Brave Iraqis

[Fanpuck33_]

I realize this is a bit late, but it's something I've been thinking about and wanted to mention.

As we know, the Iraqis held their election a couple weeks ago, and shocked the world by having 60% of the population come out and vote, risking life and limb by doing so.

That 60% is also the percent of voters who voted In the United States and Canada, where the people had nothing to fear by going to the polls. In Iraq, 40% of the people were too scared to vote, while in the US and Canada 40% of the people just didn't give a damn. That is pathetic. Just think how few American and Canadian voters would turn out if they knew they might die by voting.

I applaud the brave Iraqi people who stood up to the terrorist insurgents and risked their lives to cast their first vote.

[Habsfan21]

Note that Iraq actually used a proportional voting system, a device that lets more then just the 2/3 best candidates have a chance to influence the outcome, thereby reducing the "devil I know" thing that makes many in the US/Canada not want to vote. That would be a major factor in turnout in North America and Britain. I also think just randomly declaring that "40% were too scared" is incorrect...many boycotted the vote, many didn't care.

And remember, just because a nation is a democracy doesn't mean terrorists can't form or even thrive. The FLQ, KKK, Red Army Faction are just a few examples. As we speak, the imams are winning the election. Plus, I don't get the "Free" elections part. I mean, it doesn't matter how "benevolent" it is, when outsiders from one nation are driving armed vehicles outside your house, and guarding the voting booths, that doesn't qualify as a free election. It's an election, but to be a free election, there has to be no American troops there.

I just don't know why the US doesn't split the country up. Iraq was randomly formed from League of Nations mandates, and really doesn't qualify as a national group. Give the Kurds the north, the Sunnis there reigon, and the Shi'a a reigon. There, much fewer worries of ethnic tension.

I hope I don't sound too negative, it's great that the groups are voting. I'm just very skeptical. Democracy isn't formed from the barrel of another nations gun, especially with rival groups.

[Edited on 2005/2/11 by Habsfan21]

[Fanpuck33_]

Originally posted by Habsfan21

I also think just randomly declaring that "40% were too scared" is incorrect...many boycotted the vote, many didn't care.  

I realize that not all 40% were too scared, I was just making a point that a higer percentage of Iraqis gave a damn. If 60% turned out to vote, that leaves 40% that did not vote becuase of fear, not caring, and boycotting. (Note that many who threatened to boycott ended up voting.) I was mainly pointing out that more Iraqis gave a damn about their elections than did Americans and Canadians. 60% of Iraqis voted despite chance of death and boycots. In the US and Canada, 60% show up even though they aren't threatened in any way.

And remember, just because a nation is a democracy doesn't mean terrorists can't form or even thrive

First of all, when did I say that terrorists could not thrive in a free country? Nowhere did I say that. All I did was say that the Iraqi people showed terrorists that they would not allow them to stop the elections.

Plus, I don't get the "Free" elections part.  I mean, it doesn't matter how "benevolent" it is, when outsiders from one nation are driving armed vehicles outside your house, and guarding the voting booths, that doesn't qualify as a free election.  It's an election, but to be a free election, there has to be no American troops there.

The military is what allowed it to be a free election. Without them, there would have been insurgent groups outside of every polling place preventing people from voting. At this point in time, a free election without military help would be impossible.

I just don't know why the US doesn't split the country up.  Iraq was randomly formed from League of Nations mandates, and really doesn't qualify as a national group.  Give the Kurds the north, the Sunnis there reigon, and the Shi'a a reigon.  There, much fewer worries of ethnic tension.

I do not know why I haven't heard much talk of it. I would have to guess that doing something like this would make every little group think they should have their own country, and that civil wars would break out. This is just my speculation.

[Edited on 2-11-05 by Fanpuck33]

[Habsfan21]

Originally posted by Fanpuck33

Originally posted by Habsfan21

I also think just randomly declaring that "40% were too scared" is incorrect...many boycotted the vote, many didn't care.  

And remember, just because a nation is a democracy doesn't mean terrorists can't form or even thrive

First of all, when did I say that terrorists could not thrive in a free country? Nowhere did I say that. All I did was say that the Iraqi people showed terrorists that they would not allow them to stop the elections.

Plus, I don't get the "Free" elections part.  I mean, it doesn't matter how "benevolent" it is, when outsiders from one nation are driving armed vehicles outside your house, and guarding the voting booths, that doesn't qualify as a free election.  It's an election, but to be a free election, there has to be no American troops there.

The military is what allowed it to be a free election. Without them, there would have been insurgent groups outside of every polling place preventing people from voting. At this point in time, a free election without military help would be impossible.

I just don't know why the US doesn't split the country up.  Iraq was randomly formed from League of Nations mandates, and really doesn't qualify as a national group.  Give the Kurds the north, the Sunnis there reigon, and the Shi'a a reigon.  There, much fewer worries of ethnic tension.

I do not know why I haven't heard much talk of it. I would have to guess that doing something like this would make every little group think they should have their own country, and that civil wars would break out. This is just my speculation.

[Edited on 2-11-05 by Fanpuck33]

-I should have worded that better, I didn't mean YOU mentioned it, I just meant the general US Media/Govt approach is that ,"Oh, Iraq is free, it won't be dangerous anymore!."

-My point was, it WASN'T a free election. Yeah, the military makes sure there is an ELECTION, but not all elections are free. When (If) Iraq becomes fully independent, with it's own military and police force fully controlling elections, or a UN delegation there, will they qualify as free.

-Any state that has two nations in it is in prepetual argument/conflict. Three is just about untenable. I mean, Canada is a free and prosperous democracy. Yet, the situation with Quebec is still contentious. Belgium has the same problem. Imagine having 3 groups, after a war, with a history of the groups gassing and killing each other. I would be VERY pleasently surprised if anything gets done in the national government.

[Leafs Suck]

Great job Iraqis. You settled your election faster than the Americans did in 2000!