Iraqi Blogs and Election

[I miss Reagan]

I believe Krusty has beat me to the punch and soundly refuted your arguments but allow me to add a few points.

There's 152,000 U.S. troops are currently stationed in Iraq along with about 25,000 other foreign soldiers. For all intents and purposes, it was unilateral.

"all intents and purposes"? Now you're just being obtuse. I would like to know exactly how many troops from other countries would be sufficient for it to not be unilateral in your eyes.

Which is precisely why Bush's little adventure sets such a dangerous precedent.

Actually the other 91 unenforced security counsel resolutions set the "dangerous precedent", not your annoyingly repetetive scapegoat, George Bush. When one of those unenforced resolutions threatens the US, they'll defend themselves. The only mistake made was Bush listening to Powel and going to the UN in the first place. I would also add, it's tough to take seriously an organisation that has Libya and Syria chair it's human rights commission.

Touching? I think the word you're looking for is "carefully

stage managed".

LOL How did I know you'd resort to that weak explanation. You're blind loyalty is hillarious.

[I miss Reagan]

Interesting quote from the Star today referencing an article from the NY Times (Liberal slosh eh Righties)

Dated Sept. 4, 1967, it's headed, "U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror."

It reads, "United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam ... The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government ..."

We all know how that movie ended.

Boy that sounds familiar.... WOW

What's your point? The South Vietnamese were invaded by communists. Why don't you go to Saigon and ask some of the people how it felt. I have. Ask them how they feel about N. Vietnamese coming down and taking their jobs away from them, even today.

[caesar]

Actually the other 91 unenforced security counsel resolutions set the "dangerous precedent", not your annoyingly repetetive scapegoat, George Bush. When one of those unenforced resolutions threatens the US, they'll defend themselves. The only mistake made was Bush listening to Powel and going to the UN in the first place. I would also add, it's tough to take seriously an organisation that has Libya and Syria chair it's human rights commission.

The UN has world authority; not GWB. The attack on Iraq was based on fraud and forgeries. Israel has violated more UN resolutions despite escaping the more serious resolution thank to the USA blindly vetoeing any resolution it can against Israel.

Well at least Bush finally paid up some long delayed dues to the UN in an attempt to buy the vote.

As for Libyan and Syrian delegates heading the human rights commission; it could be worse; it could be the USA or Israel. Other than their countries misdeeds; do you have any proof that these delegates are not doing a good job????

[Black Dog]

Now, I imagine that France and Germany and all the rest of the anti US/War natins would have used this opportunity and brought forth a resolution to draw shame and angst onto the US but they did not. Why? Because even France knew it was legal, and said so before the war.

Logical fallacy: affrimation of the consequent.

Oh I see, the qualifier for good or bad is amount.

No. The number of troops involved had nothing to do with the morality of what they were participating in. But since one nation planned, conducted and continues to shoulder the overwhelming burden of the war, this was a de facto unilateral war.

I would like to know exactly how many troops from other countries would be sufficient for it to not be unilateral in your eyes.

Tell me, what country set up the provisional government?

LOL How did I know you'd resort to that weak explanation. You're blind loyalty is hillarious.

I was thinking the same of you, sunshine.

[I miss Reagan]

But since one nation planned, conducted and continues to shoulder the overwhelming burden of the war, this was a de facto unilateral war.

Really. So how does Tony Blair and the UK fit in with your unilateral opinion? And I guess by your logic the US "unilaterally" invaded Kosovo since they shouldered the burden. And Somalia, and Haiti, and Gulf War '91, and Japan and Korea...

Tell me, what country set up the provisional government?

Straaawww Man.

[I miss Reagan]

The UN has world authority

Self proclaimed authority. Any threat the UN makes rings hallow, because they don't enforce anything. Like it or not the US has world authority and NATO has world authority. The UN is just a lame duck paper tiger. Nothing they say carries any weight. Ask those who have suffered in Rwanda or Sudan.

As for Libyan and Syrian delegates heading the human rights commission; it could be worse; it could be the USA or Israel. Other than their countries misdeeds; do you have any proof that these delegates are not doing a good job????

Does anyone else find the irony in this comment funny?

[Shakeyhands]

IMR

What's your point?

I think the point is that here they are again in the same sort of situation (ie, one they shouldn't be in) and they are spinning the same old BS.

[August1991]

Dated Sept. 4, 1967, it's headed, "U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror."

It reads, "United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam ... The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government ..."

We all know how that movie ended.

Boy that sounds familiar.... WOW

Shakey, you are working under the bizarre assumption that these 1967 Vietnam elections were a fraud and the invasion by the North in 1975 was legitimate. Shakey, have you ever heard of the "boat people"?

I don't want to lose track of the thread here but Vietnam must be seen as a battle in a much larger Cold War. The Americans won that War and prevailed over the Soviets and the Maoist Chinese. Thank God.

The UN has world authority; not GWB.

Any institution that names Libya to head its Human Rights Commission, gives equal votes to dictators like Assad or Mugabe as to our democratic PM PM and then creates such wacky organizations as UNESCO has no authority whatsoever.

When the Swissair plane crashed off Nova Scotia, a large number of victims were UN employees in First Class flying from New York to Geneva. That's what the UN is now: A series of cocktail parties in five star hotels.

After its idealistic creation, the UN quickly became one way for the Soviets and Americans to talk and for others to talk about those two "superpowers". That purpose has now disappeared. The UN is now moribund.

The United Staes then, is the OJ Simpson of nations: guilty as hell, but off on a technicality because, for whatever reason, the UN hasn't called them to task on their actions.

That is quite possible, however, once again, the only body that can rule that it is ilegal is the UN and they have not. Hence, you can get every lawyer on the planet shaking their fists but it means nothing in reality.

KK has ruled that Bush Jnr's (er, the Coalition's) invasion of Iraq was not illegal. I have no desire to tangle with KK on the subject. I'll accept his opinion (and all others would be wise to do the same). Otherwise, this thread will turn into an endless series of quotes from UN resolutions... Ughh.

First of all the US didn't invade Iraq on their own. It wasn't "unilateral". Second if it was illegal, who was there to enforce this law? Why didn't the UN unite and punish the 30 countries that participated in the invasion with sanctions or otherwise? A lot of whining and crying by Kofi, France, Russia, and Germany does not constitute illegality. Without enforcement the law ceases to exist.

The problem with this argument, IMR, is that it implies that "might makes right". Well, the Khmer Rouge were not right.

IMV, the current situation seems to be that the World's de facto parliament is that most exclusive democratic club, the US Congress. The US president can intervene militarily abroad if he can convince enough Congressman that the project makes sense. The Congessmen seem to prefer if the US President has several democractic foreign governments on side.

I think this is a good situation for the world until the democratic powers figure out a better way to organize themselves. Take the G-7: US, UK, Italy, Japan are in the coalition. Germany, France, Canada are not. The majority wins.

[I miss Reagan]

The problem with this argument is that it implies that might makes right.

Hmmm. True. Isn't that what our own system is based on? Majority rules? But with respect to legality, it the invasion was indeed illegal should not the UN have passed resolutions against the US (of course they would not be enforced) to cease all action against Iraq? France, Germany, Russia, China, OPEC arguably have enough econmic power to impose sanctions, no?

August what is your opinion of the use of the buzzword "unilateral" with respect to the war in Iraq?

[Shakeyhands]

I am saying that the US Gov't has a vested interest (read into that what you may) in portraying the election as a grand success and delivering some sort of news from Iraq that is positive. Lets face it here, every pretense that they had for their invasion (legal or otherwise) has crumbled and without any new reason for the invasion (i.e bringing democracy) they lose all credibility. The real battle now is for the hearts and minds in the US.

And to be sure, the demise of the Soviets was most likely brought on in the end by the failed Afghan campaign, not anything that Ronnie did.

[Guest eureka]

It appears that those lonely supporters of aggression are now coming tot he point of view that it would be correct for other Members of the UN to invade Israel to enforce the Resolutions that they have ignored.

By the By, can anyone tell me what a lame duck paper tiger is?

[Guest eureka]

The elections of 1967 in Vietnam were indeed a fraud and the real turnout was nowhere near the figure the Americans claimed. Both those are facts that have long been known.

Was the invasion by the North legitimate? It may be so. Vietnam was an artificially divided country with, as the evidence of the post war proved, a majority that held similar ideas to their Northern brethren. They were not willingly subjects of the thugs (propped up by the US) who governed the South

Does it sound a little familiar?

[I miss Reagan]

By the By, can anyone tell me what a lame duck paper tiger is?

Here's some help.

lame duck

n.

1. An elected officeholder or group continuing in office during the period between failure to win an election and the inauguration of a successor.

An officeholder who has chosen not to run for reelection or is ineligible for reelection.

2. An ineffective person; a weakling.

paper tiger

n.

1.One that is seemingly dangerous and powerful but is in fact timid and weak: “They are paper tigers, weak and indecisive” (Frederick Forsyth).

2. the nature of a person or organization that appears powerful but is actually powerless and ineffectual; "he reminded Mao that the paper tiger had nuclear teeth"

By the by, it is because of us "lonely supporters of aggression" that you are free to speak your mind and not under Germanic fascist oppression or Soviet communist oppression.

[I miss Reagan]

The elections of 1967 in Vietnam were indeed a fraud and the real turnout was nowhere near the figure the Americans claimed. Both those are facts that have long been known.

Rewriting history hmm.

as the evidence of the post war proved, a majority that held similar ideas to their Northern brethren.

Was this before or after they left communist re-education camps?

They were not willingly subjects of the thugs (propped up by the US) who governed the South

Is this why South Vietnamese were scrambling for the last helicopters as they left the US embassy in '75?

I don't think the war in Vietnam was the right decision, but I think to say that the people in Saigon wanted to be united with the North is ignorant. Go to Vietnam and ask the people about it.

[August1991]

Was the invasion by the North legitimate? It may be so. Vietnam was an artificially divided country with, as the evidence of the post war proved, a majority that held similar ideas to their Northern brethren. They were not willingly subjects of the thugs (propped up by the US) who governed the South

This is where you and I disagree, eureka. I believe Mao, Brezhnev and Ho Chi Minh were the thugs. You apparently think otherwise.

I will just remind you that after their victory in Vietnam in 1975, the Soviets used Cuban surrogates in Angola and then invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Laos became a dictatorship and Cambodia became a Communist killing field.

The Maoists and the Soviets were regimes of thugs and fear. Like the mafia and the Hell's Angels, they employed crude force to exercice their power. The US government is very, very different.

[Guest eureka]

So is a "lame duck paper tiger" something like an enfeebled centaur?

[Guest eureka]

The thugs, August, were the South Vietnamese leaders. They were the clients of the Americans.

The Americans lost the war because they could not get the support of the people and, indeed, suffered from its hostility - much like Iraq.

What happened after is not the same and it is conceivable that there might have been a different outcome had the US been a little more in tune with the real world and its desires.

[Black Dog]

I will just remind you that after their victory in Vietnam in 1975, the Soviets used Cuban surrogates in Angola and then invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Laos became a dictatorship and Cambodia became a Communist killing field.

The Maoists and the Soviets were regimes of thugs and fear. Like the mafia and the Hell's Angels, they employed crude force to exercice their power. The US government is very, very different.

Izzat so? Is that why the U.S. used surrogates in the 1980's to torture and terroize the population of Latin America? Or why they launched seCret, illegal bombing campaigns against Camodia and Laos during the Vietnam War? Used chemical weapons in 'Nam, and DU in Iraq that has lasting affects to this day?

Get over your myopia. The U.S. ain't much better than the rest. They just have loftier rhetoric.

Anyway, getting back to the subject of Iraqi elections, there's still no official numbers for voter turnout and the original estimates (surprise!) may have been too generous.

Click

Since Sunday, countless TV talking heads, such as Chris Matthews, and print pundits have compared the Iraq turnout favorably to U.S. national elections, not seeming to understand that 80%-90% of our registered voters usually turn out. The problem in our country is that so few people bother to register, bringing our overall turnout numbers way down.

Howard Kurtz at least looked into the Iraqi numbers. In a Tuesday column, he observed that "the 14 million figure is the number of registered Iraqis, while turnout is usually calculated using the number of eligible voters. The number of adults in Iraq is probably closer to 18 million," which would lower the turnout figure to 45% (if, indeed, the 8 million number holds up).

To put it clearly: If say, for example, 50,000 residents of a city registered and 25,000 voted, that would seem like a very respectable 50% turnout, by one standard. But if the adult population of the city was 150,000, then the actual turnout of 16% would look quite different.

"Election officials concede they did not have a reliable baseline on which to calculate turnout," Kurtz concluded.

As for the Vietnam election parralells, there's other, more recent (and eeirie) ones to be found by looking at "demonstration elections" in El Salvador and Gutamala in the '80s.

The U.S. government has employed a number of devices in its sponsored elections to put them in a favorable light. It has also had an identifiable agenda of issues that it wants stressed, as well as others it wants ignored or downplayed. Central to demonstration-election management has been the manipulation of symbols and agenda to give the favored election a positive image. The sponsor government tries to associate the election with the happy word "democracy" and the military regime it backs with support of the elections (and hence democracy). It emphasizes what a wonderful thing it is to be able to hold any election at all under conditions of internal conflict, and it makes it appear a moral triumph that the army has agreed to support the election (albeit reluctantly) and abide by its results.

The refusal of the rebel opposition to participate in the election is portrayed as a rejection of democracy and proof of its antidemocratic tendencies, although the very plan of the election involves the rebels' explusion from the ballot. The sponsor government also seizes upon any rebel statements urging nonparticipation or threatening to disrupt the election. These are used to transform the election into a dramatic struggle between, on the one side, the "born-again" democratic army and people struggling to vote for "peace," and, on the other, the rebels opposing democracy, peace, and the right to vote. Thus the dramatic denoument of the election is voter turnout, which measures the ability of the forces of democracy and peace (the army) to overcome rebel threats.

Sound familiar? This was cribbed from Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" but describes the situation in Iraq today to a tee.

[August1991]

Sound familiar? This was cribbed from Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" but describes the situation in Iraq today to a tee.

Chomsky, the guy's a scream. But the use of this quote in parallel to the Iraqi election is truly hilarious.

A Spanish minority in Central America is forced by the US to share power with the majority Native Indians through democratic elections. The Spanish minority is not happy about this and tries to screw things up. Chomsky blames the US government.

A Sunnite minority in Iraq is forced by the US to share power with the majority Shiite and Kurds through democratic elections. The Sunnite minority is not happy about this and tries to screw things up. BD quotes Chomsky and notes the remarkable parallel.

Sorry, the only parallel I see is "blame the US government".

No, there's a slight difference. The Western non-American, "progressive" Left blames the USians. "Progressive", American liberals blame the US government.

Anyway, getting back to the subject of Iraqi elections, there's still no official numbers for voter turnout and the original estimates (surprise!) may have been too generous.

Yeah, well, you know. Yadda, yadda. (Translation: Sour grapes.)

Let's face it. The "progressive" Left is on the wrong side of this issue. And it doesn't know what to do. In classic fashion, it either ignores the Elephant or goes hysterical claiming "Bush is Psycho". (Harper at least makes a stab at reasoned debate by putting ads in newspapers.)

One of our own August's favorite catch phrases is "the left confuses symbols for reality." Of course, such confusion is not limited soley to the left side of the spectrum as all the hoo-hah over the Iraqi election demonstrates, as people across the board trip over themselves to crow over the "triumph of democracy in Iraq".

Well, those people holding up their inked finger, now that's a symbol the Left can grasp. More than anything else, I think it hurt many Leftists to see that raised V with the inked finger. (Think how the Left could have turned that into a symbol of international solidarity.)

On the other hand, you are right BD. Let's wait and see how this plays out in Iraq. For now, the only real change is that many ordinary Iraqis found the courage to overcome their fear and walk to a polling station.

It'll be easier the next time; I notice there are several more elections scheduled soon. People need several to get used to it.

Have you noticed BD that Iraq is surprisingly quiet now?

Note: I will start another thread on the other US/World question.

[Guest eureka]

Did not many of those Iraquis walk to the polls out of fear of going hungry? This election was a farce in terms of a democratic exercise.

[August1991]

Did not many of those Iraquis walk to the polls out of fear of going hungry? This election was a farce in terms of a democratic exercise.

If it was a farce, why did all those Iraqis show those purple fingers?

Check This Out

Sorry, you guys lose. At your own Hollywood game.

*Sigh* Me says: 'God is the Left ever clueless.'

I admire the Left's desire to protect and help ordinary people. But you people are clueless in how to do it. A bunch of ditzy do-gooders. Angry second daughters. Or maybe you just want to "Eat the Rich". Anyway, you don't get it.

[Guest eureka]

It was a farce, Aufust, because many Iraquis voted only after being threatened with the loss of their ration cards - their only access to food.

It was a farce because most Iraquis had no idea of what they were voting for nor who the candidates were or what they stood for.

It was a farce because most of the Iraquis voted because their religious leaders told them to. It was revealing that so many did not vote even though these religious leaders had told them to vote.

The number of Iraquis who did vote is not really that great. It is a fact that less than 60% of registered voters showed up at the polls and that number is being revised downwards. It is a fact that a very large number of Iraquis did not register so that the proportion that did vote is relatively small.

As an exercise in democracy, it was a failure. It was an attempt to legitimise the regime and political culture that has been imposed on Iraq by the Americans.

The aim is to give legal sanction to the rape of Iraq by the US. It seeks to confirm the privatization of all state owned business in Iraq and to place control of that in American hands. The puppet regime is there to confirm the exclusion of Iraquis themselves from the reconstruction of Iraq which is now the sole preserve of American corporations.

The new regime will confirm the anti-democratic mandate to exclude democratic institutions from Iraq: institutions such as a free press. Al Jazeera has been thrown out of Iraq by the Americans since it is not good for Iraquis to hear any dissenting opinion.

Democracy can only be achieved through internal impulse. It can not be imposed and never in the history of democracy has it been.

[caesar]

If it was a farce, why did all those Iraqis show those purple fingers?

Because the media asked and probably bribed them to. Just as the toppling of the

Saddam statue was all staged.

What a joke.

[Black Dog]

Chomsky, the guy's a scream. But the use of this quote in parallel to the Iraqi election is truly hilarious.

It's funny then, that you're unable to actually refute him.

Joke's on you.

A Spanish minority in Central America is forced by the US to share power with the majority Native Indians through democratic elections. The Spanish minority is not happy about this and tries to screw things up. Chomsky blames the US government.

A Sunnite minority in Iraq is forced by the US to share power with the majority Shiite and Kurds through democratic elections. The Sunnite minority is not happy about this and tries to screw things up. BD quotes Chomsky and notes the remarkable parallel.

ZOOM! Hear that? That's the sound of the point whizzing over your head, as per usual. However, your utterly vacuous response betrays a (subconcious?) understanding of the situation, as indicated by your use of the qword "force".

Well, those people holding up their inked finger, now that's a symbol the Left can grasp. More than anything else, I think it hurt many Leftists to see that raised V with the inked finger. (Think how the Left could have turned that into a symbol of international solidarity.)

Apologist: "The Iraqi election was a success! The left wing was wrong! Ha ha!"

Realist: "Actually, there are historic parralells to show that such elections are purely symbolic and not actually related to the formation of a democracy."

Apologist: "How can you say that when the elections were such a success?"

You need a clue, and fast.

Have you noticed BD that Iraq is surprisingly quiet now?

Violence flares after election; 50 Iraqi police killed

2 U.S troops, 21 Iraqis killed, mosque bombed

Bodies of 8 kidnapped Iraqi police found

Insurgents battle Iraqi security; 22 killed

[I miss Reagan]

Chomsky, the guy's a scream. But the use of this quote in parallel to the Iraqi election is truly hilarious.

I laughed too when I saw that it was from Chomsky. So cliche. The pied piper of ideological college students.