West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Ant on February 04, 2005, 09:21:24 AM
-
The so-called liberal media for a week or so now has been chanting about the astonishing success of the iraqi elections. Yet, success is a subjective idea unless its made concrete by pre-defined metrics. I have yet to be told what our metrics actually were for the election? Is it a success because under 100 people died in one day? Was there some sort of turnout percentage we were shooting for? Does the sunni vote matter at all? Or is it a success simply because some people actually went to vote? The assertion that this election is a success simply because some people went to vote is foolish. Without predefined metrics its irresponsible spin to claim success or failure. So let's talk a little bit about what actually happened as opposed to the Bush spin on what happened on election day in Iraq.
After days of hearing the media chant the unverifiable Bush figure, that 57% percent of eligble voters turned out for this election, we finally begin learning that this number was likely overexagerated. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000788083
One would think part of the metrics for a successful election would include an informed electorate, yet the media rarely informed the american people that over half of all iraqi voters thought they were voting for a president, when in fact they were voting for a national assembly to develop a constitution.
One would think it was important that voters who turned out actually had some familiarity with the candidates, and knew clearly where the candidates stood the issues and in regards to their personal ideology. Yet leading up to the elections half a dozen candidates were assassinated. As a result, the names of most candidates were not made public until a few days before the election on web sites inaccessible to most Iraqis.
Then there is the actual issue of turnout. Now that some figures are actually coming in we are estimating that in the Al Anbar Province only 17,000 of a potential 250,000 eligible voters showed up at the pools - a 7% turnout. In Ramadi, a city with 400,000 people, only 1,700 voted. In Mosul, a city with 1.8 million people, 58,000 people turned out. And at another poll in Mosul, only 3% of those who actually voted were women.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-mosul31jan31,1,1061549.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=3&cset=true
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-ramadi31jan31,1,475153.story?coll=la-news-a_section
In the end your left with a situtation where a large number of uninformed voters, who didnt know they were voting for a national assembly and didn't know the candidates, turned out in numbers much smaller than originally reported.
The right is quick say say the left was hoping for failure. I don't think anything could be farther from the truth. Progress requires an honest acceptance of reality, and an admission of faults that need to be taken into account and corrected. The willed ignorance of the right has lead us to this point, with failure after failure, and it will continue to lead us onto further failures if the right is unwilling to stand up and face reality.
-
OK, this might possibly be the dumbest post ever on Train of Thought. By what measurement are the Iraqi elections a success? How about the fact that they happened at all! Never before in the history of the world has an Arab country had national democratic elections. IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!!! And not only did they happen, but 60% or so of eligible voters risked their lives to go to the poll and participare in a process that people all over the world take from granted.
What more do you want, dude? As time goes on, and democracy hopefully takes root, they will eventually build the institutions that we find in more mature democracies. In conclusion, only a bitter, defeated leftist like Ant would find something to complain about with these historic elections in Iraq. Get a life dude. You would rather have the Iraq people suffer in order to prove Bush was wrong then let oppressed people like the Iraqis experience feeedom and joy. You make me sick...
-
OK, this might possibly be the dumbest post ever on Train of Thought. By what measurement are the Iraqi elections a success? How about the fact that they happened at all! Never before in the history of the world has an Arab country had national democratic elections. IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!!! And not only did they happen, but 60% or so of eligible voters risked their lives to go to the poll and participare in a process that people all over the world take from granted.
What more do you want, dude? As time goes on, and democracy hopefully takes root, they will eventually build the institutions that we find in more mature democracies. In conclusion, only a bitter, defeated leftist like Ant would find something to complain about with these historic elections in Iraq. Get a life dude. You would rather have the Iraq people suffer in order to prove Bush was wrong then let oppressed people like the Iraqis experience feeedom and joy. You make me sick...
You have a hard time reading.
1. The often used, and unverifiable number for turnout is 57%. I pointed out this figure is an overestimate - the actual number will be much lower.
2. This is not the first time an arab country has had democratic elections. Palestine recently had elections.
3. Conservatives historically oppose nation-building of course you and your fellow bush-supporters aren't really conservative, your merely republican.
4. After killing, or severely injuring over 100,000 Iraqi civilians over a war that was not of their choice, the least we can do, as compassionate individuals (which you seem to think you are) is show some honest humility when addressing the situation in Iraq so that we can proceed in as intelligent a manner as possible and truly look out for the best interests of America and the Iraqi People. Blindly repeating nonsensical rhetoric is not compassionate, and if there are real problems in iraq we should not arrogantly dismiss them by refusing to critically consider reality. If you cared about the iraqi people or the sustained prosperity of the american public you wouldn't be afraid of opinions that conflict with your own worldview.
5. That's all I'm going to bother saying because you obviously have a hard time with reading comprehension. Re-read my original post again for more.
-
After hearing the conservative owned media for days now report about the success of the Iraqi elections, stories like this remained buried and unreported.
_____
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents in pickup trucks attacked a police station south of Baghdad late Sunday, prompting an hourlong gunfight that killed 22 Iraqi security forces and 14 attackers, a police official said.
The clash broke out about 10:30 p.m. in Mahawil, 50 miles south of Baghdad, police Capt. Muthana Khalid Ali told The Associated Press by telephone.
Ali said five Iraqi national guardsmen and 17 police were killed and 18 security personnel were wounded. He said the attackers used automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades before withdrawing under fire.
Mahawil is in a mixed area of Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050206/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack
____
And CWalker, anytime you want to come clean about the stupidity of your original post feel free.
-
i'd say the metric of success is people risking their life trying to accomplish something better without resorting to violence
-
i'd say the metric of success is people risking their life trying to accomplish something better without resorting to violence
???
-
i'd say the metric of success is people risking their life trying to accomplish something better without resorting to violence
???
what? you don't think it's a noble cause for people to do what they believe in despite the overcomming threat of violence and without the need to resort to violent acts? i think what these people did is admirable... lord knows i wouldn't have voted for bush if people were saying they were going to bomb the shit out of my local firehall
-
i'd say the metric of success is people risking their life trying to accomplish something better without resorting to violence
???
what? you don't think it's a noble cause for people to do what they believe in despite the overcomming threat of violence and without the need to resort to violent acts? i think what these people did is admirable... lord knows i wouldn't have voted for bush if people were saying they were going to bomb the shit out of my local firehall
no one is suggesting what the Iraqis did wasn't admirable. But still there were a number of ignored problems with this election. I'm not going to restate myself, so go back and re-read my post. As far as your metric, people showing up just isn't enough. Of course some people were going to show up and vote. If thats the highest you set the bar for achievement no wonder Republicans still support Bush.
-
Where is Saddam Hussein right now?
-
being prepped on what too say when hes in court
-
i'd say the metric of success is people risking their life trying to accomplish something better without resorting to violence
???
what? you don't think it's a noble cause for people to do what they believe in despite the overcomming threat of violence and without the need to resort to violent acts? i think what these people did is admirable... lord knows i wouldn't have voted for bush if people were saying they were going to bomb the shit out of my local firehall
no one is suggesting what the Iraqis did wasn't admirable. But still there were a number of ignored problems with this election. I'm not going to restate myself, so go back and re-read my post. As far as your metric, people showing up just isn't enough. Of course some people were going to show up and vote. If thats the highest you set the bar for achievement no wonder Republicans still support Bush.
some people... try 1/2 of the country.... you act like this was you going to the grocery store... these people had their lives threatened... they didn't know if after they flipped that lever if a car was gonna drive through the building and kill them. nice try to down play this but like i said, before you question someone, put yourself in their shoes
-
i'd say the metric of success is people risking their life trying to accomplish something better without resorting to violence
???
what? you don't think it's a noble cause for people to do what they believe in despite the overcomming threat of violence and without the need to resort to violent acts? i think what these people did is admirable... lord knows i wouldn't have voted for bush if people were saying they were going to bomb the shit out of my local firehall
no one is suggesting what the Iraqis did wasn't admirable. But still there were a number of ignored problems with this election. I'm not going to restate myself, so go back and re-read my post. As far as your metric, people showing up just isn't enough. Of course some people were going to show up and vote. If thats the highest you set the bar for achievement no wonder Republicans still support Bush.
some people... try 1/2 of the country.... you act like this was you going to the grocery store... these people had their lives threatened... they didn't know if after they flipped that lever if a car was gonna drive through the building and kill them. nice try to down play this but like i said, before you question someone, put yourself in their shoes
You have a hard time reading and its getting annoying. Since you are unwilling to 'scroll up' to my original post I guess I have to restate a few things for you hear. Hopefully, having saved you the trouble of scrolling to the top of this thread, you will actual read what I have written.
1. You, and other republicans in this thread, repeatedly use unverifiable numbers for turn-out. I pointed out in my original post that no one knows the actual turn-out numbers yet, and so-far the media has only repeated an unverifiable number given to them by the Bush administration.
2. One poll showed 50% of the Iraqi population thought they were voting for their new President when in fact they were not. I wouldn't be surpised if you were one of the many people in America that thought Iraqis were voting for a President, when in fact they were voting for a National Assembly.
3. Virtually every voter had almost no information on the candidates before going to the polls. Essentially, the entire population voted blind. About 6 candidates were assasinated leading up to the election, and most candidates, in fear of losing their lives did not announce their candidacy until a few days before the election, or in some cases on the day of the election. Of course maybe this isn't a big issue to you, since you, like many other American voters, think its entirely acceptable to essentially vote blind and argue the issues without any background knowledge.
Anyways, let me restate, if your metric for success is an election where:
1. Perhaps somewhere around 50% of the population votes blind without knowing a) the candidates or b) that they weren't voting for the president.
2. Only 60 or so people actually die on election day.
Then, by all means you are entitled to your opinion. As I said in my first post, success is a subjective idea. However, I would suggest that had your metric been applied across the board and extended to other nations the long-term success of a democratic system would be fragile at best.
-
being prepped on what too say when hes in court
Do the lack of WMDs make a great case for him? I think it'd be hillarious if he were to be aquitted then run and win the next Iraq election, just to here what Bush's response to wrong war wrong place wrong time this time around.
-
being prepped on what too say when hes in court
Do the lack of WMDs make a great case for him? I think it'd be hillarious if he were to be aquitted then run and win the next Iraq election, just to here what Bush's response to wrong war wrong place wrong time this time around.
Probably not. I doubt he will be acquitted. He did a lot of horrible things, and he certainly would never win another iraqi election.
-
....Saddam isn't on trial for WMD.
-
Then, by all means you are entitled to your opinion. As I said in my first post, success is a subjective idea. However, I would suggest that had your metric been applied across the board and extended to other nations the long-term success of a democratic system would be fragile at best.
i thought you needed voters for a successful democratic system... i guess i was wrong though
anyways i've already heard of all the foul ups that this election has...there were roughly 1000 candidates, people turned away....blah blah blah this just adds to my argument that these people are very brave in what they did, which is something you cannot debate because the bravest thing you have to endure is not getting carpal tunnel syndrome while cutting and pasting clips from the news
-
blah blah blah this just adds to my argument that these people are very brave in what they did, which is something you cannot debate because the bravest thing you have to endure is not getting carpal tunnel syndrome while cutting and pasting clips from the news
So is you argument that the Iiraqis who voted were brave or that the election was successful. If it is the former, I've already stated I agree with you! Again, I'm not trying to harm your ego when I say I suggest you actually read my posts, if you continue to just write stuff without reading there really is no point to having a discussion with you and there is no reason for you to argue that your arguements are actually superior.
You can't have a debate unless you actually respond to what the other side has said. After telling you to read my original post about three times now, and even paraphrasing it for you, you respond again, proving beyond a doubt that you haven't actually read my post (or if you have don't remember what I write long enough to write a response that actually refute the points I made.) I said a long time ago, I don't dispute their bravery and essentially you end telling me I can't argue with you about their bravery. I'm not arguing with you about their bravery and I never have. If I was a typical ToT asshole, I'd write a long rant now about how you got sonned, instead I'll just ask politely that if in the future you want to discuss a topic with me you try to respond to what I've actually written instead of making things up and then debating things I've never even said.
-
blah blah blah this just adds to my argument that these people are very brave in what they did, which is something you cannot debate because the bravest thing you have to endure is not getting carpal tunnel syndrome while cutting and pasting clips from the news
So is you argument that the Iiraqis who voted were brave or that the election was successful. If it is the former, I've already stated I agree with you! Again, I'm not trying to harm your ego when I say I suggest you actually read my posts, if you continue to just write stuff without reading there really is no point to having a discussion with you and there is no reason for you to argue that your arguements are actually superior.
You can't have a debate unless you actually respond to what the other side has said. After telling you to read my original post about three times now, and even paraphrasing it for you, you respond again, proving beyond a doubt that you haven't actually read my post (or if you have don't remember what I write long enough to write a response that actually refute the points I made.) I said a long time ago, I don't dispute their bravery and essentially you end telling me I can't argue with you about their bravery. I'm not arguing with you about their bravery and I never have. If I was a typical ToT asshole, I'd write a long rant now about how you got sonned, instead I'll just ask politely that if in the future you want to discuss a topic with me you try to respond to what I've actually written instead of making things up and then debating things I've never even said.
seing as voters are THE essential part, probably the sole thing that HAS to exist if a democracy is to exist ... yes it was a success...you're complaining that there wasn't enough time to get candidates right, people don't know who they voted for.... that's all secondary and that will be sorted out...but to take a group of people that never experienced something like this before....who were under threatening situations...and that have no idea what the outcome will be that right there is the success of the elections... i'm answering the questions that was posed in the topic of this thread, now if you want to sit there and elaborate and elaborate after each post i make....i can do that too
the iraqi's probably voted for a talking horse for the local school janitor... for all i know....i wasn't there...so yes, they might have a talking horse present when they try to set up Iraq's interim constitution...that would indicate that the Democracy was not a success but until all the smoke settles...what we have here is a great voctory against all sorts of nay sayers
-
seeing as voters are THE essential part, probably the sole thing that HAS to exist if a democracy is to exist ... yes it was a success...you're complaining that there wasn't enough time to get candidates right, people don't know who they voted for.... that's all secondary and that will be sorted out...but to take a group of people that never experienced something like this before....who were under threatening situations...and that have no idea what the outcome will be that right there is the success of the elections... i'm answering the questions that was posed in the topic of this thread, now if you want to sit there and elaborate and elaborate after each post i make....i can do that too
the iraqi's probably voted for a talking horse for the local school janitor... for all i know....i wasn't there...so yes, they might have a talking horse present when they try to set up Iraq's interim constitution...that would indicate that the Democracy was not a success but until all the smoke settles...what we have here is a great voctory against all sorts of nay sayers
Again you have a hard time reading my posts. Let me directly requote my initial response:
If thats the highest you set the bar for achievement no wonder Republicans still support Bush.
Then I reminded you again in another post:
[by all means you are entitled to your opinion. As I said in my first post, success is a subjective idea. However, I would suggest that had your metric been applied across the board and extended to other nations the long-term success of a democratic system would be fragile at best.
I never said you aren't entitled to your opinion. I'm not arguing about your right to you opinion, I'm arguing about the strength of your opinion. Notice the part where I said, "I would suggest that had your metric been applied across the board and extended to other nations the long-term success of a democratic system would be fragile at best." So yes, you agree that 50% of the voters didn't know they were voting for a national assembly, and a majority of the voters didn't even know who the candidates, and it appears that in your opinion none of that matters. All that matters for this to be considered a success is that people showed up. That is the only argument you have ever made. I don't know what else your metric could be at this point except something like:
"As long as people show up to vote, nothing else matters, and an election should be considered a success."
To which I tell you for a final time, by all means you are entitled to your opinion, but your not entitled to demanding your opinion is in fact correct. So again, if that is your opinion, I would suggest you are setting the bar rather low, and if we extended your metric accross the board to every nation, democracy would be in shambles. Yes the question was give your opinions, but the point of discussion is to debate opinions. All you ended up doing in the end is say "hey you asked for my opinion I gave it to you."
-
seeing as voters are THE essential part, probably the sole thing that HAS to exist if a democracy is to exist ... yes it was a success...you're complaining that there wasn't enough time to get candidates right, people don't know who they voted for.... that's all secondary and that will be sorted out...but to take a group of people that never experienced something like this before....who were under threatening situations...and that have no idea what the outcome will be that right there is the success of the elections... i'm answering the questions that was posed in the topic of this thread, now if you want to sit there and elaborate and elaborate after each post i make....i can do that too
the iraqi's probably voted for a talking horse for the local school janitor... for all i know....i wasn't there...so yes, they might have a talking horse present when they try to set up Iraq's interim constitution...that would indicate that the Democracy was not a success but until all the smoke settles...what we have here is a great voctory against all sorts of nay sayers
Again you have a hard time reading my posts. Let me directly requote my initial response:
If thats the highest you set the bar for achievement no wonder Republicans still support Bush.
Then I reminded you again in another post:
[by all means you are entitled to your opinion. As I said in my first post, success is a subjective idea. However, I would suggest that had your metric been applied across the board and extended to other nations the long-term success of a democratic system would be fragile at best.
I never said you aren't entitled to your opinion. I'm not arguing about your right to you opinion, I'm arguing about the strength of your opinion. Notice the part where I said, "I would suggest that had your metric been applied across the board and extended to other nations the long-term success of a democratic system would be fragile at best." So yes, you agree that 50% of the voters didn't know they were voting for a national assembly, and a majority of the voters didn't even know who the candidates, and it appears that in your opinion none of that matters. All that matters for this to be considered a success is that people showed up. That is the only argument you have ever made. I don't know what else your metric could be at this point except something like:
"As long as people show up to vote, nothing else matters, and an election should be considered a success."
To which I tell you for a final time, by all means you are entitled to your opinion, but your not entitled to demanding your opinion is in fact correct. So again, if that is your opinion, I would suggest you are setting the bar rather low, and if we extended your metric accross the board to every nation, democracy would be in shambles. Yes the question was give your opinions, but the point of discussion is to debate opinions. All you ended up doing in the end is say "hey you asked for my opinion I gave it to you."
like i said, voting is the key component in a democracy...take out rep and dem parties....take out fancy campaign slogans and commercials... and what you pretty much have is the iraq election.. you have people voting for people they think would do the best job
it is a little primitive but who's to say taht out present version of democracy hasn't bastardized the very foundation it was built on... all the complaining you're doing would point to the fact that not even our election was a success because you've stated a milliontime that people didn't know what they were voting for....idiots were voting...there were scandals....
so i think this very thing as people just going out and voting has happened and it applied across the board... ours was succesful to 51% of the populations point of view...and you haven't even let the votes tally in iraq and you're already complaining that it's nothing special
-
1. Go back to the beginning of the American Democracy and read the federalist papers. People were very well informed in our system.
2. Take out the campaign slogans in our election, and yadda yadda, and you do not have the iraqi election where people voted for "who they thought would do the best job." How the fuck did they vote for who they thought would do the best job, when 50% of the population thought they were voting for the president, and virtually they entire population had almost no knowledge of the candidates? Are you fucking retarded?
3. I think there is a big difference between the average American not really grasping the issues and the average Iraqi not even knowng who the candidates were of that they were voting for a national assembly. Dude fuck it... just stop talking unless you want to run for dumbest republican on this board. .
-
1. Go back to the beginning of the American Democracy and read the federalist papers. People were very well informed in our system.
2. Take out the campaign slogans in our election, and yadda yadda, and you do not have the iraqi election where people voted for "who they thought would do the best job." How the fuck did they vote for who they thought would do the best job, when 50% of the population thought they were voting for the president, and virtually they entire population had almost no knowledge of the candidates? Are you fucking retarded?
3. I think there is a big difference between the average American not really grasping the issues and the average Iraqi not even knowng who the candidates were of that they were voting for a national assembly. Dude fuck it... just stop talking unless you want to run for dumbest republican on this board. .
1st off the entire population didn't vote... don't try and hope on the bush bandwagon...secondly, you don't even know how many people voted so how do you know how many of those voters didn't know anything about the candidates? you're grabbing at air with your reasoning... when i use the amount of voters to back up my argument, you toss them out from lack of proof, but then you base your argument on the same voters... doesn't make much sense to me
now if they thought they were voting for president...weren't they still voting for the person they thought would do the best job? i mean this is basic logic....do you think they found out they were voting for people to write up thier laws and then looked back and said "oh shit... i voted for abdul jamar because he drove a taxi very well, but he doesn't know shit about writing documents....we're screwed!" also one of the shiite leaders is in the lead meaning that a majority of these people recognized one of the names and voted for that person...so seeing as there were roughtly 1000 candidates, you would lead people to believe that all these voters that knew nothing of these people just guessed and ended up picking the same guy? so there goes your whole "they didn't know the candidates theory out of the window"
and secondly, one misinformed voter is better than a different type of misinformed voter? they are both examples of the flaws of voting... just because the candidate got to lie, and talk trash about another candidate makes him better than a candidate we don't know about? you have some good reasoning
so you think it's far better to vote for groups of liars that bash each other than to vote for someone you don't know... they both seem equally stupid to me