a successful election in Iraq, maybe a new start? - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
February 3rd, 2005  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
The thing is, I don't think any of the insurgents are in the position to take over the country. Not even from the start. Remember, they are different factions that oppose each other. Right now it LOOKS like they're on the same side because they're attacking the Americans. If America pulls out for some reason, and the democratic government crumbles, then these guys would just be slugging it out for God knows how long.
You make a good point, they probably couldn't muster enough fighters to take over the entire country. But what's possible, is that the country could be split in two, or even three. The Shi'ites control a good bit of Iraq's wealth, do they not? It would be a long hard struggle for the oil fields, I presume. Either way, such chaos would make the land ripe for terrorist camps.

Ah but we stayed, and we are staying, so we'll probably never see that.
February 3rd, 2005  
OutcastHuman
 
The succesful election is showing the fall of the insurgents and showing that they can't intimidate the mass of people in Iraq. It's a great thing that we did in Iraq with this Free Election.
February 3rd, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Compare that with American election turnout
Considering how things are going over there, it's a pretty decent turnout. Like everyone says, it's step 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordFish_13
Hi,

The Turnout was Decent i would say ...................more than i expected ............... But like i said a few times before ................. Statistics scare me .

Let me see they say 50 % of the Regestered Votes came up to vote ..................now lets see what if only 60 % (of all the eligible ) voters were Registered and out of that 50 % voted ............ hmmmmmmmm now what's the actual turwnout

Told you statistics can be easily molded to look the way you want it to be

Why do i have to play Devils Advocate everytime

Peace
-=SF-13=-
--
Boots
February 3rd, 2005  
Doc.S
 
I find this self-evident that this is a new start - A few Insurgents and some villain states may disapprove of this new-start for Iraq togheter with some wrongly directed political and bought medial forces and companys that may have earned alot on this fascist dictatorship states that still are enlarge on/upon this world, but their customer list shrinks for every year with one man in office, and alot of turncoats have to reconsider where they want to stand when the fat-lady sings so to speak. In short term - No one (wants) can efford to stand in the loosers corner more then twice, (hopefully) 8)

Doc.S
February 3rd, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
only 60% of potential voters registered?? and 50% of them went to vote...

that is a damn sad number.....
February 4th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
You think so?
Consider this:

Iraq has poor infrastructure
- Transporting people from one place or another is very difficult, meaning those living in small towns will be hard to reach.
- It is unsafe, and therefore many will be tempted to stay home.
- It's the first time they're doing this, and even with foreign help, this is an on the job learning experience for the Iraqis.
- Litteracy is a problem, meaning that helpers will be required at the polling booths. And more than one translator at that.
- Sunnis boycotted it because hey, they want Saddam back.

Basically you have all that working against you. It's not bad. It's a start. That's what's important. If anything, those who were brave enough to show up will have their voices heard. And their voice counts the most.
February 4th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
ya....thumbs up for iraqis

but i think medias really exaggrated the success cuz the turn out is not so great IF the number i put up there is right
February 4th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Wasn't just US media, it was world media. I find it hard to argue with the impartiality of that.
February 4th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Wasn't just US media, it was world media. I find it hard to argue with the impartiality of that.
en...actually i didn't mention U.S media at all...

i just said media is exggerating...


r u having a problem with me like u tend to find problems whenever i talk...? do we have a misunderstanding or something?
February 4th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
I didn't say you _said_ US media. I only mentioned it in order to note that it was accepted worldwide and so to make it unlikely that the majority of news agencies in the world would exagerate at the same time.