Iraq: Voter Turnout Won't Be Enough to Legitimise Election

[G_j]

Voter Turnout Won't Be Enough to Legitimise Election (January 20, 2005)

Between 40 and 50 percent of the Iraqi population live in areas where "insecurity will restrict voting," according to the Sydney Morning Herald. Combined with an estimated Sunni voter turnout of as low as 10 percent, these factors will result in too few votes for a legitimate election. US officials, however, "really encourage people not to focus on numbers."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/election/2005/0120legitimise.htm
--------------------
Iraqi Elections: Farce of the Century (January 18, 2005)

"Under the Vienna Convention, an occupying force has no right to change composition of occupied territories socially, culturally, educationally or politically." This makes the Iraq elections illegal, according to the Centre for Research on Globalization. Widespread intimidation of voters, nonexistent security for polling stations, and severely incomplete electoral lists add up to "a farce of historic proportions."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/election/2005/0118farce.htm
-----
Iraq's Perilous Election and the Need for Exit Strategies (January 17, 2005)

On the eve of Iraq's elections, the US-led coalition faces an insurgency numbering as many as 200,000 fighters and supporters. Large areas of key districts are too unsafe to vote in, and no viable Iraqi security force exists. Given this situation, the US must seriously consider withdrawing from the country. (Power and Interest News Report)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/2005/0117exit.htm

[forgethell]

1. I think we all know

America isn't going anywhere in the next 4 years.

[ogradda]

2. "really encourage people not to focus on numbers"

i just want to scream scream scream:argh:

[G_j]

3. "Not Even Saddam Could Achieve the Divisions This Election Will"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7715.htm

Not Even Saddam Could Achieve the Divisions This Election Will Bring

By Robert Fisk

01/16/05 "The Independent" --

Sunday 30 January will be the day when myth and reality come together with - I fear - an all too literal bang. The magic date upon which Iraq is supposed to transform itself into a democracy will no doubt be greeted as another milestone in America's adventure and, I suspect, another "great day for Iraq" by Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara. He, of course, doesn't have to be blown up in the polling stations or torn to pieces by suicide bombers on the way home. The "martyrs of democracy", as I am sure the dead will be feted, will be those Iraqis who have decided to go along with an election so physically dangerous that the international observers will be "observing" the poll from Amman.

The real trouble with this election, however, is not so much the violence that will take place before, during and, rest assured, after 30 January. The greatest threat to "democracy" is that with four provinces containing around half the population of Iraq in a state of insurgency and many of its towns under rebel control, this election is going to widen the differences between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds in a way that not even Saddam Hussein was able to achieve. If the Sunnis don't vote - save for those living in America, Syria and other exotic locations - then the Shia community, perhaps 60 per cent of the population, will take an overwhelming number of seats in the "Transitional National Assembly".

In other words, the Shias, who are not fighting the U.S. occupation of Iraq, will be voting under American auspices while the Sunnis, who are fighting, will refuse to participate in what the insurgents have already labeled a "quisling" election. The four million Kurds will vote. But however many seats they gain, they are not going to abandon their quasi-independence after the election. Thus the dangers of civil war - so trumpeted by the Americans and British - may be increased rather than suppressed by this much-touted experiment in democracy. In fact, Iraq is a tribal - not a religious - society and the real war, which some in the West might like to be replaced by the civil variety, will continue to be between Sunni insurgents and the United States military.

Nevertheless, nobody could miss the significance of last week's assassination of Mahmoud al-Madaen, along with his son and four bodyguards, at Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. Al-Madaen was the personal representative in the town of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the leading Shia prelate in Iraq. On the same day, another of Ayatollah Sistani's aides, Halim al-Moaqaq was found "drowned in his own blood", according to a spokesman, in Najaf. The ayatollah has given his blessing to the elections which will, theoretically at least, give Shias power for the first time after being marginalised and crushed by the Ottomans, the British, the kings and then the Sunni dictators of Iraq.


..more..

[G_j]

4. kick

for lurker education and all....

[KharmaTrain]

5. Playing Devil's Advocate: How Would They Be Legit?

Obviously, if these elections were held without U.S. forces locking down the entire country...how would you or "the world" consider the election legit?

Would having the U.N. run the election suffice (not that they would at this point) or the Carter Center or the Arab League? The reason I ask is that an American "exit strategy" is more and more tied to there being a legitimate government in place that will provide the cover for a withdrawl.

Using the Vietnam model, this is similar to the sham elections we attempted to hold in 1965...where Nyugen Cao Key (our Alawi at the time) won election, but was then overthrown several years later (another election had to be held) and the concept of South Vietnam being a real "democracy" was a total joke.

We all know this "election" is a sham, it's just how much of a circus it will be and what turmoil this will lead to that is the big unknown.

[G_j]

6. good question

and I personally don't think it could considered 'legit' even with a large turnout.
The Vietnam comparison is a good one.

[KharmaTrain]

7. No Way Is This Thing Legit

The game here is to see how close this regime can make people believe it. They ignore the majority of us who see this for the sham that it is...all they're playing to is their own hive and playing this game so they can sleep at night with all that blood on their hands. And our media goes along for the power, greed, access and resume building.

[WEagle]

9. no doubt our media will "legitimize" it

while the rest of the world understands it for a sham.
Sort of like our own elections.

[G_j]

8. kick

[Disturbed]

10. It is not surprising that...

the U.S. Corp. Media has not educated the citizens of Amerika about the real deal in Iraq.

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm


*All of the Dems that voted for the Iraq resolution were either duped or they had their heads up their ass. After Kerry said that he would still vote for it after knowing that there were no WMDs it was over for him in my view. All the Dems that stuck to that betrayed the progressives in the party and took the core Dems for granted due to ABB.

It's bullshit to say that liberals &/or leftists are anti-war. Most are anti-foolish wars that lead to disaster. The U.S. created the anti-American blast around the world by supporting any right wing dick that said he/she was anti-commie. The ME countries, for the most part, oppress their masses and the U.S aides that. The people there know it. Most people in the world that hate the U.S. don' t evy us or hate us for our freedoms. They hate the U.S. Govt. policies that keeps them oppressed and downtrodden. The Iraq invasion threw gasoline onto their fire.

The mantra that the Dems need to move more right is a fool's song.

[G_j]

11. Just watched Greg Palast's "Bush Family Fortune"

he shows pages of documents outlining the plans for privatizing Iraq.
Naomi Klein has written about this extensively also.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

12. Kerry lost the election when he said he would still vote for IWR.

When I heard Kerry fumble his response to Bush’s question on his war vote at the Grand Canyon I had to wonder how politically naive and foolish Kerry and/or his campaign was to respond in such a ridiculous manner. He had an ideal opening to expose Bush’s idiocy and duplicity about the war but it was completely mishandled at a very unsophisticated level. I was stunned and thought right then that the DNC would be better served to pour economic resources into key senate races to minimize the severity of the forthcoming defeat. Kerry dug himself too deep a hole in August without having enough personal charisma necessary to overcome it later in the campaign.

[katinmn]

13. Democracy with a gun pointed at your head?

Not possible.

The world knows this election is a charade. It's American aggressors taking the wealth from the Iraqis and trying to pitch it as giving them democracy and freedom.

[ckramer]

14. The PNAC scheme is a farce

[G_j]

15. the scheme is, unfortunately the "plan" isn't -nt