Iraqi Elections

[Nurvingiel]

IR, cradle of civilization would be the Babylonian and Sumarian civilizations. But I see I did inadvertantly ignore Iraq's midieval history.
Still, they haven't really had the chance at democracy up until now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

JD... how does pointing out the trouble that Europe had with becoming democratic support your claim that Iraq will likely succeed?

Where did I say they WILL succeed? My whole argument has been - if you read it - that they have as good of a chance as anyone else. You seem to think that because they are in the Middle East that it's nearly impossible. I don't believe that.

Sorry to offend you, JD. I posted that for anyone who was interested, not just you.

Also, I find it easier to just click on a link than to find and type in an address or to hunt down and rummage through a book... That could just be laziness and disorganisation, though...

That's fine - you quoted me though - so generally when you quote someone - you are replying to them and directing your statements to them.

To me, it's arrogance to believe that because the system of government we have in this country, based on ideas and values that we ourselves have developed over hundreds of years, is inherently the best idea and will therefore work everywhere.

What - you think others don't like freedom? So what do you think they wish to live under - Sadam Hussein again? Where are we forcing our ideas on them anyway? A lot of suggestion as to how we thought things shold have been - they didn't accept. We wanted Iraq to be broken up into disticts - and each district voted (sort of like states do for Representatives) - that way the Sunni would have had had guaranteed representation regardless of how many people came out to vote. That was not accepted though - Iraq wanted one person - one vote. It is Iraq who is developing their Constitution - again it is not us forcing them. I find it arrogant to think that it won't work - or that even with the high turnout (larger than even suspected) - that people continue to say the middle east doesn't want freedom and choose. And yes - I do think we have the best ideas and the best form of government. Which form of government would you like to live under?

I am not claiming that the Iraqis aren't smart enough to handling democracy. I am simply in doubt of democracy itself (and no, I am not a communist. ).

I'm in doubt of democracy - but there is hardly any true democracy. Our founding fathers purposely didn't set up a true democracy because then you get into mob rule. It's sort of what happens in California. Everyone votes on the referendums to put in place all these grea feelg good programs - but then no one votes to support anything. That is why California is on the brink of bankrupcy all the time. Iraq isn't set up as a true democracy - it's being set up as most countries are - a democratic republic.

And if not democracy - then what you would you like to have? No vote at all? Would you like people to just be picked out of a hat for Congress? I don't understand what people would like when they say they don't like democracy. The opnly thing I think of is that really what they are saying is that they don't like when the majority goes against them and they don't get their way in an election. To me that is just being a baby. It's like throwing a tempertantrum and walking off in a huff because your friends decided they wanted to go to a different movie or go to a different restaurant.

Which is my point exactly. To me it is a failure of democracy when the choice of the people isn't elected due to the convoluted nature of our election process. I know the advantages of the electoral college, and I am personally of the opinion that the whole thing needs to be thrown out.\

I don't - I disagree with you 100%. I fully support the electoral college. We are a UNION of states and therefore it is the states who vote. YOu are lucky you vote at all for president - because that is left up to the states and many states used to vote for president through the state legislatures.

And even the fact that he won the electoral votes is disputed.

It isn't disputes. Only by whine bag liberals who can't get over the election is it disputed. The media did two full recounts AFTER the election - one with the way Gore wanted the election counted and one with the entire state and both ways Bush had won the election. So get over it already.

Also - this isn't the first time a president has been elected without getting the popular vote. It didn't destroy the country then - it won't destroy the country now. And as fpor the electoral college being chnaged - you better stop thinking about it - because it won't happen. It will require the Constitution to be changed and the states who it was meant to protect will not allow it to be changed. Why should anyone go off to little Hawaii like they did this year - when they could capture enough votes by just going to large metropolitan centers.

I know you said it. I looked back and than said you said it. I was commenting on your statement which discounted Rome because it was not a democracy.

Well rome wasn't a democracy - although it does seem as if Rome for a short time allowed citizens a direct role in vetoing laws.

I wish you wouldn't take my comments the wrong way, JD. I know you have a greater knowledge of politics and history than I. I simply disagree with you on points, though I respect and admire both you and your opinions. I'm tired and I don't feel like fighting. Good night.

Thank you - I am just responding to things that you quoted me on and repsonded to. Your statement in question initially indicated that I may not realise that the US is a democratic republic. You seem to know a lot more about the US government than most people on this board - even if I disgree with you on points - such as the electoral college. But at least you are well aware of the Federalist Papers.

One more thing on the electoral college - can you imagine a close election if we moved the the popular vote and the ENTIRE nation had to be recounted instead of just one state? Right now it costs millions to just do a recount in one state and takes weeks.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

IN FACT: I think it would be a good idea for Iraq to have an electoral college to help represent some of the factions that have a lesser population, but need adequate representation.

We had suggested that to them - but they were very vocally opposed to it.

I also think they need a new flag to UNITE under...just a thought.

We tried that too - and they rejected it completely. It was the blue and white flag and they felt it looked too much like israel's flag. I think it was actually an Iraqi who developed the flag. It was supposed to represent the kurd, sunnis and Shias and then also the rivers. But it was rejected and they went back to the old flag which they preferred.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

What - you think others don't like freedom? So what do you think they wish to live under - Sadam Hussein again?

Freedom and democracy aren't necessarily and always the same thing. That could happen even with democracy. Isn't that basically how Hitler came into power?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And if not democracy - then what you would you like to have? No vote at all? Would you like people to just be picked out of a hat for Congress? I don't understand what people would like when they say they don't like democracy. The opnly thing I think of is that really what they are saying is that they don't like when the majority goes against them and they don't get their way in an election. To me that is just being a baby. It's like throwing a tempertantrum and walking off in a huff because your friends decided they wanted to go to a different movie or go to a different restaurant.

I don't think I want to get into it here. The argument will undoubtedly pull this thread completely off topic. But if you ever want to talk about it somewhere else...

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I don't - I disagree with you 100%. I fully support the electoral college. We are a UNION of states and therefore it is the states who vote. YOu are lucky you vote at all for president - because that is left up to the states and many states used to vote for president through the state legislatures.

Well, that's the other side of the argument. And, ah, yes. The union of states. Civil war... me=copperhead.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It isn't disputes. Only by whine bag liberals who can't get over the election is it disputed. The media did two full recounts AFTER the election - one with the way Gore wanted the election counted and one with the entire state and both ways Bush had won the election. So get over it already.

I wasn't going to admit it... but I suppose there's no real reason not to... I'm not a democrat, JD. I didn't even vote Kerry (no reason to, because of that beautiful little thing called the electoral college, a pro-Kerry vote would have made little difference in NY, just one more drop of water in the sea, I suppose. And Bush never stood a chance there either... Can you guess what my vote was? )

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Also - this isn't the first time a president has been elected without getting the popular vote. It didn't destroy the country then - it won't destroy the country now. And as fpor the electoral college being chnaged - you better stop thinking about it - because it won't happen.

I said myself that this country could survive things like that. And you're probably right about it not getting changed...

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You seem to know a lot more about the US government than most people on this board - even if I disgree with you on points - such as the electoral college. But at least you are well aware of the Federalist Papers.

A compliment! From JD? What's the world coming to? Just kidding, and thanks.

[Nurvingiel]

Was your vote for Ralph Nader Ellie? *cheers for the Green Party*

Erm... why does every thread turn into a US politics debate? Even though it is relevant in this thread.....

That's interesting about the flag JD. Personally, I can see why they'd want to keep the old one though. Maybe it's like taking ownership of the country. The old flag no longer belongs to Hussein, it belongs to Iraq.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Was your vote for Ralph Nader Ellie? *cheers for the Green Party*

Erm... why does every thread turn into a US politics debate? Even though it is relevant in this thread.....

It is NOT relevant. There were separate threads for discussing the US election and that talk should stay in those! Instead, it seeps into threads about the Ukrainian Election, the Iraqi Election, etc. (you even contributed to it yourself with the first part of your post)

I haven't tested my theory yet, but my guess is that you'll find in most cases the discussion goes astray starting with someone who didn't LIKE the outcome of the US election... and carries it over to other threads.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Freedom and democracy aren't necessarily and always the same thing. That could happen even with democracy. Isn't that basically how Hitler came into power?

There were no checks on his power though. He dismantled democracy in Germany. So it was no longer a democratic country. It would be much harder here because the president doesn't have full power over anything. Of course it's not impossible - if the president blows up congress or something. But then again - let's not get into way out fiction here.

I don't think I want to get into it here. The argument will undoubtedly pull this thread completely off topic. But if you ever want to talk about it somewhere else...

That's fine. But since this is about the iraqi elections - I would like to know what better system you think they should have?

Well, that's the other side of the argument. And, ah, yes. The union of states. Civil war... me=copperhead.

The electoral college is very good in my opinion. I didnt' at first feel that way when I was first studying it - then I looked at the pros and cons and the reasons behind it - number 1 being that we are a union of states - not a single nation. We are FEDERAL government - not a national government. As for the civil war - I think the southern states had a right to leave the Union - but I think that based on the problems that would have occurred in the long run - I think that Lincoln made the right decision in fighting to keep the Union together. The alternative would have been disasterous.

I wasn't going to admit it... but I suppose there's no real reason not to... I'm not a democrat, JD. I didn't even vote Kerry (no reason to, because of that beautiful little thing called the electoral college, a pro-Kerry vote would have made little difference in NY, just one more drop of water in the sea, I suppose. And Bush never stood a chance there either... Can you guess what my vote was? )

NO - nor does it really matter. I voted for Bush - because I know that my vote does count and I am telling NJ who to vote for. NJ has always pretty much been a swing state. The media tries to portray that it's not - just because it voted for Clinton twice and then gore. It ignores the fact that before that it routinely voted for republicans - such as Reagan and I believe Bush 41 the first time. But none of this really matters in the iraqi election thread anyway.

I said myself that this country could survive things like that. And you're probably right about it not getting changed...

NOt only can it survive that - it has survived that. I'm not stating anything more about this - because it's off topic.

A compliment! From JD? What's the world coming to? Just kidding, and thanks.

I give compliments - where they're deserved. The little "Wannabe New Jerseyan" for my birthday didn't hurt either.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Valandil

It is NOT relevant. There were separate threads for discussing the US election and that talk should stay in those! Instead, it seeps into threads about the Ukrainian Election, the Iraqi Election, etc. (you even contributed to it yourself with the first part of your post)

I haven't tested my theory yet, but my guess is that you'll find in most cases the discussion goes astray starting with someone who didn't LIKE the outcome of the US election... and carries it over to other threads.

I've found that to be the case too. or someone will make a snide comment about the US elections - such as "and we see how well that worked here :rolleye:" or some **** like that.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

There were no checks on his power though. He dismantled democracy in Germany. So it was no longer a democratic country. It would be much harder here because the president doesn't have full power over anything. Of course it's not impossible - if the president blows up congress or something. But then again - let's not get into way out fiction here.

I don't think that it's too way out... and the fact that it had been a democratic country that gave him power in the first place seems relevant.

I give compliments - where they're deserved. The little "Wannabe New Jerseyan" for my birthday didn't hurt either.

I bet.

I can't respond anymore (and if I do, I probably should bring it over into a US politics thread) right now... I've got class in 13 minutes...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I don't think that it's too way out... and the fact that it had been a democratic country that gave him power in the first place seems relevant.

We would have to throw out our Constitution for that to happen. Talk about conspiracy theories though. it's like the book "red president" where the soviet union had a soviet supporter run for president and win.

Anyway - I would rather have the SLIM chance of that happening and living in a democracy - than to live under any of the other systems of governments. As Churchill said 1947...

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

To say touright that democracy won't work or that there isn't really any sense in trying it - is wrong. In my opinion - there is no better for of government than democracies. Second - without democracy - you can not truly be free. If you have no voice in your own government - then how can you claim to be free.

As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence -

...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Thst is what democracy and freedom are about. And without the power of the people over the government - there is no freedom.

[inked]

In Iraq, 'martyrs' and martyrs

Commentary

By Uwe Siemon-Netto
UPI Religious Affairs Editor


GURAT, France, Jan. 31 (UPI) -- The Greek term "martyr," meaning witness, has always had a noble ring until it was usurped by contemporary criminal maniacs killing themselves and thousands of innocent people.

Iraq's election Sunday has returned nobility to martyrdom - no thanks to suicide bombers themselves in their relentless war of terror against chiefly women and children, but because of those millions of voters who braved death to bring about a better life for themselves, their neighbors and children.

And martyrs - witnesses -- they were indeed, leaving their homes despite threats from terrorists that Iraq's streets would be awash in the voters' blood. Yes, it was an act of martyrdom to bring the kids along to the polling stations so that they will one day witness to their own children that they were there at this momentous event in their country's and the Middle East's history.

There is a religious and a profane martyrdom ("shahadat" in Arabic). The two are often intertwined not only in Islam, which does not separate secular from religious realities. Those who resisted Hitler did so out of love for their fellow man -- and for God.

Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer knew that he would probably die when he returned to Germany from the safety of a teaching position in the United States in 1939. But to resist Hitler was to him a sacred as well as a civic duty.

Of course you can be a martyr and not get killed; thankfully this proved to be by and large the case in Iraq. But these voters were fully prepared to die, putting in their place international cynics who belittled these elections as a sham.

And they did so less out of selfishness than the suicide bombers who murder indiscriminately in Baghdad, Israel or in New York, where they flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Center.

The Iraqi voters courted death for the sake of democracy not knowing if they would live to benefit from it in their lifetime; certainly the 94-year old woman who was rolled into a polling station on a wheelbarrow in Mosul could not entertain such expectations.

The murderous "martyrs" terrorizing Iraq and its neighbors and the rest of the world do so on the promise of fast-forwarding to Paradise filled with lovely virgins, although the world's Christians, Jews, seculars and presumably most Muslims would rather caution them not to be too optimistic in this regard.

The ambiguity of how this latter form of "martyrdom" will be received in the Hereafter is theologically one of the most fascinating aspects of present-day Islam.

While this faith sees martyrdom in the form of self-sacrifice as virtuous because it bears witness to God's existence and strengthens the community, it also resolutely denies human autonomy.

"One's life is a trust from God, which demands an ongoing relationship between the Creator and the caretaker," according to Islamic theologian Abdulaziz Sachedina of the University of Virginia.

"Suicide, as self-murder, is judged accordingly as an affront to God, the individual and the community."

Some of the murderers of Sept.11, 2001, exacerbated this aspect of evident godlessness when they bade farewell to the world by enjoying themselves one last time in houses of ill repute.

Far from being religiously devout in the traditional sense, Islamists have reinterpreted the classical ethical notion of martyrdom "in an attempt to appropriate different themes and sociopolitical patterns in postmodernity," writes sociologist of religion Babak Rahimi of the European University Institute in Florence, Italy.

In other words, this form of "martyrdom" has less to do with faith than with ideology.

As a consequence, the Islamists have given their religion a terrible name worldwide - the name of a faith whose "martyrs" randomly kill women and children, as opposed to Christianity, which views martyrdom as none other than radical discipleship -- the full imitation of Christ: "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you, too" (John 15:20).

Seen in this light, Iraq's election has a very powerful religious dimension: With their bravery and willingness to accept martyrdom, these voters have made a huge contribution to the restoration of Islam's image as a credible religion - an image so gravely tarnished by killers and thugs for far too long.

END
*********

A ninety-six year old being wheeled to vote in a wheelbarrow at the threat of extremists blowwing up the polls! I'd say the Iraquis were determined on changing order and government!

[Valandil]

I'm beginning to hope... even to maybe think... that January 30, 2005 may prove to be a very significant day for the world.

[slight sarcasm] Good thing Bush and his people weren't smart enough to know that this would never come off, eh? [/slight sarcasm]

I only hope that now... at least... the other world powers will come together to provide some very real help. If not for the sake of the US... certainly for the sake of the Iraqi people.

Who knows... the Iraqi people may get their democracy AND end up hating us for the next 60, 70 or 100 years. But... knowing that we helped them gain their freedom... it'll be worth it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I'm beginning to hope... even to maybe think... that January 30, 2005 may prove to be a very significant day for the world.

I think it will too. Just as long as we stick by them - with as long as bush is president - we will.

[slight sarcasm] Good thing Bush and his people weren't smart enough to know that this would never come off, eh? [/slight sarcasm]

There are still many people who think that this vote is illigimate because it occurred under "occupation". I'm wondering - do you think that people questioned whether Germany's or Japan's government after World War II was legitimate? They were established under occupation - and not just pseudo occupation like it is - but REAL occupation where WE were the ones completely in control. Maybe we should tell all German's and Japanese that their government is illegal and must be dismantled because it was established by America while were occupying them.

I only hope that now... at least... the other world powers will come together to provide some very real help. If not for the sake of the US... certainly for the sake of the Iraqi people.

In my view - this is unlikely. They'll continue to bitch and moan. For one thing they are hoping that we fall flat on our face - privately. Oh - they want the Middle East to have peace - but they don't want the US to be successful in doing it. Just like now - they claim we had nothing to do whatsoever with the downfall of the Soviet Union. They don't want to give credit to the US at all. We're the big guys who think and feel we can do anything to make the world a better place - it's us who could go to Indonesia with a batalian of ships, helicopters and planes to get relief supplies in - but then that breeds resentment - because we can do things that no one else in the world can do.

Oh well - I'm not too concerned what they think anymore - just as long as we follow through on Iraq. That is the one thing about Bush - and it pisses off the world - when bush says he'll do something - he follows through to the end. He went to the world community and tried getting them involved - they didn't want to be. With Clinton's record - we would have been out of their after the first terrorist bombing - and that's the type of person Europe prefers. The person who will put their finger in the wind and test where the polls are going. That isn't a leader - that's a poltician.

Who knows... the Iraqi people may get their democracy AND end up hating us for the next 60, 70 or 100 years. But... knowing that we helped them gain their freedom... it'll be worth it.

They can hate us if they want - just as long as they're not trying to kill us. It's like Like Europe of today - hating us, being resentful, constantly putting us down - but at least they're not trying to build bombs or anything to blow up our cities. (although I did have a dream I was in Paris and we were bombing the hell out of them )

[Twista]

Is it true the whole process of vote counting takes over a week? Is this to ensure a fair counting system? Or because of something else?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Twista

Is it true the whole process of vote counting takes over a week? Is this to ensure a fair counting system? Or because of something else?

Well they have to be hand counted. Also - it's for 275 positions - it's not for one candidate who is going to win. I think that would make it more complicated also - not to mention there were several other elections in the procession - regional councils and all that. I think it was estimated that 8 million people voted.

[Twista]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I think it was estimated that 8 million people voted.

...out of a population of?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Twista

...out of a population of?

well if it's a 60% turnout as has been felt (down from the initial Iraqi Election Commissions estimate of 72%) then that would be roughly out of 13 million. But the 60% figure is considered a high turnout in established democracies - like the US and the European countries - and we don't even have to fear for our life - all we have to do is take the time just drive to the polling place.

[jerseydevil]

I figured I'd throw this in here. It was in Time Magazine in an interview with Gaddafi.

Q: Given foreign and local skepticism, is Libya really reforming itself.

A: About the economy, quote possible. We have begun to apply the Green Book. It's what we call popular scoialism and what Thatcher calls popular capitalism. Elections? What for? We have surpassed that stage you are presently in. All the people are in power now. Do you want them to regress and elect someone to replace them?

Only a dictator can actually say that one with a straight face and try making people believe it. It's just too funny.

[Embladyne]

Elections? What for? We have surpassed that stage you are presently in. All the people are in power now. Do you want them to regress and elect someone to replace them?

Wow. I mean...just...wow.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I figured I'd throw this in here. It was in Time Magazine in an interview with Gaddafi.



Only a dictator can actually say that one with a straight face and try making people believe it. It's just too funny.

in your opinion, one might hasten to add.