News Would you vote?

Would you vote in the upcoming election in Iraq if you were an Iraqi?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 17 44.7%
  • No.

    Votes: 16 42.1%
  • I don't know.

    Votes: 5 13.2%

  • Total voters
    38

russ_watters

Mentor
18,992
5,146
Knowing the danger of terrorism, if you were an Iraqi living in Baghdad, would you vote in the upcoming election?
 
310
2
no, we all know the american puppet is going to win anyways, if you support him you don't need to vote and if you don't support him your vote won't be counted.
 

Gonzolo

In exchange for a vote, I would ask for transport to-and-from the polling station in an M1A1, and free 4-year room and board in an American base.

Or else I would move to a neighbouring country, Turkey or Iran, depending on my feelings towards America.

Anyone knows how many votes needed for the elections to be legitimate?
 
55
2
Smurf said:
no, we all know the american puppet is going to win anyways, if you support him you don't need to vote and if you don't support him your vote won't be counted.

It doesn't matter if the person you are refferring to a puppet wins or not.
The drafted constitution still has to go the people to be passed or rejected.
The subsequent new REAL government has to be voted on after that.

There are plenty of checks in this process.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,541
1,683
I would write myself in, because I wouldn't trust anyone else. :biggrin:

Besides, I like to stir things up. :smile:

Seriously, there will still be a problem with the insurgency, and the fact that many Sunnis already feel disenfanchised, and many may not vote - combination of resentment to Shi'a and/or intimidation from those Sunnis who do not wish to participate in the election process.

The US is trying to not show its presence, which will greatly reduce security to those who will ostensibly risk life or limb to vote.

It is worrisome that many of the candidates are still not listed because of security reason. So no one really knows everyone who is running, or what the positions are regarding policies.

Even with a 'successful' election, the future is still uncertain.
 
Last edited:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,992
5,146
Ok, I'll need to explain my purpose here. I'm wondering, as a general principle, how important is voting? Is it worth risking your safety? I should have realized people would turn this particular example around on me. So how about if you were a Palestinian who wanted to vote for Abaas against the will of the terrorists? Or even an American who voted last November under the threat of terrorism (what if it were more credible?). edit: there was a polling location where a white powder was dropped on the floor and the polls closed because people thought it was Antrhax. Turns out it wasn't, but even if it was, I would have gone there to vote if I had to.

As a general principle, would you risk your life to vote?
 
Last edited:
1,798
167
I would have voted last election regardless of threats, even if they were credible. Voting in iraq? That's a question of considerable complexity that I don't know if I can answer. Don't get me wrong, democratic governments have the capability to be better than all the other kinds.

Its just that they aren't always.
 

Bystander

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,117
1,125
From a culture with no tradition of participatory government to the U.S.? And, since when is it NOT a risk of life and limb voting in this country? Not dragged by the heels to the black maria type risk, but some rather unusual ballot security measures in common use do subvert the concept of "secret" ballot, and do result in sanctions for "incorrect" exercise of vote for members of "voting blocs." You teach for a living? You will vote for the following school board candidates, referenda, whatever --- usually your own choices, but in a high stakes election, you will be informed and watched --- not by Uncle, but by the parties playing for the stakes.
 
136
0
I'd cast a write in vote. If that wasn't possible then I wouldn't go out to the polls. Infact, if I lived in Iraq, I think I would have tried to leave the country a few years ago.
 
310
2
My life is worth more than to tilt the election by 0.0001% in any paticular direction, now... if only there was a more empowered way for the average citizen to express himself politically.
 
728
13
Smurf said:
no, we all know the american puppet is going to win anyways, if you support him you don't need to vote and if you don't support him your vote won't be counted.
yes, the "former" CIA agent will get "elected"; the US's puppet will get in, just as they always have.
 

vanesch

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,007
16
russ_watters said:
Knowing the danger of terrorism, if you were an Iraqi living in Baghdad, would you vote in the upcoming election?
I wouldn't vote, exactly for the reason you give: it is too dangerous and the gains are too low. I think these elections are a joke, because of the security problem, and the outcome will have not much legitimity.
I can understand the political reasons for the US to want to keep this voting at the said date and everything ; and honestly no I don't think that the US will trick the outcome on purpose.
The political reasons are clear:
- they came with guns "in the name of democracy" so democracy you will eat!
- it will give their presence (or their withdrawal) a more legitimate character on paper, in that it is now "in agreement with a democratically elected representation of the Iraqi people"
- when they plan something, they do things according to plan.
- it would mark a kind of symbolic end to a situation which is highly uncomfortable

But honestly, these elections cannot be taken seriously. In the same way as confessions under physical threat have no value in court, elections in *these* security conditions have no legitimity (except of course if it turns out that 80% of the Iraqis went to vote! Something that would surprise me strongly, but we'll see). But even without the security problem, there has been a total lack in transparency concerning the candidates, their programmes, their past etc... So this is nothing else but biased lottery.

If it turns out that on election day, there is a major slaughter, I think that's the responsability of the US. If not, and if it turns out that there is a high level of participation, then I'm wrong, and I have to admit that the US did achieve something over there. If a bearded religious maniac comes out of the
hat, well...
 

PerennialII

Science Advisor
Gold Member
898
0
I'd vote, the threats of not - voting are in long term quite intimidating themselves.
 
464
1
russ_watters said:
Knowing the danger of terrorism, if you were an Iraqi living in Baghdad, would you vote in the upcoming election?
Think about it this way:
Picture that you live in the year 1900 in America. Pretty much the whole government is corrupt, in the pockets of trusts. France decides "Man, those Americans have a ****ty life, living under that corrupt government and all, let's go liberate them." So France comes over, destroys our government, kills 10 or 20 thousand civilians with mis-guided artilery fire, has a prison abuse scandal or two, and then sets up elections. Would you vote, Russ?
 
Last edited:
84
0
:mad: Definitely not voting.

:zzz: TGIF, I am going to have a really early night, you guys have fun.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,992
5,146
wasteofo2 said:
Think about it this way:
Picture that you live in the year 1900 in America. Pretty much the whole government is corrupt, in the pockets of trusts. France decides "Man, those Americans have a ****ty life, living under that corrupt government and all, let's go liberate them." So France comes over, destroys our government, kills 10 or 20 thousand civilians with mis-guided artilery fire, has a prison abuse scandal or two, and then sets up elections. Would you vote, Russ?
You lost me in the second sentence, wasteofo2 - are you saying the US circa 1900 was comparable to Iraq circa 2002?

This election, guys, is the first opportunity these Iraqis have ever had to select any part of their government. Please don't forget that.
 
Last edited:

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
I wouldn't have dared.
In addition, I would be very skeptical if the new government in Baghdad should interfere with and suppress the traditional local authorities where I lived.

Saddam Hussein knew how to handle local magnates; sometimes threatening them, occasionally supporting them.
Hussein was never a totalitarian dictator like Hitler or Stalin; a brutal dictator, to be sure, but he knew perfectly well that attempts to coerce local magnates too strongly would only lead to his own fall.
 
464
1
russ_watters said:
You lost me in the second sentence, wasteofo2 - are you saying the US circa 1900 was comparable to Iraq circa 2002?

This election, guys, is the first opportunity these Iraqis have ever had to select any part of their government. Please don't forget that.
I'm not saying that the us circa 1900 was comparable to Iraq circa 2002, I only selected 1900 because it was the first highly corrupt time that popped into my head.

The era really isn't important though. If at any point, America had a government that wasn't that great, and some foreign nation that you hated took it upon themselves to topple it, killed thousands of civilians with mis-guided artillery, then set up elections, would you vote in it?

And wasn't there some Iraqi parliment in the early 1900's?
 
Last edited:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,992
5,146
wasteofo2 said:
I'm not saying that the us circa 1900 was comparable to Iraq circa 2002, I only selected 1900 because it was the first highly corrupt time that popped into my head.

The era really isn't important though. If at any point, America had a government that wasn't that great, and some foreign nation that you hated took it upon themselves to topple it, killed thousands of civilians with mis-guided artillery, then set up elections, would you vote in it?
I think you miss the point - "wasn't that great" is not a good reason to overthrow a government, so the scenarios aren't at all comparable.

If I was living in Germany or Japan in 1945, I would have voted in the elections set up by the Allies - that is a comparable scenario.
And wasn't there some Iraqi parliment in the early 1900's?
Dunno, but I doubt anyone alive today in Iraq voted for it.
 

kat

12
0
And wasn't there some Iraqi parliment in the early 1900's?
Iraq didn't exist until 193...2?...9? something like that.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
russ_watters said:
If I was living in Germany or Japan in 1945, I would have voted in the elections set up by the Allies - that is a comparable scenario.
Not really, Russ. Germany and Japan started the War. To make it more clear, the people in Germany and Japan did not see the Allies as invaders.

For me, personally, it would be a very hard decision - more from a lack of a good picture of the situation than from a moral dilemma. If I could write in, that would be a no-brainer. The situation is pretty simple in terms of one aspect. Whether or not I approve of the US occupation, do I think we would have a better future if we had democratic elections or should we boycott the elections, causing a... what ?? What is the alternative ? Surely the first option is the only one that makes sense to me.

The second aspect is the risk to my (and my family's) life. If the risk were high enough (say a near certainty), would that prevent me from voting ? From my relatively detached and unaffected point of view, I would think perhaps it would. However, I do believe (or maybe I try to make myself feel better) that my answer would be the opposite, were I really an Iraqi. It is hard (impossible even ?) to recreate the emotional resolve from thousands of miles away.

On the other hand, it may also be easier to say that one "would have voted no matter what the risk", from the safety of their homes, where daily life is not a struggle; where the most common sound heard is passing traffic, not artillery/machine gun fire.
 
1,354
4
Smurf said:
no, we all know the american puppet is going to win anyways, if you support him you don't need to vote and if you don't support him your vote won't be counted.

thats funny cause they're voting for an assembly, not a president.

That'd be a hell of a lot of puppets. I doubt the administration could remember all their names.
 

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,764
5
franznietzsche said:
thats funny cause they're voting for an assembly, not a president.

That'd be a hell of a lot of puppets. I doubt the administration could remember all their names.
They're voting by slates. And yes, Allawi has a slate. So does Sistani, the Shiite Ayatollah.
 

Bilal

-Iraq had the first elected parliament in Middle East, till UK occupied them in 1920 and installed King, to protect their interest.

- UK used for the first time, in the 20s, in ME poison gasses (chemical weapons) against the Iraqi people; Kurds and Arab.

I will provide trusted sources later ...


russ_watters said:
You lost me in the second sentence, wasteofo2 - are you saying the US circa 1900 was comparable to Iraq circa 2002?

This election, guys, is the first opportunity these Iraqis have ever had to select any part of their government. Please don't forget that.
 

Bilal

Iraq as country with this name, exist since Roman era .... but the borders changed in 1921 by France and UK. If you live in the 7th century and ask any person about Iraq, he will easily describe it as the land from Musel till Basra …. It exists in all historical documents and ancient literature in this name. It was State in Ottoman Empire (e.g Ukrain in USSR).

ME political map changed after 1WW and after 2WW , the same as most of European countries maps changed. I think you know that Germany, France, Australia, Poland.... etc changed their borders many times in last century.

So you can not say France was created after 2WW because this was the last time they changed their borders.

For example: The most popular romantic Arab poet called Qais Al Mal-luh , lived in the 8th century. He could not marry his lover (Layla) so he spent all his life traveling in the countries of ME and telling romantic poem about Layla, his nick name became (Crazy of Layla). He said:

‘’They telling me that Layla in Iraq suffer from illness, I wish I am her doctor.’’

also Iraq (capital Baghdad and main post Basra) is mentioned thousands of times in the well known Arabian ancient book ‘’Arabian nights", which was written in the 11th century. The well known story (Sindbad the sailer) is refer that this character from Basra –Iraq, while ALi Baba was from Baghdad-Iraq.

In 1921, UK and France decided to ‘’re-structure ME for their own interest ‘’ so they changed the map of these countries:

- Iraq (independence region in The 4the century) : they added part of Kurdistan ( Zakhu) and part of Syria (Musel) and they gave part (Khuzestan) to Iran. Beside that they created State of Kuwait in the southern part to protect the oil fields. They draw the new map based on oil fields.

- Egypt (exist since ancenit ages in this name) : Britain gave the southern part (Nuba desert) to Sudan, and added the Western desert (Libyan desert) to Egypt.

- Great Syria (Bilad Ash sham = ShamLand) (ancient Arab of Petra and Palmera called it this name before 2700 years) : It was Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Westren of Iraq and South of Turkey, the capital was Damascus. They divide it between France and UK in 1921.

- Yemen: it was divided and then united in early 90s

-Oman did not change much since centuries.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar , Bahrain , UAI were established in the beginning of 20s century.


kat said:
Iraq didn't exist until 193...2?...9? something like that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: Would you vote?

  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Top