POLITICS: Thousands of Iraqis Were Unable to Vote

I've yet to find any legitamate sources of such information here or otherwise. If you would like to provide me with at least a link I'd be grateful. As of yet still I see conspiracies and fancy words with no evidence and it plays to the tune of it has to do with Bush so it must be evil.

as posted by MaskedAvatar
Denying people the right to vote is illegitimacy, pure and simple.

I can agree with that, and no pure and simple to it.
What I think was missed in what I mentioned MaskedAvatar, was that I read no reports of Americans, during the 2004 Presidential election, having the added caution of being shot, their families being shot, or for that matter, be blown to pieces while freely going to vote. Did you? As such, even with such a threat upon those Iraqi people, nearly 60+% of the eligible voters actually voted. As compared to the US and the 2004 elections, seems pretty significant and says alot more than those who actively decided not to vote or got turned away.

IMHO, I wish they could have voted, would have made us "free" Americans, who had no such cautions as those Iraqi voters did, look even more pathetic. This further strengthens the views that the Iraqi people wanted a democratic type system of government in Iraq.
Their first time taking part in a democratic type of voting process, and no one expected inherent problems, such as being mentioned in this thread? Okie dokie.




seekerof

[edit on 1-2-2005 by Seekerof]

Yes, in the US prior to 2004 "Election" Day and also immediately preceding the inauguration, there were offical statements from Homeland Security and orchestrated buzzes regarding potential terrorist attacks. In case you had not noticed, these have been around for a few years, with a propaganda purpose, but with little physical consequence.

As such MaskedAvatar, did any American die?
Because to me, anyhow, it was blatantly apparent that 35+ Iraqis died to freely vote in the Iraqi elections....




seekerof

which is exactly the difference. There was buzz yes but it was just a better safe then sorry buzz and they came out and said they had no credible evidence. There's no comparison between that and the very real danger faced by Iraqis in some provinces. People were blown up, people did die, but they voted anyway in great numbers. Plus, how is it yet another conspiracy that there was buzz around our election and nothing happened? Anywhere else that would be seen as law enforcement and others doing their job since nothing happened. Its always easy to discount warnings as not being sincere or being devious because except in rare cases when don't find out when they actually stop something. To do so would reveal how we stopped it and prevent that procedure / source from being effective in the future. Again, if you go into a situation looking for a conspiracy I guarantee you'll find it.

Originally posted by jukyu
Plus, how is it yet another conspiracy that there was buzz around our election and nothing happened?

When you learn to understand that and the purpose of constant terror messages to justify a fake "War On Terror", you will be nearer to the modus operandi of the corrupt Bush administration.

I am sorry to be unwilling to spoon-feed you in your search, but if you are genuinely open-minded to finding what is wrong with the government of the day in the USA, then I wish you well in your undertaking.

Well I don't know how to put my points any more plainly and all I get from you are continuing conspiracies so I'll stop. But look at it this way, you say its to justify a way even though there's already been a very real attack on US soil that was a culmination of attacks to the point that we were tired of sitting back and doing nothing. Ask yourself this, if there had been no warnings out during the election in America and a member of Al Quida had blown up a polling place or someing the night before the election would you have:

A. Considered it a tragedy and wanted stronger security to prevent it.

B. Seen it as an attempt by the Bush administration to sway public opinion at the last minute to win the election.

C. Seen it as a way for the Bush Administration to continue their war on terror?

D. Seen it as a way for the Bush Administration to scare people from the polling places and thus win the election through "special" people that knew it would be safe to vote.

E. Seen it as a complete failure of the Bush Administration to stop terror and ask why they hadn't received intelligence and warned anyone in time?

Finally, take the same situation, insert Clinton, FDR, JFK, Reagen, Lincoln, Carter, or even Pancho Villa and ask yourself which answer you would have chosen. See where you end up and if its different ask yourself why.

** edited to make question bi-partisan

[edit on 1-2-2005 by jukyu]

Originally posted by jukyu
Ask yourself this, if there had been no warnings out during the election in America and a member of Al Quida had blown up a polling place or someing the night before the election would you have:

No, first off, it is better to deal in the real not the hypothetical. If there is real chatter about real splinter cells in the US ready to do real damage to real facilities and real people, then they will be taken out. Homeland Security and Dick Cheney's OSP and new intelligence instruments have different purposes, to filter information and substantiate it in order to justify action programs that have little to do with anti-terrorism.

This has regularly been undertaken by the Bush Administration at a far greater level of abuse of intelligence services than what Nixon went down for.

When real information is about on what happened in Iraq on the day for its elections administered by an occupying authority, it will stack up better, and there will be less need for surmizing.

I will stick to that topic from now on. It's a useful one. Why were tens of thousands of Iraqis unable to vote? Who was responsible for that?

If people can't face or don't like the fact that their government is corrupt, then so be it, there are rosier pictures painted at other websites where such analysis of criminal actions by government does not occur.

Nice job double stepping my question and exercise without even addressing the point. I'm asking you why you see evil in everything the Bush Administration does and wondering if instead of some deep understanding of "what is really happening" if its more of an illogical hatred. I'm doing it for your well being and if I'm wrong and I find out there is some huge conspiracy well, I'll buy you a drink. Well, if there is any possible way for me to send you the money for a drink but whatever you get the point

But I'll more or less close out by agreeing with you. If the Bush Administration hadn't invaded Iraq more votes would have been counted in the Iraqi election, in fact I'll give you that 99 percent would have been counted and would have been for Saddam. The other 1 percent who for what ever reason didn't give into coercion that was the very real thing and reality there, well we're still digging them up in mass graves.

[edit on 1-2-2005 by jukyu]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
When you learn to understand that and the purpose of constant terror messages to justify a fake "War On Terror", you will be nearer to the modus operandi of the corrupt Bush administration.

While I cannot comment on what you may have said post 911, I have a strong suspicion that you were faulting the government for failing to publicise the attacks.

You cannot have it both ways. Either the government issues warnings or it does not. The elections were a legitamate target and I have no doubt there was at the very least chatter about the subject.

MA I can see from you posts that no matter what transpires you will spin spin spin. If the threats were designed to influence the election, where was the Democrat's and thier hue and cry?? Silence???

Originally posted by FredT

MA I can see from you posts that no matter what transpires you will spin spin spin. If the threats were designed to influence the election, where was the Democrat's and thier hue and cry?? Silence???

No. I am not a Republican or Democrat, and I care little for party politics. Perhaps you did not hear me the first few times.

My impressions are not written for you, maybe therefore you choose not to take them on board.

But on your last point, you will see upon rereading that nobody said anything about threats designed to influence any election, except yourself. That spin is all yours.

In Iraq, there was a potential menace to voters that was borne out in reality. The number of deaths is indeed being played down. But in the US, general threat levels and their color codes have been around since Ashcroft's department invented them.

Go on defending the Bush administration ad infinitum, it is a sad cause.

Meanwhile, facts may surface in the next few weeks that are pertinent to this topic. A very interesting one relates to the appointment of scrutineers and who is monitoring that.

[edit on 1-2-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

You know,

Someone just looks bad when they refuse to accept that people they disagree with have done a good thing. Considering the circumstances, this week's vote in Iraq was not only a major step for that country but also a huge leap for the people of the middle east.

Any rational and objective person would admit that it was a huge victory for the Iraqi people and the cause of freedom.

Now, however, we have to contend with the people who only encourage terrorism by exagerating minor problems and spreading defeatist and anti-american rhetoric. To be frank, I think the war on terrorism would be over by now if kneejerk critics of america were not filling the airwaves and internet with rhetoric that can only warm the hearts of the anti-american/anti-civilization fanatics that lurk out there. Really... don't some of you guys realize that you're just helping the real villians when you declare the elections invalid?

It's time to admit that the actions of the US government have brought the beginnings of democracy to the middle east. It's time to stop acting like bitter losers. It's time to stop encouraging the real bad guys with bitter, pouty statements.

To answer your questions, OIMD, it would be useful to know that the elections were valid. To assume that presupposes a whole lot.

To dismiss concerns is as bad as what you do to America when you suppress information about electoral fraud and believe dogmatically that you are in a functional democracy.

Try taking an Iraqi-centred viewpoint on the election and its outcomes, rather than a strategic view of the purpose of the election in some trumped-up "war on terror".

Does anybody really think that this election is going to make any difference? I don't. I think that within the next 6 months to 1 year they country will dissolve into a civil war. Tribe versus tribe,...religion versus religion and we have lost all these lives and all these billions of dollars for nothing. These people do not know peace and it will not prevail...sad to say.

The abiility of the Anti-US, anti-Bush crowd to spin any devolpment no matter how positive into proof of Bush's evil is astounding.
The same people who, prior to the elections, were stating that they would be illegitimte because of a "sunni-arab boycott", are now stateing that the elcton was illegitimte because turnout among sunni-arabs was so high that some polling stations ran out of ballots, and in some cases ran out of ballots twice.
Are you people really incapable of seeing the hypocracy inherent in your viewpoint?
Am I the only one who believes that an unexpectedly high turnout among sunni-arabs in spite of death threats and fatwahs aginst the elections and those who vote in them is an amzingly positive sign?
Are you people so dedicated to espousing the belief that nothing good can come of this situation that all higher brain functions have collapsed under the weight of your own bull#?
There was no sunni-arab boycott.
There was no conspiracy to deny the sunni-arabs thier rightful vote.
The Iraqi election comission, like much of the rest of the world was taken in by the notion that the sunni-arabs would boycott, so they did not plan on as high of a turnout as was expected in the south and north.
Every media outlet in the world was expecting a low turnout among sunni-arabs, as were the IEC. The whole world made the mistake of buying into the terrorists bull#.
The final nail in the coffin of the idea that the terroeist in Iraq are freedom fighters with the people behind them has been hammered in, and many of you are using it as proof that the elections were illegitimate?
How convoluted must your thinking be to rationilise an amazingly high voter turnout as proof of an elections illegitimacy?


I feel truly sorry for people like masked avatar. It must hurt to see that all the hate,venom, and bile you have been regurgitating on a regular basis is unfounded and in the end irrelevant.

Freedom is on the march, and in the mean while many of you are standing by the side of the road watching the world pass you by.


the same people who see this as proof of the "illegitimacy" of the iraqi elections probably wont undersatnd this quote either.

by john ashcroft "The New York Times annually sums up this resistance to reality when it runs a story wondering with violent crime at an all-time low why so many people are in prison," he said.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by mwm1331]

Originally posted by mwm1331

I feel truly sorry for people like masked avatar. It must hurt to see that all the hate,venom, and bile you have been regurgitating on a regular basis is unfounded and in the end irrelevant.

Everyone has their own opinions, I feel sorry for no one.

This is not about the U.S. election. It was a news report that thousands of Iraqis were unable to vote because there were not enough ballots.

I find it very interesting how this thread shows the divided thinking between left and right.. Some believe there was nothing more than underestimating the voter turn-out.. Others believe it was a conspiracy to keep a group of Muslims from voting in some areas. More extreme believe it was a plan by the Bush administration.

I am wondering if any of this matters to the Iraqis who were turned away from voting?

After all, that is what the report was about.

Gazz

Originally posted by mwm1331
The abiility of the Anti-US, anti-Bush crowd to spin any devolpment no matter how positive into proof of Bush's evil is astounding.

How can you say that this "Anti-US, anti-Bush crowd" does not have a point?
No elections should be held anywhere at anytime unless there is 100% security, ballot papers for everyone that wants to vote and every polling station guaranteed to be open. If you cannot provide this and still proceed to host elections then it will be prone to criticism and considered by many to be a farce, plain and simple. Iraq was in no condition to take this action.

Also, where is this positive you speak of? Violence continues and coalition troops, Iraqi resistance fighters, and civilians are still dying. Meanwhile the Iraqi National Guard Forces are in no shape or number to take the reigns for quite some time.

To compensate for the loss of fighting power, one officer said, commanders intend to put the Iraqi units they train in the field.
"It will be a process of 'train-fight-train'," the officer said.

US plans to reassign troops in Iraq

Can you honestly believe that Iraqi's will flock to such National Guard training when America simply plans to throw them into the front lines before they're training is even complete?
Then again I am forgetting that America would rather sacriface a dozen Iraqi's in order to save one American life.
Quite sickening really.

If you have to have 100 percent security and accuracy guaranteed before you hold an election, there would not be an election held on this planet. Take any situation where you're dependant on the actions of millions of seperate entities to peform as they're supposed to and see what your chances of total success are? I'm not one that can do probabilitiies so any help here would be appreciated. No matter what you do, there are going to be problems and innacuracies in the system. The good thing about national elections is you can get the chances of problems down to a low enough level that it doesn't influence the outcome. (Ok I realize that Florida calls that into question but that was the exception more then the rule.) But all of these problems don't add up to some sinister plot, it just proves that humans are inperfect and anything created by imperfect beings will have some flaws no matter small as well.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

Originally posted by mwm1331

I feel truly sorry for people like masked avatar. It must hurt to see that all the hate,venom, and bile you have been regurgitating on a regular basis is unfounded and in the end irrelevant.

Everyone has their own opinions, I feel sorry for no one.

Thanks Gazz, I feel the same way.

There is nothing unfounded in addressing the criminality of the Bush administration until justice is served.

Masked Avatar says:

”Unlike members who might swallow positive spin and celebratory statements of the controlling interests in Iraq (and who can blame them as they need a dose of joy to balance their fear and loathing), it may be preferable to use substantiated facts and not surmize [sic] the reasons why any particular event reported or not yet reported has occurred”

Any yet, Masked Avatar, you say things like:

”The rot sets in very quickly and spoils the "celebrations".”
“It is, no matter what else, a statement that the election cannot be legitimate.”
“…why the outcome that is being engineered….”
“Probably not any one with the Bush administration engineering it. Obviously.”

And I suppose these are what you consider “substantiated facts”?

Masked Avatar, you’re as much a spinmeister as anyone in the Administration; you just use a different spin.

What utter hypocrisy!