Iraqi Elections

[jerseydevil]

Bombing fails to deter 'Peace Day'
On Thursday, a suicide car bomb detonated at a traffic intersection about 100 meters away from the governor's compound, killing one police officer and wounding four others.

Dozens were gathered at the governor's compound -- former insurgents, local and tribal leaders, pro-Baathist members of the community and coalition officials -- invited to what was called "Peace Day," an opportunity for reconciliation talks ahead of the elections.

The blast shook the compound and blew out the glass of the foyer. As the U.S. military and the press rushed outside, the Iraqis in the auditorium sat unfazed, saying, "It's nothing."

A former Baath Party member who would not disclose his name said, "It's a part of our life now."

He came to the meeting with 20 of his fellow citizens from Khalis to complain about recent raids in the area. He said the Iraqi police accused him of terrorism.

He said they all signed an agreement at Peace Day that stated they are not acting against coalition or Iraqi forces.

Sunnis urged to vote
He said he believes he is being singled out because he was a former Baath Party member. He said he would vote Sunday "to keep the Shiite list from coming to power." He said he would be voting for Ayad Allawi, the interim prime minister, or Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar, the interim president.

"I ask of all of the people of Diyala to give 10 or 15 minutes to go to the polls, even if you don't vote," said Diyala Gov. Abdullah al-Jouburi, a candidate in the provincial elections, in his closing statement to the crowd.

"Just to go and at least see with your own eyes what it is like to vote, so that next year at least you will be able to say I know about elections."

U.S. military officials said there were eight assassinations at the provincial level in Diyala over the past three months, all of them Shiites.

Diyala's population is 40 percent Sunni, 35 percent Shiite, 25 percent Kurdish, and 5 percent Turkmen and others.

Voting OK in provincial poll
Sunni parties, which have boycotted the elections on the national level, will participate in the provincial elections in Diyala after Sunni religious leaders in Baghdad issued a fatwa, or religious decree, allowing them to do so.

Hafez Abdul Aziz Juma, a candidate for the Iraqi Islamic Party, said that although the party was not fully convinced of the elections' merit, members realized the benefits of participating in Diyala.

"It's in the benefit of the Islamic Party and the benefit of the Sunni parties to participate to create a balance. It's a beginning. The journey of 1,000 days starts with a single step," he said.

Senior U.S. military and Iraqi security officials met at the Joint Coordination Center to discuss election security.

Not only do the armed forces have to secure the province for elections, they also have to ensure the citizens security after they have voted. Voters will have their fingers marked with ink that will last a few days, making it easy for the insurgents to set them apart.

"Our worst nightmare would be to have voters fingers chopped off," one U.S. officer said.

'Iraq is like a sick child'
Pittard said the military feels confident about security come election day and the progress that has been made in the province on all levels.

"We are inspired every day by the people here in Diyala," he said.

Ali Ismail Fatah, director of criminal investigations Diyala, said: "Iraq is like a sick child. If a child starts to get ill and is given a cure right away, then he can get better. But if the medicine is given too late, it won't work in the same way. Now the terrorists know how we operate, they know our methods. Bad blood has started to run."

Fatah said he believes elections should have been held sooner.

He will not vote on election day. He said he does not believe in any of the candidates, but he does believe that elections are at least a step toward change.

Here's hoping for the best tomorrow.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

There is a fundamental flaw that is the undoing of a true a communist government; to maintain a society where everyone is equal, you need a totalitarian regime which undermines the principles of the entire society. However, there is something to be said for many socialist ideas.

In my eyes - canada is too socialist - as is Europe. It takes awqay individula responsibilty and the goal of bettering your life. Why work - if you can live off the government.

I doubt that Iraq will elect a socialist government, but I could be wrong.

Actually - what LCoU was implying was that if a pro-US government is elected - then it must be a set-up. I was the one that said that I wished we left Europe to deal with Nazism and Communism. It would have served them right. It seems as if Last Child is one of those people who think that communism is some sort of utopia society where everyone happily gets along and no one wants anything. yeah right

Who are the major players in this election?

Too many to name.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

What exactly happened here? Is this another one of your conspiracy things?

oh can you name any of my other "conspiracy things"? Id be highly interested in what you think they are. What happened was we had an administration that won on right wing religious issues like gay marriage and abortion and stem cell research among others. And before you say oh well there were some non religious types that voted along those lines as well then better go tell the fundy types with tv channels not to keep going on and on about a "christian moral revolution" last November. when what you say is happening in Iraq is:

Even the hightest sheik is preaching about a secular government.

see the difference now? Who is preaching about a secular government here exactly? if the president declares that its everyones "god given right" to life is that not the exact opposite?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

They can tell us to get out - they've basically have had the power to tell us to get out - however - they want us there. I know you don't believe that

oh hey hey wait a moment... there you go assuming stuff again. I beleive I simply asked WHAT IF who ever is voted into power tells us to get out. Not anything about the Iraqis to a person dont want us there. You can back off putting words in my mouth now.

And my point was what if they DO tell us to get out and then their country turns into another breeding ground for terrorist. What would have been the point of all this?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

oh can you name any of my other "conspiracy things"? Id be highly interested in what you think they are. What happened was we had an administration that won on right wing religious issues like gay marriage and abortion and stem cell research among others.

First off - the government does not outlaw stem cell research. The federal government just isn't funding it - there is a difference. Second - gay marriage isn't just a religious issue. many people - actually more far more than half of America does NOT support gay marriage - most people however support civil unions - again there is difference. Not even Europe supports gay marriage. And unlike Enlgand - most US states allow gay adoptions.

As for abortion - I'm personally against abortion - I only support a woman's right to choose though in the first trimester - and only afterward if her life in in danger. That isn't a religous position - it's my own personal position.

And before you say oh well there were some non religious types that voted along those lines as well then better go tell the fundy types with tv channels not to keep going on and on about a "christian moral revolution" last November.

There was a lot of people saying there is a religious revolution - a lot of them were democrats using scare tactics also. It's sort of similar to them saying that in january we were going to have a draft if bush got reelected. Didn't happen. As for religion in politics - the first amendment only states not having a STATE RELIGION - did does not - contrary to your belief and others - say anything about lack of religion in government. You might want to look at your history if you want to see how religion has played an important part in US politics from it's founding. So don't act like Bush is something new. I found an article last week about Clinton and Bosnia - it quoted Clinton saying he "prayed to god for guidance" in how to handle the situation. Now if Bush said that - which he has - he gets stumped on and there is some 'right wing religious conspiracy" afoot. Give me abreak - it's a double standard.

see the difference now? Who is preaching about a secular government here exactly? if the president declares that its everyones "god given right" to life is that not the exact opposite?

God ahs been mentioned by EVERY president since the founding of this country. This country is not founded on the absense of religion - it is founded on the principal of FREEDOM of Religon. Just because you may disagree with the people who voted for Bush, does not mean they didn't have a right to vote for th person who held their beliefs.

Also - you seem to ignore the fact that it takes congress to do anything when it comes to the issues you have mentioned. Congress is the representation of the people. You have your chance to change the president in 2008 - just get over the election already.


I must say though - with each passing month of whining about the election from liberals - they more and more show that they really deserve the name "liberal whiners".

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

oh hey hey wait a moment... there you go assuming stuff again. I beleive I simply asked WHAT IF who ever is voted into power tells us to get out. Not anything about the Iraqis to a person dont want us there. You can back off putting words in my mouth now.

Well with your attitude and list of conspiracy theories you constantly throw out there all the time - I have a pretty damn good idea of what you think. You seldom refrain from putting words in my mouth - so I don't think I will refrain from stating what I know about you.

And my point was what if they DO tell us to get out and then their country turns into another breeding ground for terrorist. What would have been the point of all this?

The majority of iraqis don't want it to be a breeding ground for terrorists - so I on't think they would be electing a government that would support the terrorists - or tell us to get out before they're ready.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Second - gay marriage isn't just a religious issue. many people - actually more far more than half of America does NOT support gay marriage - most people however support civil unions - again there is difference. Not even Europe supports gay marriage. And unlike Enlgand - most US states allow gay adoptions.

gay adoption is legal , it is the adoption of children by a couple as a couple that is not legal, however one of the men in that relationship can adopt, just that they can't both adopt

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

gay adoption is legal , it is the adoption of children by a couple as a couple that is not legal, however one of the men in that relationship can adopt, just that they can't both adopt

Well in the US some or most states allow gay couples to adopt.

Gay Adoption

Nine states - California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin - as well as D.C. allow for openly gay and lesbian couples to adopt jointly. It is more common for one partner to adopt and then for the second to apply as the second parent, or co-parent. Second parent adoptions creates a second legally recognized parent for the adoptive children. This is the only way for gay couples to both become legal parents of their children. Second parent adoptions have been granted by the courts in twenty-one states as well as D.C. These states include - Alabama, Alaska, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, and Washington.

So my basic point still stands. In many areas - we are ahead of you in gay rights. I frankly tired of gay rights being considered backward here - because of gay marriage - when most countries including in Europe are against gay marriage. As for the adoption thing - you are right - a single gay person can adopt - but you can not adopt jointly - unlike here where you can.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

In my eyes - canada is too socialist - as is Europe. It takes awqay individula responsibilty and the goal of bettering your life. Why work - if you can live off the government.

Because you can't live very well (by Canadian standards anyway) off the government, but it beats living on the streets if you're in hard times. But maybe we should take this to another thread. Can't think which one though.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Too many to name.

Looks like it's time for another Wikipedia search... (when it's not 2am )

EDIT:
About gay rights, several gay marriage pioneers are European countries, so you can't paint all of Europe with one brush. We know where these comments go anyway...

EDIT2:

Not only do the armed forces have to secure the province for elections, they also have to ensure the citizens security after they have voted. Voters will have their fingers marked with ink that will last a few days, making it easy for the insurgents to set them apart.

Where is the ink from? Do you have to get fingerprinted to vote? Is it from the voting procedure itself?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

There was a lot of people saying there is a religious revolution - a lot of them were democrats using scare tactics also.

oh really now. Pat Robertson is a democrat? Jerry Fallwell is a democrat? James Dobson is a democrat? Shall I go on? And all those folk and many more like them were trumpeting Bush’s election as a new “Christian revolution” and an affirmation for the “new moral majority”. They still are.

As for religion in politics - the first amendment only states not having a STATE RELIGION - did does not - contrary to your belief and others - say anything about lack of religion in government.

oh heres where we start spinning and bringing up irrelevancies to the original point as is your usual tactic? Youll note I never once stated that we have a STATE RELIGION but that it was simply IRONIC that you yourself would state (and once again I quote) “Even the hightest sheik is preaching about a secular government” in a land seemingly choked by its religious beliefs and differences when the very opposite is true HERE. Are you going to disagree with that point or are you going to continue to bring up irrelevancies like the first amendment which I never once said forces religion out of government? Try again…

I found an article last week about Clinton and Bosnia - it quoted Clinton saying he "prayed to god for guidance" in how to handle the situation.

ha ha! Show me the fundy moral majority cheerleaders who had good things to say about Clintons reign and Ill be impressed.

God ahs been mentioned by EVERY president since the founding of this country.

once again this isn’t about mentioning the word “god”. Are you still attempting to dodge my point or have you just confused yourself completely?

Just because you may disagree with the people who voted for Bush, does not mean they didn't have a right to vote for th person who held their beliefs.

Now weve gone completely to the point of using me as straw horse to grandstand on your conception of the “ideal liberal”. Rub your eyes. Its just me here. Try talking to the points I made k? Or if you want you can go right ahead and show me where I said religious people shouldn’t have the right to vote thanks.

Also - you seem to ignore the fact that it takes congress to do anything when it comes to the issues you have mentioned.

Wait… what issue is that that I mentioned? Congress needs to do what about the fact that your statement was ironic?

Congress is the representation of the people. You have your chance to change the president in 2008 - just get over the election already.

Oh I see it was just a big long wind bag set up to that final goal. To talk about “getting over the election” once again. Well better find someone who isn’t over the election then if you want to throw out asinine statements like that cause it sure doesn’t apply to me. I find it IRONIC that now if anyone disagrees with Bush for the next four years they have to “get over the election already”. What a fantastic way to argue politics Jersey. When you cant counter the point simply state “oh yeah?? Well… well… yer just jealous cause you LOST!”

I must say though - with each passing month of whining about the election from liberals - they more and more show that they really deserve the name "liberal whiners".

I suppose its better then “conservative loud mouth bores who cant seem to argue on the facts.”

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well with your attitude and list of conspiracy theories you constantly throw out there all the time - I have a pretty damn good idea of what you think.

well then Ill thank you to show some maturity and restraint and speak on what i SAY and not simply reinterpet my words and make up some stuff out of whole cloth and use me to praddle your old arguments about liberals in general. If you want to speak GENERALLY about your distaste for liberalism go ahead. I wont stop you. But dont sit here and have the audacity to make speeches about how I think the first amendment means that religious people shouldnt be allowed to vote. What a joke...

The majority of iraqis don't want it to be a breeding ground for terrorists

well neither did the majority of Afghanis. But look what happened there.

[jerseydevil]

Election has started.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well then Ill thank you to show some maturity and restraint and speak on what i SAY and not simply reinterpet my words and make up some stuff out of whole cloth and use me to praddle your old arguments about liberals in general. If you want to speak GENERALLY about your distaste for liberalism go ahead. I wont stop you. But dont sit here and have the audacity to make speeches about how I think the first amendment means that religious people shouldnt be allowed to vote. What a joke...

And I wish you would frigging grow up and stop the your arrogant condescending tone. You praddle about all the damn time about your damn opinions. I suppose that's okay because of course you support your own opinions. You just don't like people "praddling" when it's about something you don't agree with.

Also - another thing - you can stop twisting my words - where did I say that you said "religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote"? It's YOU who ACTUALLY enjoys putting words in someone's mouth (namely mine). This is what I had said....

Just because you may disagree with the people who voted for Bush, does not mean they didn't have a right to vote for the person who held their beliefs.

I italicized the part you obviously were too busy to read.

Based on YOUR statement - you seem to feel that because religious peopel voted for bush - that they can't say how they feel about abortion, gay rights or about stem cell research. As far as I'm concerned - these issue are up to Americans - and have NOTHING to do with religion. And since religious people arealso Americans - they have a right to stand up for what they believe in. If people choose to support or not support something because of religious reasons - that is their choose. They can still vote for people who support their views. You seem to think that these issues should not be up for discussion at all. That it should be a done deal that these things should just be accepted. Well that's bull ****. There is NOTHIUNG wrong with religious people stating their opinion on these things - nor actually getting their way with these things. The will of the people will decide these things through Congress - and those people include the religious of America.

YOu seem to want to put a religious litmus test on things. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says that people can not look at things from their own religious standpoint and vote based on that standpoint - nor is there anything in the Constitution that says that the government can not side with their opinion. So get over yourself. Just because you may not agree with their opinions doesn't mean that the government can't based decisions on their opinions.

well neither did the majority of Afghanis. But look what happened there.

What happened there?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

oh really now. Pat Robertson is a democrat? Jerry Fallwell is a democrat? James Dobson is a democrat? Shall I go on? And all those folk and many more like them were trumpeting Bush’s election as a new “Christian revolution” and an affirmation for the “new moral majority”. They still are.

yes they were - but the thing is - they are on the fringe of the republican party and you know it. The democrats were the ones making a big deal about it. I heard far more democrats talking about it than I actually heard Republicans talking about it. So don't even try pulling that one.

oh heres where we start spinning and bringing up irrelevancies to the original point as is your usual tactic? Youll note I never once stated that we have a STATE RELIGION but that it was simply IRONIC that you yourself would state (and once again I quote) “Even the hightest sheik is preaching about a secular government” in a land seemingly choked by its religious beliefs and differences when the very opposite is true HERE.

Again - how is it opposite? because a lot of people don't support abortion? Because some people don't support stem cell research? because the MAJORITY of Americans don't support gay marriage? Give it a break. The opposite is not happening here. People have a opinions as I said above and they have the right to vote on those opinions.

Are you going to disagree with that point or are you going to continue to bring up irrelevancies like the first amendment which I never once said forces religion out of government? Try again…

well maybe if you learned how to communicate without your little side comments always. You see - your little side sarcastic comments speak volumes about what you are thinking.

Based on your statements - you seem to feel that the government should not be influenced by religion at all. That's bullshit - especially if the majority of Americans feel a particular way - whether it's religious based or not.

ha ha! Show me the fundy moral majority cheerleaders who had good things to say about Clintons reign and Ill be impressed.

Again - you go off toipic and bring up the "evil right".

once again this isn’t about mentioning the word “god”. Are you still attempting to dodge my point or have you just confused yourself completely?

Actually it just seems to me that you don't want to face the reality of what I'mn saying and so you just attack my statements and demean them - then actually listening to what I have to say. But then I really don't expect much from you actually.

Now weve gone completely to the point of using me as straw horse to grandstand on your conception of the “ideal liberal”. Rub your eyes. Its just me here. Try talking to the points I made k? Or if you want you can go right ahead and show me where I said religious people shouldn’t have the right to vote thanks.

Again sarcasm. I guess that's your escape that you enjoy using. I love you talk down to me like that. It's actually getting very funny. I didn't really read the p[ost before I started commenting - I was just commenting as I rad each thing you said. NOw I must say - I really can't stop laughing.

continued...

[jerseydevil]

Wait… what issue is that that I mentioned? Congress needs to do what about the fact that your statement was ironic?

Here again - sarcasm - trying to make people forget about the cdiscussion. Here let me help you out with what my statement said. You seem to have forgot the conversation. You had mentioned "abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage" - those are the ISSUES I was referring to. You might want to go to the doctor - you seem to be suffering from alzheimers - or you just can't concentrate very well. Sorry - I just can't do sarcasm as good as you. I really wish I could. You're my idol you know - at twisting people's words, the sarcsm and the little put downs.

Oh I see it was just a big long wind bag set up to that final goal.

Ahh yes - another put down. YOu are good at this aren't you? I was wondering - did you go to college for this actually?

To talk about “getting over the election” once again. Well better find someone who isn’t over the election then if you want to throw out asinine statements like that cause it sure doesn’t apply to me.

By your statements and your constant whining about the election. I'd say you're not really over it.

I find it IRONIC that now if anyone disagrees with Bush for the next four years they have to “get over the election already”.

actually it has more to do with the fact that you feell he should listen to the losing party as to what he should do - than the people voted for him. I wonder - if Kerry was elected - would you want him listening to you - or the Bush supporters? Hint - it was a hypothetical question. I know even you would be smart enough to know that Kerry should listen to the people who voted for him. (oh wow - I might be getting good at this - not as good of a personal attack you make - but it'll do I think).

What a fantastic way to argue politics Jersey. When you cant counter the point simply state “oh yeah?? Well… well… yer just jealous cause you LOST!”

More put downs and sarcasm. There wasn't that much to respond to intellectually in this post at all now that I look it over. It was mostly you just maiing sarcastic comments and hidden personal attacks. Hmmm - oh well. I've already responded to the crap - might as well keep it in there now.

I suppose its better then “conservative loud mouth bores who cant seem to argue on the facts.”

Hmmm - was this meant as a personal attack? I wonder. But you may want to look at your post as an example of someone who can't argue the facts. Oh - and don't forget to look at how you put words in my mouth. I included my quote as proof of what I said. But then again - I know - it's difficult to hear me I'm just a loud mouth bore that praddles on and just post big long wind bags.

You're post was hilarious. Talk abotu ironic or is that hypocritical. Sorry - just trying to find the right word here to describe your post.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Election has started.

Yes it has! May this election - and the courage shown by those who take part in it, spark a great change for the good in the nation of Iraq!

[Mercutio]

Millions of Iraqis Vote

^Reuters article of a few hours ago.

I think all the voting is done now; the polls official closed and everyone who was there at closing has finished voting. It is 11:00 or so over there anyway.

Originally it was put at 72% of elibible voters voted, but now they put it at more like 60%. I'm amazed anyway...all those people voting when they know they could easily be killed (and 35 were).

History in the making!


EDIT: It's interesting, since they don't have records and ids and that sort of stuff to the level of other developed countries to control voting,they stain the tip of your index finger when you vote.

[Nurvingiel]

That is an awesome voter turnout, considering how difficult it was to vote (with the thread of violence).

I hope this inspires other nations too - the last Canadian election also had a voter turnout of 60%, with no threat of violence at all.

[Mercutio]

And the U.S. was around 48%? Correct me if I'm wrong, JD

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

yes they were - but the thing is - they are on the fringe of the republican party and you know it. The democrats were the ones making a big deal about it. I heard far more democrats talking about it than I actually heard Republicans talking about it. So don't even try pulling that one.

you heard democrats saying it was a great Christian revolution? What channel were you watching exactly? Plenty of democrats were disgusted by the reaction by the far right yelling about a Christian moral revolution and mentioned it but that’s certainly NOT the same as making all the statements now is it? That’s basically like saying when someone announces something patently untrue that its wrong to talk about the fact that it IS untrue. It was the far right that were getting all the press after the election of course because many of them have their own channels and of course the press was going to be keenly interested in what they had to say following the results. And they sure took advantage Id say.

Plenty of republicans I know condemned that kind of ridiculous speech. Although Ive noted you haven’t. Instead you use my simple comment about it as an opportunity to try to belittle me and every and all liberals. What a shock eh…

Again - how is it opposite? because a lot of people don't support abortion? Because some people don't support stem cell research? because the MAJORITY of Americans don't support gay marriage?

allow me to show you how its opposite: You said: “Even the hightest sheik is preaching about a secular government”
I added: “in a land seemingly choked by its religious beliefs and differences.”
Whereas in THIS country, all the “hight sheiks” are preaching about a RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION in a land of the free and that prides itself on religious tolerance. Do you get this now Jersey? Do you get the simple use of the term “irony” in connection to one small thing you said that you have now turned into a massive excuse to spit and fume about liberalism and the first amendment? Lemme know if I need to explain further.

well maybe if you learned how to communicate without your little side comments always.

you assume everything I say is a snide comment and never take anything at its face value. That’s YOUR problem not mine. Then you reply with instant derision and over the top bombasity in your typical knee jerk bullying way and I of course will never take that kind of belligerence from the likes of you and I respond back in kind. And a simple comment turns into an escalating dialogue. It’s the pattern with us. You haven’t noted after all these years?

Based on your statements - you seem to feel that the government should not be influenced by religion at all.

wrong. based on my statements I obviously found irony in your original sentence and pointed it out. Once again you stand corrected.

Actually it just seems to me that you don't want to face the reality of what I'mn saying and so you just attack my statements and demean them - then actually listening to what I have to say. But then I really don't expect much from you actually.

were you talking to yourself there? Because that’s a perfectly accurate description of EXACTLY what you did here. Thanks.

Again sarcasm. I guess that's your escape that you enjoy using.

hey everyone has their own signature approach. look at you. yours is to over react to simple comments. To attack anything and everything foreign. Especially French and European. To NEVER agree that the current administration could EVER have made any kind of error or bad judgment. And to use unprovoked derision and contempt and mean spirited over done bullying tactics in the hopes that youll intimidate everyone into giving in and that you wont run across someone like me who will just shove it right back into your face every time you do it. Oh and the whole New Jersey thing too of course.