Will the JAN 30th Iraqi elections work?

Will the JAN 30 Iraqi elections work?

  • not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
I really don't know.....

But what is happening in Iraq is the deciding face of Islam. Whether freedom reigns or not, will decide which direction it will take. If they choose not to be free, then the west will be in trouble for years to come.
 
But what is happening in Iraq is the deciding face of Islam. Whether freedom reigns or not, will decide which direction it will take. If they choose not to be free, then the west will be in trouble for years to come.
Click to expand...

I don't see this situation as a religious one, it is more of a political one.
 
The election will most certainly happen. The Sunnis' proposed boycott of the election is the biggest problem, but the fact of the matter is, they are not being forced to boycott. If they were being forced, that would be another matter. Because every Sunni has the choice, the Sunni leaders and clerics are only encouraging them to screw themselves over further. No different in some angsty 19 year old kid in the USA saying, "I'm not voting because I don't believe in the process." The fact is that you gave up your chance to help determine the outcome. You have no right to complain about the results.


The sooner the destiny of Iraq rests firmly in the hands of Iraqis, the better.
 
EuroSpike said:
"The Sunni area of central Iraq doesn't have a whole lot. Want the Sunnis to be suckers? Cut Iraq into 3 different countries."

They want to be leaders in Iraq. They don't want wrong beliefed dogs to mess their business and occupy their land. They want it as much as you would want China to occupy USA and turn it to black hole of communism. Arabs don't want or need western democracy and they don't rispect it as a goverment. Turning arabs to western democracy is like to turn a capitalist to be a communist.

When US after all someday pulls it's troops out from Iraq, there will be a civil war between different groups to check out who is the boss of the sandbox. Then will a brand new Saddam raise to take over. Weaker groups who try to disagree, will be eliminated.
Click to expand...

Why should I say more? Simply agree. And I believe it is the cruel facts of current Iraq.
 
Elections will happen but not sure how things will play out from then on.

Security will be an ongoing issue (I"LL SAY IT AGAIN. NOT ENOUGH TROOPS!). Health and a stable power supply are also big concerns with the Iraq people.

Apart from the Sunni problem, it will be interesting to see how the Kurds and Shiites work together in government particularly as the Kurds seem to be insisting on continuing their autonomy in the north. The Shiites don't like that idea much.

Re-construction in Fallujah must happen promptly. Delays may create more support for the insurgents from the local population (when they can return!)

The US still needs the UN in Iraq. Its rather sad that the UN has to operate its programs from neighbouring Jordan because of the continuing risk to its people inside Iraq.
 
Security will be an ongoing issue (I"LL SAY IT AGAIN. NOT ENOUGH TROOPS!)
Click to expand...

But do you really think more troops will solve the final problem?
I believe more troops will only make it look a bit quieter/safer in Iraq, for a bit more time, but the ROOT of the Iraq mess is still not solved by this MORE troops. When troops gone home, the ROOT problem pops up again.

Another point:
Didn't you all hear Bush say the Iraq Election in July 2005 during APEC?
Well, I believe it will still be held in Jan, but it will just be a "shadow" election, it looks like an election, but not one wholy hearted by Iraqi people. I this time, Iraqi ppl does not care elections at all, they only care: FOOD, SAFETY.
 
FlyingFrog said:
Security will be an ongoing issue (I"LL SAY IT AGAIN. NOT ENOUGH TROOPS!)
Click to expand...

But do you really think more troops will solve the final problem?
I believe more troops will only make it look a bit quieter/safer in Iraq, for a bit more time, but the ROOT of the Iraq mess is still not solved by this MORE troops. When troops gone home, the ROOT problem pops up again.

Another point:
Didn't you all hear Bush say the Iraq Election in July 2005 during APEC?
Well, I believe it will still be held in Jan, but it will just be a "shadow" election, it looks like an election, but not one wholy hearted by Iraqi people. I this time, Iraqi ppl does not care elections at all, they only care: FOOD, SAFETY.
Click to expand...

Look, I see your point. We are not going to see whether this whole Iraqi business is going to work until US boots are off the ground. That could be years.

At present a lot of Iraqi people are not feeling secure on a day to day basis. More peacekeeping troops are needed to secure the real estate. The US troops are excellent at winning the battles (they have the right numbers for that) but peacekeeping is another matter. The trained up Iraqi units are a long way from being reliable. The UN is badly needed in Iraq. Poor security is keeping them out.

I think the the Iraqi people at present want a "strong man". Alawi could be that man as long as the US backs him for years. Alawi probably has many enemies. I have my doubts that the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds are going to respect a democratic process if there isn't a strong military on the ground to back it up. These groups have self interests to protect and old axes to grind.
 
since I created this topic, the insurgents have done a number on the interm Iraqi governmnet.

Attacks have claimed the lives of Baghdad's provincial governor; the security chief for Iraq's Independent Election Commission in Diyala province; the deputy director for the Iraqi Islamic Party in the northern city of Mosul; along with U.S. soldiers and scores of Iraqi police and civilians.
Click to expand...
CNN

I do hope that the Iraqis will still go to the polls. A few car bombs at polling stations would go a long way to disrupting the elections.
 
Amen to that Doody. There has been so much bloodshed and sacrifice to bring them this far that I'd hate to see the terrorists succeed. This is the one chance that the Iraqis have to freely choose who their leaders will be and that scares the crap out of those who would rule by fear and violence.
 
I think you should take a closer look at Egypt and Jordan before you make those kind of sweeping generalizations, Eurospike.
 
I heard Allawi and Washington proposed that elections be held over a period of one or two weeks, instead than a bare two days. This would give the Iraqis more time to go to the polls and also would make it impossible for one single big attack to ruin the whole process.
 
i've said this to other boards, and i'll say it again.

invading Iraq took down one (imo) awful leader. the whole nature and background of that entire area dictates that teh leader has ultimate power, and is easily replaced. the power struggles mean little because A) After you assassinate one person, the rest of his group hates you and kills you, or somebody else sees an opening. and B) it wont matter much to anyone but you, you're a figurehead for the people, changing the name on the money is all that happens.

and the nature of fighting there hasn't changed much either, whatever it takes to bring your man to power; including wiping entire villages and schools of children to make a point.

i'm sorry if this post is racist or derogatory to anyone or everyone here, these are my views and i see them to be true.
 
Porion said:
i'm sorry if this post is racist or derogatory to anyone or everyone here, these are my views and i see them to be true.
Click to expand...

Porion if you ever make a racist or derogatory post here it will be deleted and you will be banned whether it's your opinion or not makes no difference.
 
Blame the brits and french. As far as i'm aware the country was made by Britain in the early 1900's....i think

Just to confirm that just found this:
Iraq was carved out of the old Ottoman Empire by direction of the UK government on January 10, 1919, and on November 11, 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq".

At the end of the war, ownership of and access to Iraq's petroleum was split five ways: 23.75% each to the UK, France, The Netherlands and the USA, with the remaining 5% going to a private oil corporation headed by Calouste Gulbenkian. The Iraqi government got none of the nation's oil. This remained the situation until the revolution of 1958.

The British government laid out the institutional framework for Iraqi government and politics; the Iraqi political system suffered from a severe legitimacy crisis; Britain imposed a Hashemite monarchy, defined the territorial limits of Iraq with little correspondence to natural frontiers or traditional tribal and ethnic settlements, and influenced the writing of a constitution and the structure of parliament. The British also supported narrowly based groups -- such as the tribal shaykhs over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement, and resorted to military force when British interests were threatened, as in the 1941 Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani coup. This coup led to a British invasion of Iraq using forces from the British Indian Army under General Sir Edward Quinan, combined with an attack by the British controlled Arab Legion based in Jordan. This led to a very rapid defeat for the Iraqi army in May 1941.
Click to expand...

For anyone who didn't know.

And I don't really know what the outcome will be. I've lost interest in the Iraq "war" or "occupation" or whatever. No good news has come out of it IMO. Coalition needed a reason to test out new weapons or something? lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top