The communications systems are likely quite questionable.





That Al Jazeera article is to play down the election to the Arab world. .


I think you're probably right. Also IMO - so are the estimates released in the US.

Point is, there are two sides to the story, and the real numbers aren't in yet.

.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
The numbers being released now closely matched the estimates given before the election.

And it's not hard to get a good tally of voters that have shown up. Just as many people were watching these elections. The American military is there. So is the Iraqi police force. There's no reason they couldn't get a good count of the people who showed up.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The American military is there. So is the Iraqi police force.


Now THAT'S some real independent monitoring.






posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
If you want to talk about poltical spin I don't think you should be getting your information from Al Jazeera.

I think people are missing the point, it's not who they voted for or the outcome of the election but the simple fact that the Iraqi citizens were willing to turn out in droves and vote regardless of the hollow threats of thugs like Zarqawi. It shows that the Iraqi citizens, for good or ill, are willing to take the future of their country into their own hands. The fact that 60 million Iraqi citizens now see themselves as Iraqis and not opposing members of a given faction. That for the first time Iraqis are able to take pride in the accomplishments of their coutnry. The most important factor of this whole story is that Iraqi citizens now believe in freedom and believe that it is, at last, within their grasp.

To deny the legitimacy of the Iraqi election is to deny these people their freedom. To say that a democractic election is not a plausble road to freedom is to infer that violence and terrorism is the answer. Iraqi citizens are now taking their lives and the future of their country into their own hands, that to me is the definition of freedom

My question to the detractors is what exactly is the basis for your statements? Is it that the Iraqi people are not as socially evolved as you are? Is it that the Iraqi people aren't smart enough to recognise a sham when they see one? Could it be that you see yourself as more aware and more capable of handling freedom and democracy than an entire country of people? Or is it based solely on the fact that you dislike Bush and nothing pains you more than to see one of his plans succeed, for him to follow through with what he promised? So much so that you would rather suffer an entire nation of people to further torture and terror than give credit where credit is due? This election is a momentous and historic day, and to say otherwise based on your assumptive opinions is plain and simple ignorance. Perhaps you time would be better spent discussing Jewish literature on a Neo-Nazi message board.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
.
The inital stages of democracy from zero to basic democracy can be glorious.

Question: Is the price the US is paying worth it?

Will Iraq hang together or will it degenerate into civil war/strife? Ethnic rivalry is happening all over this globe. Is there some abstract idea, 'iraqi pride', that most Iraqis share, that rises higher than their ethnic identities? If they manage it it will actually be more unique than consistent with the rest of the world.

The initial shared relief of being free of Saddam, and eventually free of the US may be enough over the shorter term. In the long term I wouldn't bet any serious money that Iraq will remain cohesive.
.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Is it worth establishin Democracy in the Middle East? Yes, the price will only be higher in the future.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
.
Did you know that in Iran the general population would love to dump the religious govenment and institute a secular democracy?

Why did we fight an uphill fight to democracy in Iraq, instead of helping it along in Iran where the people already know they want it?

Iran is the nation that has supported terrorist groups. Iraq provided almost zero support to terroists.

Can you say "Head up the *ss?"

Instead of a helping a naturally cohesive nation who's people want democracy we went to an ethnically cleaved society where it is far less likely to be a success and therefore less likely to inspire other nations.
.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Iraq did a lot more to support terrorism, or at least as much, as Iran. They most likely did have WMD's. And the fact that people in Iran are pushing for change means there is less need for military action by America. The Iranians are likely to push for change themselves. Saddam had a tighter grip on his country then Iran's Guardian Council does.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   


World leaders have praised the conduct of Iraq's first multi-party elections for more than 50 years.
President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair - the leaders of the two nations which led the invasion of Iraq - hailed them as a resounding success.

And UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Iraqis should be encouraged to take control of their own future.

World leaders praise Iraqi poll



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join