Author Topic: Turnout (Read 630 times)

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #15 on:** November 09, 2006, 05:03:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Is election turnout in Iraq the measure of success?

IT can be.
Under the old regiem they could find themselves shot for not voting, and voting for Saddam

Now they run the risk of being shot FOR voting.
And they vote anyway

Flatbar · « **Reply #16 on:** November 09, 2006, 05:06:24 PM »

Let see, what were we told were our objectives...

1. Git rid of those numerous WMD's.

Dispite all the claims of them being in certian areas by Rumsfeld, we have found none that can be associated with the threat level that was sold to the American public. FAILURE

2. We were told that we would be welcomed with flowers and a thankful Iraqi populace. FAILURE

3. We were told that the vast majority of the cost of the invasion would be paid for by the Iraq oil revenues. FAILURE, so far.

4. We were told that this war would last 'a few weeks or months, but no more'. FAILURE

5. Colin Powels presentation to the UN has now been proven to have included extreemly faulty data and in a few instances, diliberate lies, although it seems Powel believed the some of info he was given to present
was true, it has now come to light that some claims were kept in his presentation that some knew were false. So, by eroding our stature and honesty in the worlds eyes. FAILURE

There are so many more failures in the execution of this war that I could be here all day listing them. Instead of doing that I'll give you one success that I think we all can agree on. SADAM is TOAST....but was it worth the blood of thousands of our soldiers and the death of tens upon tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians? Not to me.

Thrawn · « **Reply #17 on:** November 09, 2006, 05:26:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stang
That's not a fair comparison at all. The people had a choice and were not threatened by the government in the post-invasion votes. With Saddam, they damn sure were and had no choice.

That maybe the case. But it seems to me that cav is young and needs to learn to be more concise. He's the one who said,

"If Iraq is such a failure, why, in the face of serious bodily harm or death, have there been larger per capita turnouts for democratic elections in iraq, then we have ever seen here in the US?".

By implication,

Iraqi % voter turnout > US % voter turner out = The Iraq occupation is a success

Now he doesn't qualify anything here, it's very simple. He doesn't say why Iraqi voter turnout being great than US voter turn means that the occupation is succeeding, he just links them through implication.

It's pretty irrelevant though, except as an logical exercise, because he's wrong. Iraq % voter turn out isn't great than American, it's less. At least less than the 2004 elections.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO501F.html

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #18 on:** November 09, 2006, 05:28:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by nirvana
I personally wouldn't call the need for armed military at polling places a success if you are going to relate it to voting.

From my coniberal stand point, the continued loss of life because of the Bush administration's constant intelligence oopsies has driven people up the walls. One of these would be the WMD's, They don't exist (or never did) but heck, we're already over there so why not get rid of Saddam Hussein, which did happen, and try to democratize the Middle East? I believe what some people see as a great step to democracy in the Mid East, others see as a waste of life for people who don't care.

Just my view though.

Those were Clintons intel oopsies as well

there was no difference between the intel Clinton received. then the intel Bush received.
Not surprising inasmuch as they both received the intel from the same people. Bush didnt make any wholesale changes int he intel community when he took office and left it largely in place as it was.

Prior to bush taking office. The Dems in congress were all for Clinton going into Iraq. The only difference between Clinton and Bush. is Bush actually decided to go in and do something.

Everyone likes to say this was "Bush's War "
There are few innocent parties in either party in this war.
and plenty of blame to go around for everyone.

If Bush can be blamed for anything. Its the way the situation has been run following the invasion

Personally I have always supported the move to go into Iraq. For an entire host of reasons not even including WMDs and still do.
It was a situation that had to be dealt with sooner of later.
The situation was such with sanctions failing and the secret deals being made that we were better off doing it sooner rather then later

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #19 on:** November 09, 2006, 05:31:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Saddam got a huge voter turn out as well.

You know what that tells us, that tells us that voter turn out without context doesn't mean squat about how free/peaceful/progressive a country is.

He also won pretty much unanimously

Gee I wonder why LOL

Thrawn · « **Reply #20 on:** November 09, 2006, 05:53:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
He also won pretty much unanimously

Gee I wonder why LOL

Way to miss the point LOL

Stang · « **Reply #21 on:** November 09, 2006, 05:57:18 PM »

Well Thrawn the way you expressed it Cav was never going to get it, lol.

Thanks for the clarification.

Viking · « **Reply #22 on:** November 09, 2006, 06:19:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d
Yes, it is to an enormous degree...Do we not call the elections here in the US the voice and the will of the people? So whats different about Iraq? I think it is even more significant because of the consequences they faced going into the election....These people very well knew they may face bodily harm or death upon themselves and even their families for simply voting, but they went ahead and did it anyways, because they love their new freedom, and want their country to move forward...

so yes, it is very significant in my book

What measure of success is voter turnout when the results of that vote plummets the nation into de facto civil war? The Iraqi people are not a unified people. The Kurds voted for Kurds to secure their separate Kurdish state. The Shi'ite voted for Shi'ites to gain control of the new Iraqi government and subdue the Sunni minority. The Sunnis largely boycotted the election in protest.

If you think the Iraqi election had anything to do with democracy, you're sadly mistaken.

cav58d · « **Reply #23 on:** November 09, 2006, 06:39:19 PM »

I'm sorry but you are dead wrong thrawn...Whether its 72% or 58%, it shows that a majority of the population believes in the democratic process and is willing to risk their life, so it can suceed...I know that sucess in Iraq, and freedom for the Iraqi people is bad news for you liberals, but the truth speaks for itself...Deal with it

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #24 on:** November 09, 2006, 06:56:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d
but the truth speaks for itself...Deal with it

unfortunetaly yes, we all read the news.

Intsalling a "working" democracy on the fly in this region is a nice wish,
unfortunetaly the price is bloody high.
Why the heck Iraq?, why not insta-democracy Cuba? All this people in Cuba would be
happy and welcome you with flowers while you entering it with Tanks.
Next Country to insta-democracy, Iran, North Korea? Lots of
Countrys just waiting for!

john9001 · « **Reply #25 on:** November 09, 2006, 07:00:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
The Kurds voted for Kurds to secure their separate Kurdish state. The Shi'ite voted for Shi'ites to gain control of the new Iraqi government and subdue the Sunni minority. The Sunnis largely boycotted the election in protest.

If you think the Iraqi election had anything to do with democracy, you're sadly mistaken.

and the democrats vote for democrats and the republicans vote for republicans and the independents boycotted the election in protest.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #26 on:** November 09, 2006, 07:03:09 PM »

This guy thinks election turn out is a measure of success? Insane. Shoot, South Vietnam had elections even when it was corrupt, infiltrated by Viet Cong, and torturing and executing 'suspected' VC.

Eliminate the insurgency, stifle the corruption, stop the torture and execution of suspected insurgents. That would be a measure of success.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #27 on:** November 09, 2006, 07:07:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d
I'm sorry but you are dead wrong thrawn...Whether its 72% or 58%, it shows that a majority of the population believes in the democratic process and is willing to risk their life, so it can suceed...I know that sucess in Iraq, and freedom for the Iraqi people is bad news for you liberals, but the truth speaks for itself...Deal with it

If you really believe that, you are truely brainwashed. Liberals don't want Iraq to fail, they simply realize that it will. Meanwhile, all these folks shouting "support the troops!" keep throwing our soldiers and marines into the meat-grinder of an unwinnable war.

Viking · « **Reply #28 on:** November 09, 2006, 07:30:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
and the democrats vote for democrats and the republicans vote for republicans and the independents boycotted the election in protest.

Yes, but your different political parties do not reflect opposing religious beliefs and separatist movements. Democrat, Republican or Independent; you all still consider yourself Americans.

A more accurate analogy would be if a majority of Americans lives on the east coast and votes for a Catholic Christian party, one minority living on the west coast votes for a Protestant Christian party, and another ethnic minority all living in Alaska votes for an Alaskan separatist party. To make matters worse the Protestant Party has ruled America under a brutal dictatorship for decades and has persecuted the Protestants and Alaskans, and the Alaskans have been fighting a long guerilla war with America and Canada to gain independence. The Alaskans even sided with Russia in an 8 year long war where the Protestants used chemical weapons on them.

Democracy would fail, as it is failing in Iraq.

cav58d · « **Reply #29 on:** November 09, 2006, 07:37:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
If you really believe that, you are truely brainwashed. Liberals don't want Iraq to fail, they simply realize that it will.

The difference is, your party has NEVER given it a chance...At the first mistake, liberals turned their back and decided against this war...Worse, you send this message to not only our soldiers deployed and the enemy, but to our allys as well...Your ideology is wrong...You are nothing more than a bunch of too scared to see the truth, derogotory hopeless liberals....

And to respond to whoever said why Iraq, and not Cuba?

Because Sadaam invaded the soveirgn nation of Kuwait in 91', and not only raped and pilleaged (sp) the people of the country, but he also threatened a large portion of the worlds oil supply...

Why? Because Sadaam continually shot at our aircraft in the no fly zone for a decade...

why? Because Sadaam tried to put forth a plot to assisanate a former US President...

Why? Because Sadaam defied the world with 14+ UN resolutions for over a decade....

Why? Because Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Madeline Ablright, John Kerry and John Kennedy all said sadaam had WMDs prior to 9/11, in 1998...

why? Because Sadaam has been the biggest thorn in the side of the world....

thats why