Iraq Voting....hmmm and it gets intresting.
09-24-2004, 11:51 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Iraq Voting....hmmm and it gets intresting.
Defense secretary, Iraq leader say elections will be held as scheduled
Friday, September 24, 2004 Posted: 11:08 AM EDT (1508 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that parts of Iraq might be excluded from elections set for January because of rising violence.
That violence continued on Friday, as U.S. warplanes pounded targets in the Sunni Triangle town of Falluja and at least four Iraqis were killed and 10 others wounded in an attack by insurgents in Baghdad.
On Thursday, Rumsfeld had expressed optimism that elections will push through as scheduled.
But at a U.S. Senate Committee hearing he raised the possibility polls might not be held in all of Iraq.
"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said, hours after the leaders of the United States and Iraq met in Washington.
"Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said. (Full story)
On Friday, Rumsfeld is set to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who is in the United States. The two are expected to talk about security as insurgents in Iraq use suicide bombings, hostage-takings, beheadings and other tactics to block Iraq's progress.
Trying to put an upbeat face on the future of his young government, besieged by the insurgency, Allawi is attempting to drum up support for Iraq at the United Nations, where the General Assembly is meeting, and in Washington, where he addressed Congress and met with President Bush.
The interim prime minister has repeatedly vowed that the violence endured by Iraq will not deter the upcoming balloting.
He said that if elections were held today, they could be staged effectively in 15 of the country's 18 provinces, and cited South Africa, Sierra Leone and Indonesia as nations where elections were held despite violence.
"Today we are better off, you are better off, the world is better off without Saddam Hussein," Allawi said in his address to Congress on Thursday. (Transcript of Allawi's address)
So, a government where all Iraqies don't vote for sure looks like it has a promising future.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._pe/us_iraq_38
"But Rumsfeld again acknowledged that some areas may be inaccessible to voting. On Thursday, he told a Senate committee that Iraqis may "have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet.""
That really will unite the country together...
What gets me is why don't they wait till the country is more in control before voting? Why the rush its not like it will sudenly change how things are going.
PS
bugmenot.com For those news site that want you to free register.
Friday, September 24, 2004 Posted: 11:08 AM EDT (1508 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that parts of Iraq might be excluded from elections set for January because of rising violence.
That violence continued on Friday, as U.S. warplanes pounded targets in the Sunni Triangle town of Falluja and at least four Iraqis were killed and 10 others wounded in an attack by insurgents in Baghdad.
On Thursday, Rumsfeld had expressed optimism that elections will push through as scheduled.
But at a U.S. Senate Committee hearing he raised the possibility polls might not be held in all of Iraq.
"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said, hours after the leaders of the United States and Iraq met in Washington.
"Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said. (Full story)
On Friday, Rumsfeld is set to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who is in the United States. The two are expected to talk about security as insurgents in Iraq use suicide bombings, hostage-takings, beheadings and other tactics to block Iraq's progress.
Trying to put an upbeat face on the future of his young government, besieged by the insurgency, Allawi is attempting to drum up support for Iraq at the United Nations, where the General Assembly is meeting, and in Washington, where he addressed Congress and met with President Bush.
The interim prime minister has repeatedly vowed that the violence endured by Iraq will not deter the upcoming balloting.
He said that if elections were held today, they could be staged effectively in 15 of the country's 18 provinces, and cited South Africa, Sierra Leone and Indonesia as nations where elections were held despite violence.
"Today we are better off, you are better off, the world is better off without Saddam Hussein," Allawi said in his address to Congress on Thursday. (Transcript of Allawi's address)
So, a government where all Iraqies don't vote for sure looks like it has a promising future.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._pe/us_iraq_38
"But Rumsfeld again acknowledged that some areas may be inaccessible to voting. On Thursday, he told a Senate committee that Iraqis may "have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet.""
That really will unite the country together...
What gets me is why don't they wait till the country is more in control before voting? Why the rush its not like it will sudenly change how things are going.
PS
bugmenot.com For those news site that want you to free register.
09-24-2004, 12:21 PM
#3
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
This is a good test for those "insurgents" that oppose voting.
If they really want to participate in the newer/more free Iraq, they'll stop fighting long enough to vote & await the outcome.
If they continue fighting after being given the opportunity to vote, it will show that they really don't want to participate & should be treated accordingly.
If they really want to participate in the newer/more free Iraq, they'll stop fighting long enough to vote & await the outcome.
If they continue fighting after being given the opportunity to vote, it will show that they really don't want to participate & should be treated accordingly.
09-24-2004, 01:49 PM
#4
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,709
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by Salty
So they're not taking my advice on having the lowest ranking private double-time into hostile cities to collect the ballots?
I guess not...
It's kind of silly to exlude one of their largest cities... and their CAPITOL! It would be like voting for a pres. here in the states, but excluding Washington DC and New York city!!!!! INSANE! Actually, NY city has a strong record for voting Dem, so maybe Bush would like that. 
As I have said before, I comend the current Iraqi "leadership" for still trying to push for elections. However, not being able to hold elections in two of their most important cities shows how off course the Bush plan in Iraq has really become.-Chris
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
slugrx
Bay Area
11
03-20-2015 04:54 PM
Salty
Teh Politics Forum
6
09-23-2004 06:00 PM