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.
No one should get the blame. The political process was rushed in Iraq because Bush and his cronies are trying to get the UN and Europen countries to take the role of US troops in Iraq. Dead GIs dosnt help Bush in the polls.
do nothing to present the real picture.
Correspondents say the planned system could favour independent candidates, including warlords, so officials may consider a switch to one more beneficial to emerging political parties.
Originally posted by xpert11
No one should get the blame. The political process was rushed in Iraq because Bush and his cronies are trying to get the UN and Europen countries to take the role of US troops in Iraq. Dead GIs dosnt help Bush in the polls.
as posted by Marg
This link has excellent latest news from Afghanistan.
www.myafghan.com...
Originally posted by Seekerof
"Excellent"?
How so, Marg?
seekerof
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Somewhat changing the direction of our conversation, but what do you think about the direction this electoral districting might take? Some might say that if a certain area which historically or culturally could be defined as a legitimate district of its own wanted to elect the local warlord, then it would be gerrymandering to avoid such an outcome. On the other hand, some might argue that if a tribal area wants to elect the local warlord that it threatens to divide the nation and that they have to be balanced out somehow.
What say you? Is all "electoral engineering" bad, or might this be justified?
Bear in mind the very first thing you said in this topic (as bolded and underlined above).
After reading this post and your following posts, your just a walking contradiction today, ain't ya?