Iraqi's Vote In Massive Numbers
Marine0I
Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Anti-war protestors, raise hands please</div> <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html' target='_blank'>CNN</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The polls have closed on Iraq's first free election in a half century, with the independent election commission reporting a 72 percent turnout of registered voters nationwide by mid-afternoon amid attacks and threats of attacks to disrupt the vote.
Insurgents carried out more than a dozen attacks across the country, killing at least 24 people and wounded 67.
The commission's Adil Al-Lami and Safwat Rashid did not release figures for Iraq's largest province, al-Anbar -- west of Baghdad, including Falluja and Ramadi -- or the northwestern Nineveh province, which includes Mosul.
"There has been a vast turnout in Iraq," Rashid said.
"The news is freedom has won," Al-Lami said. "We have conquered terrorism."
The commissioners reported turnout as high as 95 percent in some parts of the capital, Baghdad, but did not offer total numbers of voters.
U.N. election organizer Carlos Valezuela told CNN that while he was "happy with the turnout," it was too early to report numbers.
"I would rather until we have much better reporting to be able to come up with figures," he said.
Meanwhile, insurgents carried out more than a dozen attacks across the country, killing at least 24 people and wounded 67.
However, U.S. commanders expecting a greater level of violence said they were pleasantly surprised that their massive security operation had paid off, CNN's Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour reported from the Iraqi capital.
A statement posted on several Islamic Web sites, purportedly from a group headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for Sunday's attacks on polling areas in Baghdad as well as attacks in other areas of Iraq.
The statement said the group had promised to conduct the attacks "to make fun of those that demand democracy."
CNN correspondents earlier reported that turnout was sporadic across the nation after 30,000 polling booths opened at 7 a.m. on Sunday (0400 GMT) under the watchful eye of Iraqi security forces and U.S. troops. Voting was scheduled to end at 5 p.m. (1400 GMT).
In former president Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, polling stations were virtually empty. But in other parts of the country booths were packed with people casting their ballots, many of them for the first time in their lifetime.
In the northeastern town of Baquba, CNN's Jane Arraf found a polling station where a long line of Iraqi voters chanted and clapped their hands in front of the camera.
One voter told Arraf that Sunday's vote was a "bullet in the heart of the enemy."
Further north in the Kurdistan town of Salamanca, CNN's Nic Robertson reported seeing a 90-year-old woman being taken to a booth in a wheelbarrow. Others came on crutches to cast their ballot.
In the southern city of Basra, ITN's Juliet Bremner reported that turnout was almost 90 percent. She said voting was peaceful and orderly with elated Shias -- oppressed for decades under Saddam -- "determined to cast their votes in their desire for freedom, peace and food."
But the landmark vote for a nation that has survived decades of brutal oppression and nearly two years of war and insurgency was marred by eight suicide bomb attacks in Baghdad that killed at least 11 people and injured 47 more.
Identifying them by their ink-stained fingers, insurgents in Baghdad also rounded up four voters after they left a polling station and killed them by throwing grenades at them, Iraqi police from Baghdad headquarters said.
Insurgents in the capital had earlier distributed flyers warning citizens against participating in the election, claiming they would "wash Baghdad streets with voters' blood."
The western Baghdad neighborhood of Mansour also saw two bombings. One killed an Iraqi police officer about 8 a.m. at a school functioning as a polling station, and wounded five people -- two Iraqi soldiers and three civilians.
Three other areas in western Baghdad were targeted. A suicide attacker blew up about 100 yards (meters) from a booth in al-Iskan, detonating before going through the security cordon, killing one person and wounding 10.
Mortar rounds in the Baghdad neighborhoods of Sadr city, Saadoun Park and al Shourha al Rabia also killed four people.
Another blast killed three and wounded fourteen on a bus near Hilla south of Baghdad.
Loud explosions were also reported in the northern Iraqi town of Mosul and Basra in the south, although it was not clear if there were any casualties.
Leading the way
Sabah Kadim, a senior advisor in Iraq's Interior Ministry, shrugged off the string of attacks in a CNN interview.
"We have (terrorists) today, we had them yesterday, we will have them tomorrow," he said. "The difference will be that the Iraqi people have elected a government that is legitimate that will be much stronger in dealing with them."
Ashraf Qazi, the U.N. special representative for Iraq, said most, if not all, the country's polling stations were open and functioning -- and even at the ones where explosions occurred, voting resumed quickly.
"It's still early to predict what the ultimate outcome will be, but the initial reports coming in indicate, nationwide, a very good response," he told CNN.
Interim President Ghazi al-Yawer was among the first to vote on Sunday, saying he hoped the vote would be the first step towards a democracy that Iraqis will be proud of.
"Deep in my heart, I feel that Iraqis deserve free elections," al-Yawer said after voting in Baghdad.
He was followed hours later by Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who cast his vote donning his glasses and smiling as he dipped his finger in ink.
As the voting began, the looming question was how many of the 14.2 million Iraqis registered to vote would cast ballots amid vows by insurgents to "wash" the streets with "voters' blood."
Of particular concern was the turnout of Sunnis in central Iraq, where the violence has been most pronounced in the past few weeks.
Iraqi officials had urged voters not to let the threat deter them from exercising the democratic right to choose their leaders.
In Baghdad alone, 15,000 U.S. soldiers were on patrol amid travel and weapons bans, and sealed airspace and borders. (Full story)
Iraqi expatriates in 14 countries around the world, including the United States, had one last opportunity Sunday to cast votes, as the three-day window for out-of-country voting closed.
Pivotal moment
Iraqis were electing a 275-member transitional National Assembly, which will draft a new constitution and pick the country's next president and two vice presidents. The president, in turn, will select a prime minister.
Voters were also electing members of 18 provincial councils. In addition, residents of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region are electing a Kurdish parliament.
The election marked a pivotal moment not only for the Iraqi people, but also for U.S. President George W. Bush, who vowed to keep troops in Iraq after the vote. (Full story)
Due to security concerns, names of the 7,000 candidates vying for office were not revealed until the final days of January.
Two broad-based parties -- the United Iraqi Alliance and the Iraqi List -- were expected to lead the pack.
The United Iraqi Alliance is a Shiite-dominated slate of candidates backed by a leading cleric, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
While most of its support comes from the Shiite majority -- about 60 percent of the population -- the alliance also includes some smaller Sunni and Kurdish groups.
The Iraqi List is led by Allawi, who became the face of Iraqi government after sovereignty was restored in June.
Also likely to do well in the vote is the Kurdistan Alliance List, that includes the two main Kurdish political parties and nine smaller Kurdish parties.
Kurds make up less than 20 percent of the population, but they were expected to vote in large numbers because of a generally stable security situation in the northern part of the country, where they are concentrated.
Sunnis, who dominated Iraq under Saddam Hussein despite making up less than a quarter of the population, are likely to see an erosion in their political position after the vote.
Not only is the security situation tenuous in many Sunni areas, but also, two influential Sunni groups -- the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Association of Muslim Scholars -- are boycotting the elections.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And there we have it - from CNN no less. Record numbers of Iraqi's voting. In America, where you do not fear for your life in voting, only slightly more than 50% vote. Independent surveys put it at 76% of Iraqi's risked life and limb to vote in free and fair elections.
Before we continue - stop. Stop reading, sit down and think about the 1400 US troops, the British troops, the countless Iraqi soldiers and policemen that died for this opportunity. Think of the thousands of Iraqi civilians who died or suffered at the hands of explosives and bullets aimed at those who struggled desperately hard against this overwhelming demonstration of the Iraqi wish for freedom and a say in government. How you could possibly be ashamed at this point in time to have had your government, your country, your soldiers as instrumental in all this defies belief.
Now, to the graceless part of this post. France. Germany. Russia. China. The United Nations. New Zealand. Partial credit goes to Spain. Thanks for nothing - you fought it all the way. It must warm your hearts knowing that if only you'd won out, that the Iraqi's wouldnt be voting, they'd be praying that the Sunni Gestapo didnt show up at their house that night.
To the main stream media - thanks for nothing. This was achieved despite your disgustingly skewed bias, your everpresent defeatism, and your frequent use of the word "quagmire".
To the anti-war posters here - now is your chance to express your jubilation that you were wrong. The war wasnt a waste, it wasnt a disaster, and for once in its life it would seem the US deserves commendation for its effort.
To those who suffered from the delusion that Iraq is being attacked by insurgents - welcome to the real world. Insurgents are not fighting against Americans, they are battling against the Iraqi people themselves. Individuals who use explosives, executions and threats against a civilian population that doesnt support them are not insurgents, they are terrorists.
Its possible that CNN got it wrong of course, and I could look the immortal fool in the morning. Frankly, I'm to tired to care. This is what I saw coming over two years ago when I broke down and admitted I couldnt honestly claim to care about the Iraqi's and oppose George Bush at the same time. There will be more death in Iraq, there will be more bombings - but they have made their choice, and they threw their lot in with democracy. Given the personal risk they undertook to make that decision, and given that the US and its allies will not abandon them, they will prevail.
Well done the people of Iraq, well done the soldiers of Iraq, well done the soldiers of the coalition - this is victory.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The polls have closed on Iraq's first free election in a half century, with the independent election commission reporting a 72 percent turnout of registered voters nationwide by mid-afternoon amid attacks and threats of attacks to disrupt the vote.
Insurgents carried out more than a dozen attacks across the country, killing at least 24 people and wounded 67.
The commission's Adil Al-Lami and Safwat Rashid did not release figures for Iraq's largest province, al-Anbar -- west of Baghdad, including Falluja and Ramadi -- or the northwestern Nineveh province, which includes Mosul.
"There has been a vast turnout in Iraq," Rashid said.
"The news is freedom has won," Al-Lami said. "We have conquered terrorism."
The commissioners reported turnout as high as 95 percent in some parts of the capital, Baghdad, but did not offer total numbers of voters.
U.N. election organizer Carlos Valezuela told CNN that while he was "happy with the turnout," it was too early to report numbers.
"I would rather until we have much better reporting to be able to come up with figures," he said.
Meanwhile, insurgents carried out more than a dozen attacks across the country, killing at least 24 people and wounded 67.
However, U.S. commanders expecting a greater level of violence said they were pleasantly surprised that their massive security operation had paid off, CNN's Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour reported from the Iraqi capital.
A statement posted on several Islamic Web sites, purportedly from a group headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for Sunday's attacks on polling areas in Baghdad as well as attacks in other areas of Iraq.
The statement said the group had promised to conduct the attacks "to make fun of those that demand democracy."
CNN correspondents earlier reported that turnout was sporadic across the nation after 30,000 polling booths opened at 7 a.m. on Sunday (0400 GMT) under the watchful eye of Iraqi security forces and U.S. troops. Voting was scheduled to end at 5 p.m. (1400 GMT).
In former president Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, polling stations were virtually empty. But in other parts of the country booths were packed with people casting their ballots, many of them for the first time in their lifetime.
In the northeastern town of Baquba, CNN's Jane Arraf found a polling station where a long line of Iraqi voters chanted and clapped their hands in front of the camera.
One voter told Arraf that Sunday's vote was a "bullet in the heart of the enemy."
Further north in the Kurdistan town of Salamanca, CNN's Nic Robertson reported seeing a 90-year-old woman being taken to a booth in a wheelbarrow. Others came on crutches to cast their ballot.
In the southern city of Basra, ITN's Juliet Bremner reported that turnout was almost 90 percent. She said voting was peaceful and orderly with elated Shias -- oppressed for decades under Saddam -- "determined to cast their votes in their desire for freedom, peace and food."
But the landmark vote for a nation that has survived decades of brutal oppression and nearly two years of war and insurgency was marred by eight suicide bomb attacks in Baghdad that killed at least 11 people and injured 47 more.
Identifying them by their ink-stained fingers, insurgents in Baghdad also rounded up four voters after they left a polling station and killed them by throwing grenades at them, Iraqi police from Baghdad headquarters said.
Insurgents in the capital had earlier distributed flyers warning citizens against participating in the election, claiming they would "wash Baghdad streets with voters' blood."
The western Baghdad neighborhood of Mansour also saw two bombings. One killed an Iraqi police officer about 8 a.m. at a school functioning as a polling station, and wounded five people -- two Iraqi soldiers and three civilians.
Three other areas in western Baghdad were targeted. A suicide attacker blew up about 100 yards (meters) from a booth in al-Iskan, detonating before going through the security cordon, killing one person and wounding 10.
Mortar rounds in the Baghdad neighborhoods of Sadr city, Saadoun Park and al Shourha al Rabia also killed four people.
Another blast killed three and wounded fourteen on a bus near Hilla south of Baghdad.
Loud explosions were also reported in the northern Iraqi town of Mosul and Basra in the south, although it was not clear if there were any casualties.
Leading the way
Sabah Kadim, a senior advisor in Iraq's Interior Ministry, shrugged off the string of attacks in a CNN interview.
"We have (terrorists) today, we had them yesterday, we will have them tomorrow," he said. "The difference will be that the Iraqi people have elected a government that is legitimate that will be much stronger in dealing with them."
Ashraf Qazi, the U.N. special representative for Iraq, said most, if not all, the country's polling stations were open and functioning -- and even at the ones where explosions occurred, voting resumed quickly.
"It's still early to predict what the ultimate outcome will be, but the initial reports coming in indicate, nationwide, a very good response," he told CNN.
Interim President Ghazi al-Yawer was among the first to vote on Sunday, saying he hoped the vote would be the first step towards a democracy that Iraqis will be proud of.
"Deep in my heart, I feel that Iraqis deserve free elections," al-Yawer said after voting in Baghdad.
He was followed hours later by Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who cast his vote donning his glasses and smiling as he dipped his finger in ink.
As the voting began, the looming question was how many of the 14.2 million Iraqis registered to vote would cast ballots amid vows by insurgents to "wash" the streets with "voters' blood."
Of particular concern was the turnout of Sunnis in central Iraq, where the violence has been most pronounced in the past few weeks.
Iraqi officials had urged voters not to let the threat deter them from exercising the democratic right to choose their leaders.
In Baghdad alone, 15,000 U.S. soldiers were on patrol amid travel and weapons bans, and sealed airspace and borders. (Full story)
Iraqi expatriates in 14 countries around the world, including the United States, had one last opportunity Sunday to cast votes, as the three-day window for out-of-country voting closed.
Pivotal moment
Iraqis were electing a 275-member transitional National Assembly, which will draft a new constitution and pick the country's next president and two vice presidents. The president, in turn, will select a prime minister.
Voters were also electing members of 18 provincial councils. In addition, residents of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region are electing a Kurdish parliament.
The election marked a pivotal moment not only for the Iraqi people, but also for U.S. President George W. Bush, who vowed to keep troops in Iraq after the vote. (Full story)
Due to security concerns, names of the 7,000 candidates vying for office were not revealed until the final days of January.
Two broad-based parties -- the United Iraqi Alliance and the Iraqi List -- were expected to lead the pack.
The United Iraqi Alliance is a Shiite-dominated slate of candidates backed by a leading cleric, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
While most of its support comes from the Shiite majority -- about 60 percent of the population -- the alliance also includes some smaller Sunni and Kurdish groups.
The Iraqi List is led by Allawi, who became the face of Iraqi government after sovereignty was restored in June.
Also likely to do well in the vote is the Kurdistan Alliance List, that includes the two main Kurdish political parties and nine smaller Kurdish parties.
Kurds make up less than 20 percent of the population, but they were expected to vote in large numbers because of a generally stable security situation in the northern part of the country, where they are concentrated.
Sunnis, who dominated Iraq under Saddam Hussein despite making up less than a quarter of the population, are likely to see an erosion in their political position after the vote.
Not only is the security situation tenuous in many Sunni areas, but also, two influential Sunni groups -- the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Association of Muslim Scholars -- are boycotting the elections.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And there we have it - from CNN no less. Record numbers of Iraqi's voting. In America, where you do not fear for your life in voting, only slightly more than 50% vote. Independent surveys put it at 76% of Iraqi's risked life and limb to vote in free and fair elections.
Before we continue - stop. Stop reading, sit down and think about the 1400 US troops, the British troops, the countless Iraqi soldiers and policemen that died for this opportunity. Think of the thousands of Iraqi civilians who died or suffered at the hands of explosives and bullets aimed at those who struggled desperately hard against this overwhelming demonstration of the Iraqi wish for freedom and a say in government. How you could possibly be ashamed at this point in time to have had your government, your country, your soldiers as instrumental in all this defies belief.
Now, to the graceless part of this post. France. Germany. Russia. China. The United Nations. New Zealand. Partial credit goes to Spain. Thanks for nothing - you fought it all the way. It must warm your hearts knowing that if only you'd won out, that the Iraqi's wouldnt be voting, they'd be praying that the Sunni Gestapo didnt show up at their house that night.
To the main stream media - thanks for nothing. This was achieved despite your disgustingly skewed bias, your everpresent defeatism, and your frequent use of the word "quagmire".
To the anti-war posters here - now is your chance to express your jubilation that you were wrong. The war wasnt a waste, it wasnt a disaster, and for once in its life it would seem the US deserves commendation for its effort.
To those who suffered from the delusion that Iraq is being attacked by insurgents - welcome to the real world. Insurgents are not fighting against Americans, they are battling against the Iraqi people themselves. Individuals who use explosives, executions and threats against a civilian population that doesnt support them are not insurgents, they are terrorists.
Its possible that CNN got it wrong of course, and I could look the immortal fool in the morning. Frankly, I'm to tired to care. This is what I saw coming over two years ago when I broke down and admitted I couldnt honestly claim to care about the Iraqi's and oppose George Bush at the same time. There will be more death in Iraq, there will be more bombings - but they have made their choice, and they threw their lot in with democracy. Given the personal risk they undertook to make that decision, and given that the US and its allies will not abandon them, they will prevail.
Well done the people of Iraq, well done the soldiers of Iraq, well done the soldiers of the coalition - this is victory.
Comments
Elections obviously have made Iraq a very safe and friendly place.
95% in the nation's capital? Wow. On CNN the night before I heard all sorts of slander about how noone is going to vote becuse security is horrible. They were even reading the list of threats the terrorist organizations made.
In your face. Will you support the effort <i>now?</i>
Elections obviously have made Iraq a very safe and friendly place. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh what a surprise. If the Iraqi's hadnt showed, this gentleman would be here telling us that this shows the Iraqi's had no trust in the Government or the leaders up for election. Now that they have shown up, he expresses his eternal pessimism that it will be a farce, that minority groups will get the shaft, and that the President will be a toadie.
Heads Iraq is a disaster, tails its a quagmire.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Elections obviously have made Iraq a very safe and friendly place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They ventured out of their homes to vote, at great personal risk to vote, and this is the best you have to offer? I'm telling you right now, that if I had considered there a distinct possibility that I could have been killed while voting in my own country, I would have stayed at home like a coward. I have a suspicion you would have done likewise. Thats why watching you urinate on the entire affair is so damn entertaining.
Fortunately Iraq is too big to ignore and there are quite a few people who have just been proven wrong today. I had my doubts myself, but Bush is right about something, people want freedom...people want democracy. His logic now has two major successes to back it up, and I for one am all the more glad he won this election, I don't know if Kerry would have stayed in there for this long.
The election changes nothing in terms of the violence...the insurgents are not going to all of a sudden see the light and throw down their weapons; many more will still be killed. But what this does is prove to the world, and more importantly to the American people that the Iraqi people are on the side of democracy and that they do appreciate they new found freedom we have given them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
To the anti-war posters here - now is your chance to express your jubilation that you were wrong. The war wasnt a waste, it wasnt a disaster, and for once in its life it would seem the US deserves commendation for its effort.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong on what? That there was no death, that post-war Iraq continues to be a cesspool of insurgency and lawlessness? I am not neccessarily an anti-war individual, because I believe that 'democracy' (for lack of a better term) in the Middle East cannot come without bloodshed, one way or another. With that said, my oppositions to the war stem from the deception the administration played in order for it to occur (whether or not they were aware actively aware of their ruse is irrelevant; their zealousness and overpressuring the intelligence agency is what caused the false reports of WMD), and the little consideration for long term problems, both in terms of peacekeeping following the war, and in the scope of the entire middle-east. Bush has said that Iraq is the first step to peace in the middle-east, so what is the second? How does the invasion of Iraq, a non-belligerant (if not draconically oppressive) country, aid to this process? If he sought peace in the middle-east, why did he cast support for Israel and not attempt peacekeeping operations on the east coast of the mediterranean? If anyone needs to have their aggression checked it's Israel first and Palistine second. Anyhow, there is no going back now. The moment our troops were in Iraq, I have been hoping for this conclusion. Let bygones be bygones...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Oh boy, now all that's left to see is which ethnic groups are going to be left unrepresented and angry, and how much of a US toadie their new president will be.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can stop right there with your uninformed rhetoric. The sunnis, for one, have boycotted the election, but have agreed to help form the constitution following them. This has been backed up by the majority of their leading clerics. (they expect to have their representatives invited as a matter of courtesy, and in the interests of Iraq) I second what marine has said.
p.s. I didn't think the elections would work out either, if only because of the stupdendous reassurances that they would. I can tell you I'm biting my tongue in front of quite a few friends today...
Instead of trying to prove me wrong, merely restate my position in a condescending tone, that will prove to everyone that you are superior.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They ventured out of their homes to vote, at great personal risk to vote, and this is the best you have to offer? I'm telling you right now, that if I had considered there a distinct possibility that I could have been killed while voting in my own country, I would have stayed at home like a coward. I have a suspicion you would have done likewise. Thats why watching you urinate on the entire affair is so damn entertaining.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And hey, congrats to them for braving certain blown-upness in order to participate in a system they think will help them, but that doesn't mean that said system is perfect, or even near perfect, or even as beneficial for them as they think it will be. Yeah, I probly wouldn't have gone out and voted, but I didn't even vote in my own country, so that's kindof a moot point.
elections.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now the media is all of a sudden good enough to quote again, right? just kidding. Don't bite. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Whether you believe me or not, I had no doubt that the participation would be high with the Curd and Shiite population.
I guess the concept of the election is not the same in the Iraqis eyes than ours. They see they participation in the parliament as a way to dominate the future of the country (which is the point in a parliamental majority)
The difference is, that the people fear that the dominatung party is going to oppress the other, smaller ethnic groups. They do not expect anything else sice tehy have never experienced it differently.
(Note that this is just my opinion. It does not require you to agree with it)
So while the Curds and Shiites have taken their opportunity to sieze as much as they can, the Sunnites seem to have another aim with their boycott.It seem that their strategy was to cause the election to become illegit. They will most likely claim that the low participation was due to the bad security situation and thus the election was unfair.
Their strategy will not work out since the US declared that everyone who wants to vote shall do so or otherwhise be left out of the loop.
(note that I don't oppose to this position)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
You can stop right there with your uninformed rhetoric. The sunnis, for one, have boycotted the election, but have agreed to help form the constitution following them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would be careful on this. If I'm not mistaken, the parliament will decide about the constituion, and if tehre are no representatives then they will not take part in the creation of the constitution. I might be mistaken though.
So, the situation is this:
As for now, I assume the Shiites are dominat, followed by curd fractions, which is smaller than the sunite population, but had an exceptinal high participation quote.(this is based on the reports I heared recently. I really do not know for sure as there are no exact numbers of how many Sunites actually participated)
You have roughly 80% arab population (dividing into shiites and Sunites by about 60% to 40%) and 16% curds. The rest consists of numerous tiny fractions. 95% muslims total.
So If it is true, that sunite participation was so low that they have next to no representation in the parliament (I say If, because I still haven heared numbers), than there is going to be some turmoil in the Sunnite population.
The U.S. and British seem to follow the strategy of quickly developing a capable military force in the country, which is able to surpresss the insurgency on their own. They are pulling themselves out of the the line of fire, which is the best they can do. For them, and for the process of peace keeping. The latter because they appear less "oppressive" to the people.
The conclusion is, that the conflict will very soon begin to ceter around the ethnic groups that compete for political dominace in the upcoming government. This is not going to ease the biggest issue the Iraq ha to face atm. The economy is down on the floor, and nobody is going to invest the money to change that anytime soon.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Now, to the graceless part of this post. France. Germany. Russia. China. The United Nations. New Zealand. Partial credit goes to Spain. Thanks for nothing<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank us again when we pump money into Iraq. Like we do in Afghanistan. Or why do you think Mr Bush is so sweeeety nice to those Old Europeans lately?
Agreed. This is more a time for sighs of relief, rather than gloating. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B49A6A7B-9FE7-4C65-BA06-11461071FEAA.htm' target='_blank'>Confusion surrounds Iraq poll turnout</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Confusion surrounds turnout statistics in Iraq's election, with the country's election commission backtracking on a statement that 72% had voted and top politicians insisting the turnout was high.
The commission said its initial tally had been little more than a guess based on local estimates.
"Turnout figures recently announced represent the enormous and understandable enthusiasm felt in the field on this historic day," a commission statement said.
"However, these figures are only very rough, word-of-mouth estimates gathered informally from the field. It will take some time for the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq to release accurate figures on turnout."
Commission spokesman Farid Ayar indicated that around eight million people may have voted, or about 60% of registered voters. That would still be more than many had expected.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please note that the 72%, 76%, and the 60% figures are merely estimates at this point, and the final numbers are not in yet.
I still remain opposed to the war. I, like all Americans, was lied about the reasons for this war, and continued to be lied to. The cost of life, both American and Iraqi, has been far too high for what we now see. And even with the election, we continue to spend $350 million U.S. tax dollars over there <i>every single day</i>.
But the election happened. Call it a victory if you would like, as they are so few and far between today. But don't think for a moment that democracy has won yet. Let's see what happens after their constitution is drawn up...
Oh, and one more thing. Fact checking is highly recommend before gloating.
-Ryan!
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-- Mark Twain
Where facts are few, experts are many.
-- Donald R. Gannon
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.
-- Dr. Thomas Fuller
We can have facts without thinking but we cannot have thinking without facts.
-- John Dewey
Facts are stupid things.
-- Ronald Reagan
I get the feeling you would have rather seen the elections end in a horrible blood bath just so you would have more ammunition against Bush.
You should be happy that things worked out so well not ominously saying "This isn't over yet."
No kidding its not over, but I have a feeling as the Iraqi people realize more and more what democracy has to offer them, the noose well slowly tighten around the insurgents necks.
Many of the insurgents are foreign fighters and could care less about the Iraqi people, today Iraqi’s showed they are not afraid of them, the next step will be to act against them.
The real elections for the Iraqi government leaders dont actually start for about a year. This is merely an election to decide who gets to produce the draft for the Iraqi constitution. However, it shows that the Iraqi's are willing to put life and limb on the line to make their voices heard in a democratic environment. It shows that the insurgents who are stridently anti-democracy are not fighting with the will of the people.
My main fear before the war was that the Iraqi's would reject the US efforts to provide them with democracy, that they would waste an incredible opportunity. That fear was quickly settled when I watched insurgents bombing shi'ites, and threatening people not to vote. A terrorist does not take an election seriously unless the people are going to take it seriously.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong on what?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, when I talk of anti-war protestors, I see the people that scoffed at the concept of democracy in Iraq, who claimed that the whole war waas nothing more than a callous grab at oil with the people of Iraq being left off no better than before. People, or should I say, morons, who called the insurgents the "minutemen" of Iraq, the real hero's of the war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong on what? That there was no death, that post-war Iraq continues to be a cesspool of insurgency and lawlessness?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you opposed the war based on those ground, then not only did you posses some remarkable foresight, but you are also insinuating that prewar conditions were superior to the current. Before the war there was no terrorism (sorry, I refuse to call it insurgency anymore), but a killer ran the country with an iron fist. Before the war, general lawlessness wasnt a problem, but specific evil was condoned and executed by the law - the law being Saddam himself. Do you, and I understand there is an element of devil's advocacy in what you wrote, honestly believe that Saddam was the lesser of the two evils?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With that said, my oppositions to the war stem from the deception the administration played in order for it to occur (whether or not they were aware actively aware of their ruse is irrelevant; their zealousness and overpressuring the intelligence agency is what caused the false reports of WMD), and the little consideration for long term problems, both in terms of peacekeeping following the war, and in the scope of the entire middle-east.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I reject the notion that it was the Governments fault for producing those WMD reports. Multiple intelligence agencies world wide, before 9/11 even, had claimed that Saddam Hussein possesed or was on the verge of possessing WMD. My one disappointment in this area was that the US actually needed a selfish, cynical motive like "we have to disarm him to cover our backsides" to start the war. They also got it wrong in regards to the terrorism that followed the military victory, but apart from that I dont see these long term problems for the entire Middle East. I suppose you consider it happy coincidence that Syria has strangely stopped its WMD programs? I suppose the fact that King Abdullah is organising real elections in Jordan is also another coincidence? Its certainly possible both of these efforts could be shams - but I dont see were you are going with "the scope of the entire middle-east".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush has said that Iraq is the first step to peace in the middle-east, so what is the second? How does the invasion of Iraq, a non-belligerant (if not draconically oppressive) country, aid to this process?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right - non-belligerant. The Iraqi dictator that attacked Kuwait, that ordered a hit on George Bush senior, that ejected weapons inspectors from his country, that then obfuscated the efforts of the weapons inspectors when they were allowed back, is non belligerant? Perhaps in the realist school of thought he's just another evil dictator that should be tolerated in the name of stability and American interest, but the realist school of thought no longer controls American politics the way it once did. The reason hitting Iraq aids in the cause of peace in the Middle East is that Saddam was not a peaceful person. He could not be trusted. By destroying him, and then setting up a democracy, the US intends to show that it is willing to use military action against oppresive middle east dictators. It also intends to show that it is serious when it talks about democracy and freedom. This has to be worrying for theocracies and oppresive regimes, and the US hopes the Iraqi example will inspire the neighbours. Whether it does or not remains to be seen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If he sought peace in the middle-east, why did he cast support for Israel and not attempt peacekeeping operations on the east coast of the mediterranean? If anyone needs to have their aggression checked it's Israel first and Palistine second. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Democracy is the only vehicle of peace that Bush believes in. Given that, why would he take a stand in opposition against the only real democracy in the Middle East? Bush, like me, has absolutely zero sympathy for the Palestinians, and strangely enough can understand why a country doesnt just do nothing when it is constantly bombed by a rabble that joined in as well as cheering from the sidelines when the surrounding nations attempted genocide in 1948.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->p.s. I didn't think the elections would work out either, if only because of the stupdendous reassurances that they would. I can tell you I'm biting my tongue in front of quite a few friends today...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I knew they would work, if only because of the consistent pessimism of main stream media reporters. That also might help explain why I wax lyrical about these elections - like the protestor who claimed Iraq had no WMD, I was right dammit!!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why did nobody here ask where the 72% figure came from?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because I told them - independent survey. The article itself stated that this was early days. I myself stated that I could look the immortal fool in the morning if this information proved to be inaccurate. It was late and I was tired (2am local time), but it was very clear to me that these elections had proved to be a success.
But if your question is why oh why didnt I immediately race to the aljazeera website where you got that strangely downcast viewpoint on the poll numbers - its because I dont trust Aljazeera as far as I can throw them, and I cant throw broadcasting corporations. I consider it significant when the not-so-jokingly labelled "Communist News Network", home of the quagmire, publishes overtly positive material on the developments in Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I still remain opposed to the war. I, like all Americans, was lied about the reasons for this war, and continued to be lied to. The cost of life, both American and Iraqi, has been far too high for what we now see. And even with the election, we continue to spend $350 million U.S. tax dollars over there every single day.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I dont subscribe to the narcissistic "the cost is too high". You Americans installed that dictator remember? You set him up - he was your responsibility. And in a very rare moment in American history, America is doing the responsible thing. Unfortunately, too many of its citizens seem to be caught in the permanently immature outlook that "I dont care if we set him up, its American money and American lives being lost now" - thank the lord that 52% of your voting population had better sense than that.
Loved your quotes on facts - I shall be using them in my further diatribes against leftist media distortion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now the media is all of a sudden good enough to quote again, right? just kidding. Don't bite. wink-fix.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If fox news posts a story condemning an action by Bush, it deserves to be given a fair hearing and serious consideration. When CNN publishes positive material in Iraq, it means that things must have gone so well that not even they could find any way of making it appear like a disaster. I still dont trust CNN, and I still dont trust Fox, but if they cross their bias to report the other side, they should be listened to.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Instead of trying to prove me wrong, merely restate my position in a condescending tone, that will prove to everyone that you are superior.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cant attack unsupported rhetoric - I suppose you might have discovered the same problem in replying to my late night rhetoric spree. How can I prove to you that the Iraqi PM isnt a toadie? How can I prove to you the fledgling democracy wont fail in the future?
Legat - I deny that Iraq is a financial mess, but I am going to deal with that in the older thread I havent yet replied in. Sorry to take so long, but I recently caught a really bad case of World of Warcraft, and its not yet in remission.
Now we can hopefully forget about Iraq just like we did with Afghanistan, which is mostly run by warlords and is still imprisoning women and children. Yay.
I get the feeling you would have rather seen the elections end in a horrible blood bath just so you would have more ammunition against Bush.
You should be happy that things worked out so well not ominously saying "This isn't over yet."
No kidding its not over, but I have a feeling as the Iraqi people realize more and more what democracy has to offer them, the noose well slowly tighten around the insurgents necks. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, yeah, its good for the people of Iraq. They will and are realizing the benifits of democracy like you said. Now we can just wait for the wide spread corruption.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Democracy is the only vehicle of peace that Bush believes in. Given that, why would he take a stand in opposition against the only real democracy in the Middle East? Bush, like me, has absolutely zero sympathy for the Palestinians, and strangely enough can understand why a country doesnt just do nothing when it is constantly bombed by a rabble that joined in as well as cheering from the sidelines when the surrounding nations attempted genocide in 1948.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Palestinians would of course have no reason for their violent actions against Isreal, or maybe certain people just like to ignore that they do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I dont subscribe to the narcissistic "the cost is too high". You Americans installed that dictator remember? You set him up - he was your responsibility. And in a very rare moment in American history, America is doing the responsible thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why didn't we do it when Saddam was actually doing the bulk of his atrocities then? Why did we not take him down when he was busy gassing the Kurds instead of providing more aid when he did that? Why did we not try to finish the job when he was actually invading other countries? When he's invading Iran he's not evil enough for us to stop him (in fact he's a swell guy), and when he's invading kuwait he was only evil enough for us to kick him out, but when he hasn't done much of anything for 10 some-odd years he's suddenly so evil we need to immediately take him down for the safetly of America?
How can you now see the sketchiness of this adminstration's reason for war?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If fox news posts a story condemning an action by Bush, it deserves to be given a fair hearing and serious consideration. When CNN publishes positive material in Iraq, it means that things must have gone so well that not even they could find any way of making it appear like a disaster. I still dont trust CNN, and I still dont trust Fox, but if they cross their bias to report the other side, they should be listened to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Fox news posts a story that condemns Bush, that means that it thinks that story will garner ratings, and when CNN publishes positive material in Iraq, that means that it thinks that material will garner ratings, it has nothing to do with either sides bias. CNN hasn't been presenting "anti-bush" propoganda by showing the many deaths of american soldiers in Iraq, it's been presenting the most sensational story it can find to garner more ratings, almost none of the major news organizations have any real specific bias towards a political viewpoint (except Fox, which has used the brilliant marketing strategy of making its political bias its only real appeal), they just have a bias towards the sensational.
Strange - the CNN has been noted for years for its leftwing bias. I find it wierd you didnt pick it up. If you consider CNN to be to the right of your political orientation, then you probably dont accept anything that doesnt come from wsws.org
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Palestinians would of course have no reason for their violent actions against Isreal, or maybe certain people just like to ignore that they do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the terrorists that flew planes into your buildings had reasons for that too - and I dont give a damn. The palestinians brought their misery upon themselves, they have rejected all Israeli overtures for peace, they have made their bed and now they are sleeping in it. If you want to argue Palestine and Israel - I'm more than ready for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why didn't we do it when Saddam was actually doing the bulk of his atrocities then? Why did we not take him down when he was busy gassing the Kurds instead of providing more aid when he did that? Why did we not try to finish the job when he was actually invading other countries? When he's invading Iran he's not evil enough for us to stop him (in fact he's a swell guy), and when he's invading kuwait he was only evil enough for us to kick him out, but when he hasn't done much of anything for 10 some-odd years he's suddenly so evil we need to immediately take him down for the safetly of America?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Short answer - you lacked a leader with the balls. You had a disgusting policy commonly known as "realism", whereby you tolerated this type of regime in the name of stability and America's best interests. My point stands - its your mess, you clean it up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How can you now see the sketchiness of this adminstration's reason for war?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I cant. Saddam Hussein is gone. There is without a shadow of a doubt no WMD in Iraq, nor will there ever be now. The promised democracy was just delivered, and it was endorsed by the Iraqi people. I am getting all I ever expected and hoped for from the war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If Fox news posts a story that condemns Bush, that means that it thinks that story will garner ratings, and when CNN publishes positive material in Iraq, that means that it thinks that material will garner ratings, it has nothing to do with either sides bias. CNN hasn't been presenting "anti-bush" propoganda by showing the many deaths of american soldiers in Iraq, it's been presenting the most sensational story it can find to garner more ratings, almost none of the major news organizations have any real specific bias towards a political viewpoint (except Fox, which has used the brilliant marketing strategy of making its political bias its only real appeal), they just have a bias towards the sensational.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp' target='_blank'>Incorrect</a>
Liberal media bias is a fact of life. It is so pervasive that the fact that conservative journalists are vastly outnumbered is rarely denied anymore - instead the defence is that "we may be predominantly liberal, but our professionalism means we present both sides of the story evenly". Fox news was considered unique because it broke the trend, and took a conservative viewpoint. And its been very successful there. If presenting conservative news is such a ratings winner, and if all that motivates CNN is the ratings provided by sensational news, then why isnt it presenting the same type of news?
The reason is its liberally biased, as is CBS (<b>Rather</b> biased), NPR, NBC, NYT, WaPo - the list goes on.
"I have this delightful fantasy of left-wingers throughout the Western world putting their hands up and saying: ‘Well, actually we got that a little bit wrong.’" -- British columnist Janet Daley in Melbourne’s Age
Yes, we lacked a leader with balls, which is a weird way of saying we had leaders who didn't care about human suffering as long as they could be benifited. Just as we do now. Yes it's our country and its our mess, but that doesn't change that we went about cleaning it up the entirely wrong way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, I cant. Saddam Hussein is gone. There is without a shadow of a doubt no WMD in Iraq, nor will there ever be now. The promised democracy was just delivered, and it was endorsed by the Iraqi people. I am getting all I ever expected and hoped for from the war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're a very easy man to please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->iberal media bias is a fact of life. It is so pervasive that the fact that conservative journalists are vastly outnumbered is rarely denied anymore - instead the defence is that "we may be predominantly liberal, but our professionalism means we present both sides of the story evenly".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you ever listened to american radio? American radio is the most conservative place in the world. And besides that, even though the majority of journalists are liberal, the majority of the people who decide which stories make it to print are not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fox news was considered unique because it broke the trend, and took a conservative viewpoint. And its been very successful there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If by broke the trend you mean broke the trend of trying to maintain some semblance of journalistic credibility, then I agree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If presenting conservative news is such a ratings winner, and if all that motivates CNN is the ratings provided by sensational news, then why isnt it presenting the same type of news?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The aforementioned journalistic credibility of course. Not every news station can be as unapologetically wrong as Fox.
Honestly, you cannot tell me that american media is liberal biased, I live here, I've been watching the American media all of my life, I watched it through the 2000 elections where the media showed more of a conservative bias than anyone wants to admit because Fox news lead the way.
Oh, and counting radio talkshow hosts as journalists is - in most cases - a bad idea. There's a difference between journalist and raging-racist-lunatic-with-a-radio-station.
I expect more maturity from a side that claims it is more "hopeful" about the future. Today was a great success for the Iraqi people, regardless to if you were opposed to the war or not. You can't swallow your pride for a minute and be happy for them? Mmmm...nothing like the smell of hypocrisy in the evening.
<a href='http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp' target='_blank'>Incorrect</a>
Liberal media bias is a fact of life. It is so pervasive that the fact that conservative journalists are vastly outnumbered is rarely denied anymore - instead the defence is that "we may be predominantly liberal, but our professionalism means we present both sides of the story evenly". Fox news was considered unique because it broke the trend, and took a conservative viewpoint. And its been very successful there. If presenting conservative news is such a ratings winner, and if all that motivates CNN is the ratings provided by sensational news, then why isnt it presenting the same type of news?
The reason is its liberally biased, as is CBS (<b>Rather</b> biased), NPR, NBC, NYT, WaPo - the list goes on.
"I have this delightful fantasy of left-wingers throughout the Western world putting their hands up and saying: ‘Well, actually we got that a little bit wrong.’" -- British columnist Janet Daley in Melbourne’s Age <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here I come to sidetrack this momentarily--
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Strange - the CNN has been noted for years for its leftwing bias.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anecdotal. Please provide source, preferably one not affiliated with Brent Bozell's MRC-- where sloppy research, selective reporting, and lack of context reign supreme. (Folks like those at The <a href='http://www.google.com/custom?q=mrc&cof=AH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3Ac32a032061318778%3B&domains=dailyhowler.com&sitesearch=dailyhowler.com' target='_blank'>Daily Howler</a> do a good job of <i>trying</i> to keep Mr. Bozell honest, but it's a a Herculean feat.
For the liberal equivalent, check out <a href='http://mediamatters.org/' target='_blank'>Media Matters</a>. They had a good piece recently, which I'm trying to locate, where they compared guests and pundits on various networks, including CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. The conservatives outweighed liberals by roughly 4 or 5:1, if I recall correctly. (Update: Here you go: <a href='http://mediamatters.org/items/200501220001' target='_blank'>Enjoy!</a> Can't wait to see how you spin this into either a) a 'liberal' bias, or b) The fair and balanced way it oughta be!)
(And yes, one of the 'powerful liberals' <b>is</b> none other than Joe 'Eddie Murphy's fame went to <i>my</i> head' Piscopo. As has been said many times before, if this is a 'liberal media', by all means, you can have it.)
This is an entire argument to itself, but some conservatives see a 'liberal' bias anywhere there <i>isn't</i> a distinct conservative bias.
Distilled to its essence, here's the argument:
Con: The media is <i>totally</i> liberal. Except Fox. While they might sport a <i>minor</i> conservative bias, they're usually fair and balanced. Plus, the liberal media is <i>totally</i> mean to Bush. <i>Just</i> 'cause he's a conservative.
Lib: Er, what about when Bill Clinton was president? Every single allegation against him-- the vast majority of which were later proven to be false, completely without merit, and of dubious origin-- made its way into a major outlet. And Gore got <i>thrashed</i> by the media. "Inventing the internet'? Soundbites were engineered to make him look like a moron! And Kerry-- <i>how much</i> face time did a shady group like 'Swift Boat Vets Financed By Texans Connected to Karl Rove get?"
<i>Pause</i>
Con: Well . . . . er . . . they deserved it. They're bad guys. That's not <i>bias</i> , pre se-- it's the way it <i>should</i> be. One of the few times they got it right.
End scene.
Another way to look at it is that you have Fox, which is unabashadly conservative, and then a bunch of corporate owned outlets bending over backwards to demonstrate that they are <i>not</i> biased towards liberals (For example: I recall hearing that the 'liberal' <a href='http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/UndertheDome/012605.html' target='_blank'>NYT offered its ombudsmen position</a>[ to its regular op/ed columist, and dyed in the wool conservative, William Safire.)
At any rate, you can <i>prove</i> a lot by just reporting from a certain selective point of view-- for example, if Mr. Bozell archived and published all the crimes commited by Asians in America (and <b>only</b> those crimes), he would apparently convince a lot of people that crimes are predominately commited by Asians.
Pat Buchanan. re: his 1996 presidential run:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bill Kristol, Neocon Supreme:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I expect more maturity from a side that claims it is more "hopeful" about the future. Today was a great success for the Iraqi people, regardless to if you were opposed to the war or not. You can't swallow your pride for a minute and be happy for them? Mmmm...nothing like the smell of hypocrisy in the evening. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think the majority of people are gnashing their teeth and wailing about the people of Iraq voting. It's a great step. I'm very happy for them.
But we've learned the pitfalls of patting ourselves on the back and proclaiming 'Mission Accomplished!' a tad early, haven't we? It's a good step, but it's hardly as defining as some people think.
Especially when you consider that, according to the NYT's Judith 'Not exactly liberal' Miller (as told to Chris Matthews), we're still pushing for <a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=chalabi+corruption' target='_blank'>Ahmed Chalabi</a> to be part of their brand spankin' new government.
Palestinians would of course have no reason for their violent actions against Isreal, or maybe certain people just like to ignore that they do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please don't go there. If discussion forum history indicates anything, it will be that you will be completely and thoroughly owned by Marine, reasa, and illuminex. Even if Legat and Jamil show up again, which I doubt since they were so completely r0x0red last time.
*edit* @Marine: Correction - I actually consider NPR fairly centrist, at least in its reporting capacity (all things considered). However, since member stations produce almost all of its content, the effective bias of the broadcasts vary depending on your local station. For example, "Fresh Air" and Garrison Kieller's "Prairie Home Companion" is notably liberal (although only in a humorous/joking manner), while things like Cartalk would probably be labeled conservative.
*edit2* @BathroomMonkey: The bias of the media was quite apparent and dispelled all my doubts when I saw Tom Brokaw's expression as soon as the analysts started reliably predicting a Bush re-election on election night.
Oh whats this? You had a better plan? Lets hear it - out with it. What was your solution to Saddam Hussein?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're a very easy man to please.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, guess I am. Safety for us, democracy for the Iraqi's - its all I could ever have asked for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Have you ever listened to american radio? American radio is the most conservative place in the world. And besides that, even though the majority of journalists are liberal, the majority of the people who decide which stories make it to print are not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, Rush Limbaugh and friends certainly make the airwaves a Republican friendly place - but thats not news reporting, that opinion. Journalists report news, columnists write opinion pieces. The idea is that by and large the opinion should keep away from the news reporting, and if it cant, well at least present both sides of opinion. US media, and pretty much every other form of media I've encountered does seem to even try anymore. Since the 60's/70's, the media has been firmly in the hands of the liberals, and Fox/conservative radio was the backlash.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If by broke the trend you mean broke the trend of trying to maintain some semblance of journalistic credibility, then I agree.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, like those pillars of truth and straight reporting: the New York Times and Washington Post... Sorry, but this is like a conservative critising Moore as a partisan fact manipulator, then quoting Coulter. I believe that CBS, NYT and WaPo etc have destroyed their own credibility - you just cant handle it when the other side starts pumping out the same slanted stuff.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Honestly, you cannot tell me that american media is liberal biased, I live here, I've been watching the American media all of my life, I watched it through the 2000 elections where the media showed more of a conservative bias than anyone wants to admit because Fox news lead the way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fox News leads the way? What? How so? Explain. I suspect you are going to quote the MM conspiracy theory about calling Florida - and its beginning to feel a lot like Christmas.
Better yet - dont reply here. I'm going to go start a thread about media bias, lets discuss there.
EDIT
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*edit* @Marine: Correction - I actually consider NPR fairly centrist, at least in its reporting capacity (all things considered). However, since member stations produce almost all of its content, the effective bias of the broadcasts vary depending on your local station. For example, "Fresh Air" and Garrison Kieller's "Prairie Home Companion" is notably liberal (although only in a humorous/joking manner), while things like Cartalk would probably be labeled conservative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yargh, I shouldnt have put NPR in there - this is what happens when you start tossing out the acronym's, you end up the the NBA and the CIA right next to each other....
Like in the WMD debate where our point of view was proven wrong? Oh, I forgot, we were right back then weren't we?
Go talk about some "I told you so" right? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ... im guilty.
As for the Palestine/Israel conflict: Yes skip it. It is discussed to death and will lead to nothing, besides its off topic.
Pro Israel will say the Arabs had their chance of peace and busted it, pro Arabs will say that the Arabs had no reason to take it, becasue their land was taken illegally after the 6 days war.
Does not matter.
It is a conflict about some old men who can't rest their grudges.
Maybe there is hope then, as these old men will someday all be dead. As for now, the Wall will hold off the worst palestine Hardliners and the Israelis return some authority to the Palestines. Thats fine, lets be happy abaut it and see what happens.
Cut American support for Israel and UN help for Palestine if you want some real results.
As for the elections:
What you don't understand is that we currently see an interesting change in the scenario.
Since I have read <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a47n48d01.htm' target='_blank'>this</a>, the situation is pretty obvious to me.
The following paragraph sums up the current problem we face in Iraq:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
[here, the article states is a description of future prospects for Iraqs indutry]
[...]
Whether these steps can be taken, and in this order, will be a function of the political dynamics of the country in the coming period. Much will depend on whether the transitional government is able to incorporate dissident voices into the political process before the coming elections, or whether these forces remain excluded, and if so, whether they take up arms to resist the occupation and the government by every means possible. If it is the latter, then the main task of the Iraqi oil industry in the coming period will be to increase capacity on its own and put off major reforms.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you haven't noticed, the coalition is preparing their retreat from Iraq. They have drastically increased the efford of reinstalling the Iraqi militatry forces and pulling themselves out of the conflict. Completely understandable.
But now, you must ask who is the dominat ethnic group in those troops, and in the governmental service. Like some of you have pointed out, the sunnites will most likely try to contest the validity of the elction because of their absence.
Which will most likely be ignored. (which is justified. ) Yet, you cannot dismiss, that the shiites and curds at least were less endangered, as their election were held in parts of the country which were considered relatively safe ...
The next issue is, that curently a federal state is favored by the majority of iraqi representatives. However, some of the provinces are completely worthless while others are full of oil. How do you descide who will get what? By population majorities?
UNderstand that this has indefinate potential for future conflicts. And thats without all the hardliner "blow up all infidels" crawling into the country from all over the world.
The conflict is now centering around who is dominating the upcoming government.
Have your own thoughts on this, won't post my conclusions, as my time is limited atm, and I doubt I have the opportunity for debating this week.
And do not forget:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is simply not practical to draw-up and enact oil laws that would define the industry's future course of action while the country is in transition and lacks security. Major oil proposals need to be well prepared by groups of experts, deliberated upon extensively and approved by a legitimate authority. This is the only way to ensure their sustainability and international acceptance. Any shortcuts would simply mean future changes to the laws and policies, doubts about the legitimacy of the whole program and accusations of corruption and lack of transparency.
The oil companies themselves will obviously continue to take an interest in Iraq's oil industry, but they cannot sign credible and executable contracts while the authority is not clear and security is lacking. However, to say that they should wait for a parliament to be elected and a new hydrocarbon policy adopted does not mean doing nothing in the interim period.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Means unless the bombing does not stop, nobody will inverst money in Iraq, And unless nobody invests money, Iraq will not recover.
So don't argue, wait and see what happens.