PDA

View Full Version : Large Turnout for Iraq Constitution Vote


Draco
15-10-05, 19:57
By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 3 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Sunni Arabs voted in surprisingly high numbers on Iraq's new constitution Saturday, many of them hoping to defeat it in an intense competition with Shiites and Kurds over the shape of the nation's young democracy after decades of dictatorship. With little violence, turnout was more than 66 percent in the three most crucial provinces.

The constitution still seemed likely to pass, as expected. But the higher-than-forecast Sunni turnout made it possible the vote would be close — or even go the other way — and cast doubt on U.S. hopes that the charter would succeed in luring Sunnis away from the insurgency.

Washington hopes the constitution will be approved so Iraqis can form a permanent, representative government and the 150,000 U.S. troops can begin to withdraw.

"The constitution is a sign of civilization," Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said after casting his ballot. "This constitution has come after heavy sacrifices. It is a new birth."

In Baghdad, men counted votes by lanterns because the electricity was out. Results were written on a chalkboard. Outside, Iraqi soldiers huddled in a courtyard, breaking their fast. Northeast of the capital, in Baqouba, men sat around long tables, putting "yes" votes in one pile and "no" votes in another.

The country's Shiite majority — some 60 percent of its estimated 27 million people — and the Kurds — another 20 percent — support the approximately 140-article charter, which provides them with autonomy in the northern and southern regions where they are concentrated.

The Sunni Arab minority, which dominated the country under Saddam Hussein and forms the backbone of the insurgency, widely opposes the draft, convinced its federalist system will tear the country into Shiite and Kurdish mini-states in the south and north, leaving Sunnis in an impoverished center.

Last-minute amendments to the constitution, adopted Wednesday, promise Sunnis the chance to try to change the charter more deeply later, prompting one Sunni Arab group — the Iraqi Islamic Party — to support the draft.

In the south, Shiite women in head-to-toe veils and men emerged from the poll stations flashing victory signs with fingers stained with violet ink, apparently responding in mass to the call by their top cleric to support the charter.

But in Sunni regions — both in Baghdad and several key heavily Sunni provinces — the high turnout seemed to consist largely of Iraqis voting "no" because of fears the charter would set in stone the Shiite domination they fear.

A day that U.S. and Iraqi leaders feared could become bloody turned out to be the most peaceful in months.

Insurgents attacked five of Baghdad's 1,200 polling stations with shootings and bombs, wounding seven voters. The only deaths reported were those of four Iraqi soldiers killed by roadside bombs far from a polling sites, and there were no major attacks reported as U.S. and Iraqi forces clamped down with major security measures around balloting sites.

Overall turnout was about 61 percent and surpassed 66 percent in seven of Iraq's 18 provinces, including key Sunni Arab-majority ones, according to initial estimates, election officials said Saturday.

Some 250 election workers in Baghdad were starting to compile the ballots, collecting the summarized results and ballot boxes from around the country to count. So far, only materials from areas close to the capital have arrived, and no results were expected Saturday night, said Farid Ayar of the Independent Elections Commissions of Iraq.

"Initial estimates are that the turnout is no less than 61 percent," said Abdul-Hussein Hindawi, another senior IECI member said.

More than 66 percent of voters cast ballots in the three crucial provinces that could decide the vote — Salahuddin, Diyala and Ninevah, each of which has a Sunni majority but also significant Shiite or Kurdish populations, Ayar said.

Sunni opponents are hoping to get a two-thirds majority "no" vote in these provinces, which would defeat the constitution.

Other provinces with a similar rate of participation were Baghdad and Tamim — with mixed Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite populations — and the overwhelmingly Shiite provinces of Babil and Karbala, in the south.

Most provinces in the mostly Shiite south and the three provinces that make up the autonomous area of Kurdistan in the north had turnout rates between 33 and 66 percent, Ayar told a Baghdad press conference soon after polls closed Saturday evening.

Fewer than 33 percent of voters cast ballots in the southern Shiite province of Qadissiyah, he said. He did not give specific figures for any province.

The figures suggested a somewhat higher enthusiasm for voting in the mixed provinces than in the heartlands of Iraq's Shiite majority and Kurdish minority, where approval of the constitution was all but assured.

There was no information on turnout in Anbar, the vast western province that is overwhelmingly Sunni Arab and is the main battlefield between U.S.-Iraqi forces and the insurgents, Ayar said.

Anbar's largest city, Fallujah, saw thousands voting on Saturday. But in other towns and cities, where fear of insurgent retaliation was higher, almost no one was seen going to the polls.

The Bush administration sees success in the election as key to defeating the Sunni-led insurgency.

"All that I've seen is pictures on television so far which looks as if the Iraqis are exercising their right, they are doing so in a peaceful manner, they are doing so enthusiastically," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters as she flew from Moscow to London.

"That's been our principal concern, that the Iraqis have this opportunity to go and voice their views on this constitution. That's the way this was set up ... and that's what they are doing," Rice said.

President Bush, who taped his weekly radio address on Friday before the voting, said Iraqis who participated in the vote would strike a blow against terrorism.

"This weekend's election is a critical step forward in Iraq's march toward democracy, and with each step the Iraqi people take, al-Qaida's vision for the region becomes more remote," the president said in the address aired Saturday.

The Sunni Arab turnout was a dramatic change from January's parliamentary election, which most Sunnis boycotted. Now they were eager to cast ballots.

"This is all wrong. I said 'no' to a constitution written by the Americans," said Jilan Shaker, 22, a laborer who showed up at an Azamiyah polling station in shorts and plastic sandals.

In the crucial northern city of Mosul, there was a constant flow of voters all day long into a kindergarten in a Sunni Arab neighborhood: men and women, dressed at their best in suits and ties or neatly pressed veils, many carrying young children in holiday clothes.

"The government can't just sew together an outfit and dress the people up by force. We do not see ourselves or see our future in this draft," Gazwan Abdul Sattar, 27-year-old Sunni teacher, said after voting "no."

As polls closed at 5 p.m. in Iraq's 6,100 polling stations, many rounds of gunfire were heard in celebration. People were seen in some streets of Baghdad handing out sweets ahead of the end of the day's Ramadan fast.

In a mostly Kurdish neighborhood of Mosul, Bahar Saleh supported the constitution.

"This constitution will at last give the Kurds their lost rights," the 34-year-old housewife said, coming from the polls with the red-and-green Kurdish flag wrapped around her body.

In the south, the heartland of Iraq's Shiites, some Shiite cities reported a higher turnout than the January vote. Top cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani had urged his followers to turn out and support the charter.

"Today, I came to vote because I am tired of terrorists, and I want the country to be safe again," said Zeinab Sahib, a 30-year-old mother of three, one of the first voters at a school in the mainly Shiite neighborhood of Karrada in Baghdad.

"This constitution means unity and hope."

Overall national turnout in the January elections was 58 percent, but only 2 percent of the eligible voters cast ballots in Anbar province. Turnout was also low in the Sunni Arab provinces of Ninevah and Salahuddin.

American troops in Humvees rattled down Baghdad streets in patrols, while Iraqi soldiers and police ringed polling stations at schools and other public buildings protected by concrete barriers and barbed wire.

Iraqi soldiers armed with heavy machine guns looked over polling sites from nearby rooftops. U.S. troops in tanks and armored vehicles stood not far away as helicopters hovered overhead. Driving was banned to stop suicide car bombings by insurgents determined to wreck the vote.

The polls opened at 7 a.m., just hours after government workers restored power lines that insurgents sabotaged in the north Friday night, plunging the Iraqi capital and surrounding areas into darkness.

In the central Baghdad area of Khulani, where Sunnis and Shiites both live, a steady stream of voters entered a large polling station after being searched three times.

They included old men and women who could barely walk with canes, and young mothers wearing chadors and carrying infants. Other voters wore baggy traditional Kurdish dresses, and some youths were dressed in jeans.

After placing the ballots in the plastic boxes at the polling centers, the Iraqis had the forefinger of their right hands marked with violet ink to prevent repeat voting.

In Sadr City, a mostly Shiite area of Baghdad controlled by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who led uprisings against the U.S.-led coalition last year, people were widely expected to vote "yes."

Not Haitham Aouda Abdul-Nabi, a 23-year-old co-owner of a convenience store. When he showed up at a Sadr City secondary school to vote, he said: "More than 90 percent of Iraq's Shiites support the constitution, but not me."

Why? Because he is tired of the chaos that has followed Saddam's ouster: killings by insurgents, fighting between rebels and U.S. troops, squabbling in Iraq's mostly Shiite and Kurdish government, and nearly daily power outages in the capital.

"Only force can bring results with a people like us in Iraq," he said. "Unfortunately, we need someone like Saddam. This government is too weak."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20051015/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_051015153115

Draco
16-10-05, 05:45
Interesting, somehow I was expecting more of a reaction from good news out of Iraq.

T.Onix
16-10-05, 05:50
That is good. I'm glad to see some progress on this issue.

Capt. Murphy
16-10-05, 13:28
If it's something good that happens it flies under the radar. If it's one small little bad thing: everyone knows about it and is actually more concerned / eager to point it out. You know: as long as it's negative.

Topics like this serve only to undermine the already biased views held by the majority of people around here.

Good news is no fun. *We wanna see Bush getting hurt or messing up.

*"We" doesn't necessarily include me. ;)

[ 16. October 2005, 14:41: Message edited by: Capt. Murphy ]

deepbluesea
16-10-05, 13:34
the less said about iraq the better. i've been there and personally i couldn't give a monkeys.

Catapharact
16-10-05, 15:57
Hmmmm. Well a constitution has it's roots over in place, though it's been rushed. They should have taken their time over it. Yes yes, I know, they don't have time, which kinda makes it a catch 22 situation.

*Sigh* I don't see stability comming to this region for another decade or so.

Flipper1987
16-10-05, 17:10
Originally posted by Draco:
Interesting, somehow I was expecting more of a reaction from good news out of Iraq. On this forum?

FLIPPER

[ 16. October 2005, 18:14: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

nikos
16-10-05, 19:42
Original posted by flipper

"Originally posted by Draco:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting, somehow I was expecting more of a reaction from good news out of Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On this forum?

FLIPPER"
1]Whats rong with this forum?what do you mean exactly?
Its clear for me,but i am waiting to see it writen by you,because i still want to believe, that it was just a bad moment of yours!

2]why should we react for these "good news"?
do you really believe that voting, for this "ex soviet" style, "fake" dilemma[take it or leave it,but no needs over 67% http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/privateeye.gif ],will give a permanent solution to iraqi problem?
do you really think that this constitution will protect iraq from a civil war?in the contrary this will bring 100% the civil war!
The poor country is already a big graveyard and this "democratic" goverment and this "constitution" will be a lovely tombstone!nothing more!

So sorry my friend but we have more serious think to do,than talking and cheering for "voting",among blood and pain! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/privateeye.gif

I just want to leave that issue,without a comment,because i didnt want to spoil your daily celebration[tommorow iraqi's will return back to theire pathetic reality],but the SARCASM against ALL in this FORUM,change my mind! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/privateeye.gif

Original posted by Catapharact
*Sigh* I don't see stability comming to this region for another decade or so.
A decade?i really wish to be only a decade,but already ramsfeld said that US troops will remain for at least 12 years,so try to figure out the reality! :(

[ 16. October 2005, 20:46: Message edited by: nikos ]

tazmine
16-10-05, 20:17
I think it is good news that so many of Iraq's citizens have been able to vote, but the really good news out of Iraq, imo, will be that the troops are coming home, because that will mean the country really is able to govern itself.

It's hard for people who are opposed to the war to get excited about the election, because it really doesn't mean a whole lot, until the country can govern itself, without US or British soldiers patrolling the streets.

[ 16. October 2005, 21:22: Message edited by: tazmine ]

Draco
16-10-05, 20:53
I think it says volumes that the 'insurgents' would rather vote than slaughter innocent people.

I can't be the only one to see that?

And yes, I did expect more from this forum, granted I figured it would just be a veiled attack on Bush and not actually constructive http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

mau3genius
16-10-05, 23:15
Originally posted by Flipper1987:
Originally posted by Draco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Interesting, somehow I was expecting more of a reaction from good news out of Iraq. On this forum?

FLIPPER </font>[/QUOTE]

Flipper, a question...
Why the heck you are in this forum, if you just talk about politic, and "insult" others?

Oh, wait, I know :rolleyes:

tlr online
16-10-05, 23:37
I'm gonna abstain from any lengthy contribution to this thread from ‘fear-of-banging-one's-head-against-a-brick-wall syndrome’, suffice to say that if the U.S. (or the UK, or any other country that participated in this illegal occupation) is looking for a pat on the back, think again.

The REAL net result of this is global instability on a scale never seen before.

nikos
17-10-05, 16:04
Something to add

Mainichi Shimbun a japanese newspaper publish the result of a recent gallup where the 77% of japanese people are against the war now,and they ask for theire goverment to call back the about 600 soldiers they sent to iraq!

Thanks god, more people understand the reality, and we are about 2 years only of the beginning of that mess,and civil war is very near!

Siites supported by iran[same religion,and just to remind you that the winner of iraqi election is a fanatical one!]

sunites againsts siites and kurdish, trying to get theire rights and just not to live like guests in theire country!and ofcource is very racist and blind thought that all of them are saddam supporters,think about it!

kurdish trying to create theire country[and they have absolutely right on that],but first they have to fight against sunites,and siites who will try later to be closer to iran,and ofcource the real big problem against turks,where 50% of kurdistan is !

My comments for all of that?simply....... http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/yikes.gif

[ 17. October 2005, 17:09: Message edited by: nikos ]

Capt. Murphy
17-10-05, 21:08
Originally posted by tlr online:
...suffice to say that if the U.S. (or the UK, or any other country that participated in this illegal occupation) is looking for a pat on the back, think again.A pat on the back for the U.S.? :confused: I don't understand. Wasn't it the Iraqi people that went out and voted? Aren't they they one's that are making an effort to better their lives? Originally posted by tlr online:
The REAL net result of this is global instability on a scale never seen before. You say that as if it is a reality or presently happening. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking on your part - you know. As long as it makes Bush look bad.... ;) When, of course, the final outcome is still unknown.

"Illegal"? Or Justified? http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/whistle.gif

[ 17. October 2005, 22:14: Message edited by: Capt. Murphy ]

Flipper1987
17-10-05, 21:37
Originally posted by tlr online:
The REAL net result of this is global instability on a scale never seen before. Really? I guess World War I, World War II, and the numerous flare-ups during the Cold War must have slipped your mind.

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
17-10-05, 21:47
Originally posted by mau3genius:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Flipper1987:
Originally posted by Draco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Interesting, somehow I was expecting more of a reaction from good news out of Iraq. On this forum?

FLIPPER </font>[/QUOTE]

Flipper, a question...
Why the heck you are in this forum, if you just talk about politic, and "insult" others?

Oh, wait, I know :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]Because tlronline has done an exceptional job in creating a vast website about a game that got me back into the gaming hobby after a 10 year absence. I come here because if I want to know what's up with Lara, this is the site to go to, plain & simple.

Yes I talk a lot of politics because it's a weighty subject and it interests me. I haven't chimed in more because of my full-time job & graduate school.

Satisfied Mau?

FLIPPER

tazmine
17-10-05, 22:30
Originally posted by Flipper1987:
Originally posted by tlr online:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The REAL net result of this is global instability on a scale never seen before. Really? I guess World War I, World War II, and the numerous flare-ups during the Cold War must have slipped your mind.

FLIPPER </font>[/QUOTE]I really don't think you compare WWI or WW2 to what is going on in Iraq today. In both World Wars the aggressor was clearly defined. Here, the US invaded Iraq because Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction...but whoops, they were wrong. I don't dispute the fact that he & his regime were evil, but he was a dictator, not a threat to the US.

I do agree with tlr, however, that the invasion of Iraq has caused people who might otherwise had been indifferent to the radical Islamic fundamentalists to side with them in their hatred of the Western nations & Europe. If you don't think we (& I include Canada in here as well, even though our troops aren't participating in the war in Iraq), are hated by a large majority of the world's population, then you are deluding yourself.

My grandfather was killed in France during WW1...I certainly am proud of him & his contribution...I know exactly what he was fighting to defend...I doubt the survivors of all those killed in Iraq can say the same thing.

Edit...I don't mean to imply that family of soldiers killed in Iraq will not be proud of them...in rereading this, it sounded like I was saying that. I meant that they will not be able to define exactly what they died for.

[ 17. October 2005, 23:34: Message edited by: tazmine ]

Flipper1987
17-10-05, 22:45
Originally posted by nikos:


"Originally posted by Draco:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting, somehow I was expecting more of a reaction from good news out of Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On this forum?

FLIPPER"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1]Whats rong with this forum?what do you mean exactly?What do I mean exactly? Let's just look at the rest of your predictable, negative response to this "good news" coming out of Iraq.

2]why should we react for these "good news"?
do you really believe that voting, for this "ex soviet" style, "fake" dilemma[take it or leave it,but no needs over 67% ],will give a permanent solution to iraqi problem?
do you really think that this constitution will protect iraq from a civil war?in the contrary this will bring 100% the civil war!
The poor country is already a big graveyard and this "democratic" goverment and this "constitution" will be a lovely tombstone!nothing more!The reason why I responded with such incredulity to Draco's question is because this forum is filled with anti-Iraq War/anti-Bush/anti-US individuals who ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to believe that anything good will ever come out of Iraq & hope the US, along with the Iraqis, fail to bring democracy & stability to Iraq.

[EDIT: On further review I decided to delete the paragraph that was previously here...with apologies http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif ]

So sorry my friend but we have more serious think to do,than talking and cheering for "voting",among blood and pain!Well I never suggested that you should talk about &/or cheer for these historic elections in Iraq. If you wish to ignore them, feel free to. Most of the liberal mainstream media in the US have.

By the way, what are those more "serious things" that you have to do? Just curious.

I just want to leave that issue,without a comment,because i didnt want to spoil your daily celebration[tommorow iraqi's will return back to theire pathetic reality],but the SARCASM against ALL in this FORUM,change my mind!
So let me get this straight! My "on this forum?" comment persuaded you to comment on this thread? ROFLMAO! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/vlol.gif As if! I'm quite positive that you would have chimed in with your "data" & typical "Iraq is doomed" comments regardless if I posted or not.

FLIPPER

[ 18. October 2005, 03:47: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

Capt. Murphy
17-10-05, 22:56
I'd also ponder: "What are the insurgents dying.. er, killing themselves for (as well as taking innocent lives in the process)?" You've heard the line "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." But what 'FREEDOM' can be gained from killing your fellow citizens, innocent children, and even fellow muslims? Trying to break down an infrascructure that is slowly but surely building itself up for -not only the betterment of a people- but for the security of the civilized world. But I guess some people would rather have a brutal dictator in charge of their lives. If that's anyone's idea of freedom.... Well then they're more than entitled to their opinion. No matter how flawed and illogical it is. :(

T.Onix
17-10-05, 22:58
I really dont have much a say in this topic. I just think is a good thing if elections are being made in Iraq. Now. This is what I don't like about THIS THREAD.
(Let me say that I'm not trying to bash anyone here, its just my silly opinion.)
The Original post was made. Noone, in about 10 hours regarded that topic, then two uf us made comments. But first, the complain about noone having something to say about this good news appeared. The only feedback I've seen on this topic is to negative reposts, so why complain about noone having something good to say, if they are only going to answer to negative comments??

I just dont understand...

But that's just me

Flipper1987
17-10-05, 23:38
Originally posted by tlr online:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The REAL net result of this is global instability on a scale never seen before. Really? I guess World War I, World War II, and the numerous flare-ups during the Cold War must have slipped your mind.

FLIPPER</font>[/QUOTE]Originally posted by tazmine:
I really don't think you compare WWI or WW2 to what is going on in Iraq today.I think you missed my point Tazmine. Tlronline said that what is going on in Iraq has caused "global instability on a scale NEVER SEEN BEFORE." That is historically inaccurate.

In both World Wars the aggressor was clearly defined. Here, the US invaded Iraq because Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction...but whoops, they were wrong.When you say "they" I hope you are also referring to the numerous countries & their intelligence agencies who concurred with Bush's belief that Saddam had WMDs. Heck even the UN believed Saddam had them. This is all common knowledge.

I don't dispute the fact that he (Saddam) & his regime were evil, but he was a dictator, not a threat to the US.With all due respect Tazmine, that was a common sentiment about Hitler & Mussolini in the 1930s in both Europe & the US. And even when it became obvious to Europeans that Hitler was hell-bent on European/world domination, they tried to appease him at Munich in 1938.

In a post-9/11 world where the US & her allies are fighting a War on Terror, there is no way that you can leave a virulent, anti-US, terrorist-sympathizing, Oil-for-Food skimming, murderous dictator like Saddam in charge of a large country that's in the middle of the Middle East, which of course is where the War on Terror is being waged. There's no way that can be allowed. Eventually Saddam had to be dealt with, and it would have been unwise to wait until he had become a threat to start dealing with him in a serious manner.

I highly-respect your opinion Tazmine, as well as your superlative decorum; however, I just disagree with you over the issue of Saddam being a threat to the US (or anybody for that matter).

FLIPPER

[ 18. October 2005, 03:48: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

tazmine
17-10-05, 23:53
Originally posted by Flipper1987:
When you say "they" I hope you are also referring to the numerous countries & their intelligence agencies who concurred with Bush's belief that Saddam had WMDs. Heck even the UN believed Saddam had them. This is all common knowledge.

Common knowledge it may have supposedly been...but it was wrong...there were no weapons of mass destruction. Just because numerous countries, including the ineffective UN, thought he had them doesn't justify the war.


Eventually Saddam had to be dealt with, and it would have been unwise to wait until he had become a threat to start dealing with him in a serious manner.

FLIPPER [/QB][/QUOTE]


I don't dispute that Sadaam had to be dealt with eventually, but I think that involving the US in a war based on lies & inaccurate intelligence is the wrong way to go about it.

tlr online
18-10-05, 00:11
Reflecting on the many flare-ups we've had over the contentious issue of this so-called 'war on terror', you can understand why conflict still exists today. We have intelligent, professional folk - speaking the same mother tongue - at complete loggerheads over what they believe in.

If we take a leaf out of the U.S. manual on diplomacy, when the talking ends, it's time to bulldoze onto foreign soil under a veil of false pretence, strong-arming weak-minded leaders to follow suit.

I used to get so frustrated reading through the pro-Bush diatribe that (not-surprisingly) only a few folk here chipped in, but for the most part most of it washes right over my head.

This is what I believe.

1. The war in Iraq was illegal.
2. America (present government, I don't want to tarnish all American's here) is not the 'World Police'
3. America (see above) is out for herself, to the detriment of the global community.
4. America (again, see above) has become nothing more than a schoolyard bully.

Now, what sucks even more is that by stating the above, I could now be seen as pro-terrorist.

I am sick of hearing George Bush tell me who the terrorist's are. I’m my opinion, Bush is also a terrorist. And so is Blair.

And the reason most folk direct their anger at America is because it was always the "U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."

Flipper1987
18-10-05, 00:28
Originally posted by tazmine:
I don't dispute that Sadaam had to be dealt with eventually, but I think that involving the US in a war based on lies & inaccurate intelligence is the wrong way to go about it. First, when exactly would have been a good time to deal with Saddam? He only violated 17 or so UN Resolutions, violated the Persian Gulf War cease-fire agreement, fired on US & British fighters patrolling Iraq's "no-fly zone" on numerous occassions, bilked billions from the UN's Oil-for Food program & most-likely bribed France & Russia to veto an invasion of Iraq, & butchered 300,000+ of his own people. Saddam had 12 years to reform; do you think another few years would have made a difference? Europe & the US went into Serbia in 1998 to go after Milosivic on a heck of a lot less than that.

Second, what "lies" are you talking about exactly? I think I know what you are referring to but I don't want to jump to any conclusions. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

FLIPPER

[ 18. October 2005, 01:42: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

Isabella
18-10-05, 02:01
Originally posted by Flipper1987:



The reason why I responded with such incredulity to Draco's question is because this forum is filled with anti-Iraq War/anti-Bush/anti-US individuals who ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to believe that anything good will ever come out of Iraq & hope the US, along with the Iraqis, fail to bring democracy & stability to Iraq.

I know how you guys think: failure in Iraq = failure for the US = failure for Bush. However, if things go well in Iraq, such as these constitutional elections, it undermines the arguments that you & your ilk have made for the last 2+ years. You have invested so much time & emotion criticizing what Bush & the US are doing in Iraq that success in Iraq has become completely UNacceptable to people like you because it will completely destroy your credibility. After all, how can you continue to criticize Bush if Iraq turns out OK? You can't. You'd look like a damn fool. Therefore it's not a surprise to me that you have poo-pooed these elections in Iraq as insignificant. To do otherwise would open you up to the label of hypocrite.

In other words: SUCCESS (any success) IN IRAQ IS NOT AN OPTION, NOR IS IT DESIRED BY BUSH HATERS.





FLIPPER Flipper, Please. I think you're smarter than that, Such statements make you sound as biased as those whom you are targeting.

No one wants to see all the effort put into the war fail. It's a huge, unnessary mess but we started it and now we all want it cleaned up. Don't dehuminize us for not wanting a war which caused so much bloodshed. We've had problems with the Bush administration long before the war. And what's more, he is digging his own hole atm. But if your fore mentioned statement is true than I guess you and your 'ilk' can just place the blame on...ah the Clinton administration! ;)

Genocide
18-10-05, 02:35
Originally posted by tlr online:

This is what I believe.

1. The war in Iraq was illegal.
2. America (present government, I don't want to tarnish all American's here) is not the 'World Police'
3. America (see above) is out for herself, to the detriment of the global community.
4. America (again, see above) has become nothing more than a schoolyard bully.
This is the most sense anyone has made on this topic so far!
In my opinion Terrorism wont ever stop, so why try fighting it?
It's pointless in the end as there are always going to be people who wanna blow :cen: for what ever reason, be it based on a religious belief or the fact they've seen a Jerry Bruckheimer movie and wonder if an explosion really does cause that much damage we see in the film.
The American Government seems to think that by trying to resolve this problem with a war is going to make everything better, when in reallity it's gonna make it worse by ****ing people off therefore giving them a pure motive to blow stuff up, they may not be intentionally trying to kill people for the sake of it, but could be trying to tell everyone
"We'll stop when you stop" but sadly a bomb is the only thing that would make people listen! and im not just blaming the U.S, i think the U.K is just as responsible for its actions
It needs to stop...NOW!!

Flipper1987
18-10-05, 02:42
Originally posted by Isabella:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Flipper1987:



The reason why I responded with such incredulity to Draco's question is because this forum is filled with anti-Iraq War/anti-Bush/anti-US individuals who ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to believe that anything good will ever come out of Iraq & hope the US, along with the Iraqis, fail to bring democracy & stability to Iraq.Flipper, Please. I think you're smarter than that, Such statements make you sound as biased as those whom you are targeting.</font>[/QUOTE][EDIT: Isabella was responding to a paragraph that I have since deleted]

First, thanks for the confidence in my intelligence. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Second, those comments were in response to yet another "Iraq is doomed" post by Nikos who has repeatedly shown his penchant to poo-poo everything that happens there, whether it be good or bad. I believe my response was a bit over the top & perhaps I'll edit it [EDIT: which I did on further review].

No one wants to see all the effort put into the war fail.I would love to believe that but the sad thing is that there clearly are people in the world, including in the US, who would just love to see the US fail in Iraq, & I'm not just talking about the terrorists & their sympathisers. The reasons for this desire are varied: hopes for political gain, satisfying a personal hatred towards the US, etc... I am not implying that mainstream Dems fall into that unattractive category.

I have no problem with those who offer reasonable counter-arguments that display some sort of historical perspective & intellectual honesty; however, that is usually not the case on this website. Demonizing the US as a selfish bully guided by terrorists, as well as slamming those who have the gall to support this administration's Iraq policy, are the preferred methods of many anti-Iraq War extremists on this site. Constructive debate is not their intention.

I actually find these tirades amusing. That's probably because I'm confused in the head. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-2.gif

Don't dehuminize us for not wanting a war which caused so much bloodshed.I assure that was not my intention.

FLIPPER

[ 18. October 2005, 04:07: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

Flipper1987
18-10-05, 03:03
Originally posted by Genocide:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tlr online:

This is what I believe.

1. The war in Iraq was illegal.
2. America (present government, I don't want to tarnish all American's here) is not the 'World Police'
3. America (see above) is out for herself, to the detriment of the global community.
4. America (again, see above) has become nothing more than a schoolyard bully.
This is the most sense anyone has made on this topic so far!</font>[/QUOTE]If you're into that idea that the US is just a selfish bully led by terrorists, go ahead & run with it in the real world & see how far you get.

In my opinion Terrorism wont ever stop, so why try fighting it?Is it me or did I sense a collective cringe occur on this forum? :eek:

FLIPPER

Capt. Murphy
18-10-05, 05:21
I actually thought he was trying to be sarcastic with that remark. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/privateeye.gif

It's like: "Ah, why should I bother looking both ways when I cross the street. I'm gunna die someday anyway." http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/vlol.gif

^Please understand, that's just an example. I'm not wishing that sort of thing or anything like that.

Draco
18-10-05, 06:49
People are so intent on being right that they forget what is important.

The people of Iraq have voted for the first time ever where they had any real say.

If that isn't a landmark accomplishment...nothing is.

tlr online
18-10-05, 13:07
Originally posted by Draco:
If that isn't a landmark accomplishment...nothing is. If indeed the numbers being reported are correct, and not politically spun (like most coverage on the war has been) then you're right. But then no one is questioning that.

The behemoth question mark that hangs over this whole debacle is at what cost this has come, and I'm not talking in financial terms, I'm talking in terms of political, global stability.

A group of men hijacked a passenger airliner and flew it into a skys****er. A ground of men launched a murderous attack on a Spanish metro system. A group of men bombed London. And STILL there are thousands and thousands lining up to continue this tirade of violence.

These folks may not have state-of-the-art technology, weapons of mass destruction, war-planes... etc, but you can bet your tights they consider themselves at war.

While we may not have created this murderous army and their sick methods of attack, we (the invaders of Iraq, afghanistan... etc) have certainly compounded their intent.

nikos
18-10-05, 13:14
To my good friend Flipper!

First things first!

JUST check the time and the day of my post!
Draco's post was at octobers 15,i saw the post because i always read his post,most of them intresting,fanny[garfield],some serious some not but always intresting!you know, i am every day on that forum,and if you see a little carefull,i am refering to war or bush only in 1 to 10 of my posts!just check it by search button!
i just wanted to leave it as it is,because i didnt want to have arguments with draco,because he is a good member of the site and if, we except some different opinions about war, we agree in many other things!
the other day you talk about "this forum",and then i react,and if can see clearly you attract many other reactions by people who are not refering to much about politics!so its better to read more carefull,and then make your decisions and opinions about me and ofcource all the 12000 members of "this" forum!

2]I am not asking you,why you react for draco's post, but why WE have to react for something real fanny issue, like "voting for constitution",among chaos,and a little before civil war?
[BTW sunites already talk about "victory"[dont ask me if they said the truth],and send warnings that if the result is the opposite, they refuse to obey!so be prepared for bad news!]

You know flipper everyone who has experience about this,can see clearly that all this is just aspirin for cancer!absolutely uselless!
We had in greece in 1972 some kind of elections like this,where the 72% of the greek people vote in favour of dictators http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/vlol.gif ,usa was again the first country who congratulated the "winners",but after 2 years dictators felt down,and now thanks god are in jail,or already died in jail!
The same happened always in ex ussr,and other komekon countries and ofcource all dictatorhips in south america,asia ,where govs took always 95% of the votes! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/vlol.gif
and ofcource Dont forget the "elections" in vietnam in about 1967!!!USA cheering for the result,but the future told us the truth!

3]But what are my more serious intrestings?

LETS GIVE SOME EXAMPLES!

http://news.ert.gr/en/newsDetails.asp?id=11619

Deadly Army Operations 07 Oct 2005 12:25:00

By Betty Savourdou
Ε-mail Print



At least 30 Iraqi insurgents were killed in US military operations in western Iraq. The US army launched air raids against an abandoned hotel near the borders with Syria, for it was believed to have hosted an al Qaeda-linked organisation. Eight bridges on the Euphrates river were also bombarded. In addition, in Basra, the British troops made arrest during an overnight raid aiming at suspects of hits against British troops.

OR http://news.ert.gr/en/newsDetails.asp?id=11404

Bloody Attacks in Iraq 29 Sep 2005 20:17:00

By Vicky Keleri
Ε-mail Print



Sources: Reuters - ANA


At least 50 people lost their lives and another 100 were injured by the coordinated explosion of bombs in Balad, north of Baghdad, where Shia and Sunni Arabs live. As per the announcement of the Iraqi Police, the bombs had been placed in three different places. The first one exploded in a crowded market in a Shia district, the second near a bank and the third one next to a police station. Earlier, five Americans lost their lives when their car was hit by a bomb, which had been placed on the side of a road. The incident was reported in Ramadi, some 110km west of Baghdad. In the meantime, General George Casey, commander of US troops in Iraq, admitted today that if the new Iraqi constitution was rejected in a referendum in two weeks’ time, the situation could deteriorate.



Unfavourable Prospects


Casey clarified that his estimation on the ratification of the Constitution is based on counter-intelligence information, while he added there could be a negative vote from the Sunni minority.
In fact, he stressed this negative vote could trigger the deterioration of the political situation.

General Casey said he would not speculate on any withdrawal of US troops from Iraq until after that period.

His colleague, General John Abizaid, told a congressional hearing that al-Qaeda was the main enemy of peace and stability in the Middle East and the threat it posed should not be underestimated.

OR OR [i hope links works,i hate to fill this post with a few hundrents articles about iraq]

You know these are the reality,and elections are like puting vanilla cream,in a poisoned pie!

http://news.ert.gr/en/newsDetails.asp?id=11438

AND MANY OTHERS
http://www.ert.gr/eidiseis/en/CatNews.asp?catid=78

Finally flipper i want to tell you this,many times i was dissapointed in this forum,for many reasons,some people are offended against me, in political issues,some other time they didnt like my jokes,but for any reason i ever think to be sarcastic for "this forum",in the contrary i am proud to be one of them!

OH i forget to ask!
What do you think about the poll in japan?
Do you think that is democratic for a goverment to ignore the will of the 77% of theire people? http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

tlr online
18-10-05, 13:16
Originally posted by Flipper1987:
If you're into that idea that the US is just a selfish bully led by terrorists, go ahead & run with it in the real world & see how far you get. Morning Flipper.

Unfortunately, you are absolutely right. Because free and critical thinking will soon be outlawed in the U.K. Not only are we spoon-fed who the terrorists are, we're now told that any comment to the contrary could be seen as "provocation of racial tension" or being "supportive of terrorist activities."

So you see, we are slowly losing all our rights to call our government into question. The only inquiry our government did initiate was such a farce most simply walked away from it shaking their heads.

It's a good job your forum administrator allows such hearty debate on his video-game forum, altho I expect to be carted off screaming and kicking any day soon. :rolleyes:

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

Draco
18-10-05, 19:52
I still find it interesting that in theory, the Monarchy could regain the power it signed away in the Magna Carta.

I don't see it happening, but it makes for interesting discussion.

As for losing rights to free speech, I wasn't aware that it ever was a right in the UK? Just an unwritten law. Or am I mistaken?

Catapharact
18-10-05, 20:00
Justin brings in a point that I think many have thought of before. You have to realize people that the Terrorist front will never stop; they will fight to last man. It's complete zelotry. They truly believe that they will die heros. It's why in the past, Muslim armies were able to crush opponenets three times their size.

Though again, Flipper may disagree, Iraq has turned into a gurella warfare zone. The coaliiton is fighting an invisible enemy.

Stability? No there won't be stability... Not for many decades. Infact this constitution may drive a problematic stake down the already dire situation.

tlr online
18-10-05, 23:02
Originally posted by Draco:
As for losing rights to free speech, I wasn't aware that it ever was a right in the UK? Just an unwritten law. Or am I mistaken? I thought most democracies advocate free speech. Well, they did, anyways. :rolleyes:

tazmine
18-10-05, 23:08
Originally posted by tlr online:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
As for losing rights to free speech, I wasn't aware that it ever was a right in the UK? Just an unwritten law. Or am I mistaken? I thought most democracies advocate free speech. Well, they did, anyways. :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]It'll be the "thought police" next. It used to be acceptable to disagree with the government...protest was thought to be a healthy thing for a democratic society...I don't think opposition & disagreement are so wise a choice any more, all things considered.

Draco
19-10-05, 07:22
Originally posted by tlr online:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
As for losing rights to free speech, I wasn't aware that it ever was a right in the UK? Just an unwritten law. Or am I mistaken? I thought most democracies advocate free speech. Well, they did, anyways. :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]I'm talking about what is written down, because in the end, that is all that matters.

tlr online
19-10-05, 09:59
Originally posted by Draco:
I'm talking about what is written down, because in the end, that is all that matters. Er... large quantities of legislation still dates back to the turn of the century. You would be amazed at what is still technically 'illegal' present day, so no, I don't think that is all that matters. :rolleyes:

Draco
19-10-05, 12:28
What protects your freedom of speech? Can you not answer that?

tlr online
19-10-05, 12:34
Nothing, clearly.

Do you have a point relevant to this thread, or am I just being incredibly stupid?

Draco
19-10-05, 12:40
I don't want to jump to any conclusions.

It's written down here that speech is a freedom that everyone has. Civil war would happen before it could be taken away.

Democracy does not guarantee that right. Only that you have a vote.

tlr online
19-10-05, 12:57
How very prudent of you.

You would make a fine politician Eric. I'm quite confident you would spend my taxable earnings arguing around any contentious issue. :rolleyes:

I'll re-word my original statement, for your benefit:

Freedom of speech *should* be a given right in any civilised society. To hold accountable those whom are voted into office to govern the masses *should* be the responsibility of the voter - otherwise what is the point of the ballet box.

Draco
19-10-05, 13:09
Hehe, of course it 'should'. But that won't make it reality.

As for my being a good politician...maybe, but even the Republican Party would cringe at my budget cuts.

tlr online
19-10-05, 13:15
Perhaps we could leave the semantics of this argument next to that bucket of whitewash I can see loitering in your vicinity and get back onto the real bone of contention. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Draco
19-10-05, 19:38
Why not. As for whitewash...what would I need that for?

nikos
19-10-05, 20:06
:confused:
Well i dont know whats worst!
The terrorists or the fear of terrorism?

What is the benefit of the war against terrorism[if that war started for stoping terror,and not for oil and conquering the area],if we loose our freedom?

What is the benefit if we turn to a state like talibans are?
DONT TALK,DONT THINK DONT THIS, DONT THAT!
wHATS THE DIFFERENCE?
and dont tell me that we dont wear a.... burka!ha!
Because we already did!in our democracy!in our freedom! :mad:

Flipper1987
20-10-05, 00:52
Originally posted by nikos:
You know flipper everyone who has experience about this,can see clearly that all this is just aspirin for cancer!absolutely uselless!
We had in greece in 1972 some kind of elections like this,where the 72% of the greek people vote in favour of dictators http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/vlol.gif ,usa was again the first country who congratulated the "winners",but after 2 years dictators felt down,and now thanks god are in jail,or already died in jail!
The same happened always in ex ussr,and other komekon countries and ofcource all dictatorhips in south america,asia ,where govs took always 95% of the votes! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/vlol.gif
and ofcource Dont forget the "elections" in vietnam in about 1967!!!USA cheering for the result,but the future told us the truth!The problem with that argument is that you are assuming what is occurring in Iraq is exactly the same thing that happened in all of those countries that you cited. But what is going on in Iraq can't be viewed solely through a Vietnam prism. Iraq is not Greece in 1972 or Vietnam in 1967.

Do you honestly believe that the Iraqis, after going through 35+ years of being brutalized by the Baathist regime, are going to elect another oppressive regime? Do you honestly believe the Iraqis are that stupid? Is it possible that a Shia-dominated Islamic theocracy might be elected? Sure, but after all the in-fighting that has gone on in Iraq over the last 2+ years, I doubt the Shias would engage in behavior that would undermine the democratic government that they desperately want.

There's another huge difference between Vietnam & Iraq. It's true that you had/have US troops in both Vietnam & Iraq; however, the vast majority of Iraqis don't want coalition forces to leave. That can't be said about South Vietnam in 1967, where the US was supporting a corrupt democratic government that many South Vietnamese came to despise. In Iraq, with a lot of help from Britain & other countries, the US is helping the Iraqi people to create their own government. It hasn't been easy: foreign terrorists & pro-Saddam Sunni insurgents want to plunge Iraq back into the Saddam era.

And have you noticed...what the Coalition is doing in Iraq is the EXACT SAME THING that they are currently doing in Afghanistan: replacing an oppressive regime, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, going after terrorists, building up the nation's security forces, and setting up a democratic government. The ONLY reason that some anti-war people are screaming about Iraq & not Afghanistan is because they operate from the questionable premise that the Iraqi invasion was an "illegal war" (as determined by the corrupted UN). I guess Security Council Resolution 1441 (passed in Nov. 2002) was some meaningless declaration against Iraq, as well as the 17-odd Security Council Resolutions that Saddam ignored for 12 years.

Finally flipper i want to tell you this,many times i was dissapointed in this forum,for many reasons,some people are offended against me, in political issues,some other time they didnt like my jokes,but for any reason i ever think to be sarcastic for "this forum",in the contrary i am proud to be one of them!I was not trying to condemn the entire forum membership. Draco wondered why there wasn't any mention of the historic elections in Iraq in this forum, and I, based on the past history of this forum, responded with "on this forum?" because I believed that precious few would comment on it positively. If you would peruse this thread so far, only a couple people did comment positively, while many dumped on it including yourself.

If Draco had not broached the subject in the first place, I seriously doubt it would have been brought up at all. Of course we have a trillion threads on Lara's bra size, which I find incredibly boring unless pictures are provided.

FLIPPER

Genocide
20-10-05, 02:44
Originally posted by Flipper1987:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Genocide:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tlr online:

This is what I believe.

1. The war in Iraq was illegal.
2. America (present government, I don't want to tarnish all American's here) is not the 'World Police'
3. America (see above) is out for herself, to the detriment of the global community.
4. America (again, see above) has become nothing more than a schoolyard bully.
This is the most sense anyone has made on this topic so far!</font>[/QUOTE]If you're into that idea that the US is just a selfish bully led by terrorists, go ahead & run with it in the real world & see how far you get.

In my opinion Terrorism wont ever stop, so why try fighting it?Is it me or did I sense a collective cringe occur on this forum? :eek:

FLIPPER </font>[/QUOTE]ok, that didnt quite come out right, what im trying to get at is, will it all be worth it in the end?
no matter what year it is, what weapons are available, and what laws are laid down, there will still be terrorists, you know this as well as i do, there is no stopping them,
So rather than fighting them, and causing chaos, wouldnt it be better in just trying to prevent future attacks themselves through other means, i honestly dont think 'war' is the answer, with 'war your just provoking them and raising the chances of another attack
Is it all worth the sacrifice? there has to be another way!
and yes i do think America is a bully, it's seems that through its history (im not an expert so please do not lecture me on this) seems to use violence to solve its problems (i shall look this up myself sometime and publically apologise if i am wrong!, and im sorry to anyone i have offended with that comment)
And i am aware of my own country's past and am ashamed by it, I truly do hate my country! there is nothing great about it, and never will be

[ 20. October 2005, 03:54: Message edited by: Genocide ]

Draco
20-10-05, 02:47
Violence is the only universal language.

nikos
20-10-05, 13:03
Well flipper there is some things you missed!

FIRST PART!

1]greece was a different issue i was refering as an "election" example, because i had this personal experience,by seeing my father crying while he voted,because he was forced to vote for something he didnt like!

2]Iraqi problem is worst than vietnam,because of the "tribal" nature of this nation!
There are religion enemies[sunites,siites],and also 2 different nations[kurdish,and iraqis]!


So We have this material!
A]AN unwanted invasion[do you really believe that the majority of the people like us-uk troops?i hardly doupt about it!]
B]a constitution witch leave 1/3 of people[sunites] out of political life,make them leave like guests in theire own country!the other part[siites] are closer to iran extremists[because of the reliegeon
C]Kurdish want to create theire own country[and the have the right for it, because kurdishtan is huge country,about 50,000,000 people and theire land includes a big part of iraq[the north],a bigest part in turkey[the east one],and a smaller part in ex-ussr's lands!

Now the way things are going,seems to be an explosive mixture,than us leaders are unable to control,theire concern is more to control the oil funds of iraq,and the separation of the country in 2 peaces is a part of this plan!

So the civil 3headed war[nationalism,realigion and social reason[poverty etc..],is near!

4]Iforget the cherry of this poison pie!the inside and imported terrorism! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/yikes.gif


5]The expirience of iran and other muslims countries,teach me that people will vote for something worst than the regime of saddam!
No they arent stupid,they are fanatics,and thats worst!
Remember how we celebrated the fall of sach of iran[about 1980],and then we faced homeini's regime?
Thats the future of iraq!

CONCLUSION :if usa leaders really wanted to help iraq they had a perfect[and the only sure solution!]

Helping the huge opposition against saddam, to gain the power,as partizans,they could have a unification,and then they could find some democratic solution to recreate theire country,and maybe if things were hard and saddam resists, they would ask for help from UN,and then you and the rest of world could attack to regime and they could be really welcomed by iraqi people as liberators,and not as invaders and thieves as they seems to be for the majority of world!
That ofcource needed some time[a decade perchaps],but it could be a corect,legal,and sure solution!
In the contrary usa-uk prefer an endless,illegal and unsure attack!

Ofcource the world wide effects of explotions of iraq, are not only ethical,but also financial,because this situation is a disaster for all the worlds economy because of the extremely increased oil prices![oh! ramsfeld and the others, and theire oil companies should be really happy now!


SECOND PART!

I dont agree with you for the situation in afganistan!
According to my origins[greek indipendent newspapers,and tv channels[most they use reuters,bbc and other channels as origins]
there is a complete chaos!usa soldiers do not have any control[only in big cities and only during daylight],and the only law there is violence,black market,talibans attack at nights,and in the country of this poor land the only financial origin is opium agriculture[extremely increased after the interference!
And dont forget there is 1 nation,one religion,and real hate against talibans,so try to imagine what will happened to iraq soon!

THIRD PART!

Well flipper you forget to answer in that!

""What do you think about the poll in japan?
Do you think that is democratic for a goverment to ignore the will of the 77% of theire people?""