A Tremendous Victory

No he didn't say the Kurds had too much said he said giving them special veto power would dead lock the goverment and be undemocratic. It would be like giving Islamics and other religous minorities in the USA having special veto power over the US President because of a Christian dominance in the US.

What compromise? The US just waited till Sistani gave in. The setup of the Iraqi goverment is still undemocratic.

The US has setup the Iraqi goverment so it is useless, they can't kick out the USA even if they wanted to due to the red tape the US setup.

Sure elections could have bone eariler but back when Brember said elections could not be held the plan was direct election like Sistani wanted and the US hadn't even drawn up the convoluted undemocratic electoral system the Iraqis recently voted on.

 

Sistani supported the elections. Get another excuse.

 

Don't count your democracies before they are hatched. Another tremendous victory from the Viet Nam era:


U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote:
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 - United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the national election based on the incomplete returns reaching here. Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February. The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta. Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

 

He still protested the recent election in favour for a direct election till it was clear the US wasn't going to budge.

This election was as fake as the '57 Haiti election, I mean come on ballots running out that should have lead to all ballots being destroyed and a new election called. Then the UN said about a year ago Iraq was too unstable to hold elections then with MORE violence in the streets the UN said it was okay.

 

**


The thing is that I feel no sense of ‘victory’ over Points decision to give up debating his views, in fact far from it. To think that an intelligent person has withdrawn from the rational discussion in favor of the dogmatic haranguing of anyone that doesn’t thing as he does is deeply saddening.

The problem is that I get the feeling that he is not alone. Many Americans feel that the their county is a place of modernity and progress but a vast number of these same people think in a similar way to Point, in thinking that belief is preferable to reasoned thought and the testing of ideas in the flames of scrutiny.

I remember when pointbreak (not his first id) first came here and actually discussed his views presumably because he thought they could stand up, now he finds they don’t he doesn’t question those views he just refuses to debate them.

So the only thing left to him is sniping, he flits around the forum telling people that they are wrong or claiming they are motivated by a hatred of America, but if he is asked to explain his theories he has to leave because if he gets into a discussion it invariably become clear that it is in fact his own views that are shaky.

To me this is the malaise of American right wing and the problem with the American people, one hasn’t got any decent ideas so has to rely on manipulation and smearing its opponents and the other for the most part accepts it without question.


**

 

Did Sistani approve of the elections? YES.

Does he consider the results legimate? YES.

Will the results be recognised by the UN? YES.

YES YES YES.

Therefore you conclude the elections are invalid because they UN and Sistani are against them? How hard up are you for anything approaching a decent argument?

For fucks sake try to quote someone who at least agrees with you Psy!

 

What a Joke hahahah





the only way this is a victory is if the Kurds support it/....which is unknown at this time...they want a united iraq..but keep there individualism..the sunni had a very low turn out so there still might be civil war..who knows



this new goverment might only have power if the U.S. backs it and that is it

 

Balbus,

Note that Pointbreak is not averse to debating with others here. I suspect that he's (correctly) determined that debating with you is an exercise in futility. You are without a doubt one of the most pompous, arrogant, condescending, childish jackasses I've ever encountered on the web. The only reason you outrank LickHERish is because he's often unintentionally humorous.

 

I said because they "were" aginst them. UN on violence issues when it is more violent now then before and Sistani objections that he made eariler were never addressed.

On January of 2004, there was a hundred thousand people in the streets in Baghdad demanding "direct" elections and rejecting the idea of an interim government. This election was not direct and there is still a interim goverment.

Anyone can see it is conspiricy, when it was going to be direct election and there wasn't very much violence both the US and UN goes aginst Sistani demands of having the election based on Iraq being too violent. Then when the US comes up with a convoluted system all of a sudden the UN and eventully Sistani backs it. The US probably bribed or intemidated to get this fucked up election where nobody cares there was alot of places that ran out of ballots and many people couldn't get to polling stations.

 

Dear Hick



“You are without a doubt one of the most pompous, arrogant, condescending, childish jackasses I've ever encountered on the web.” - Hick my friend you sound, how can I say it…bitter?



Ok can you tell me where Point is actually debating his views; I can see the assertions his opinion and the assertions and opinions he gives to back up those assertions and opinions but where is the debate? He thinks if someone criticises the right wing policy makers that have caused so much trouble in Iraq is to be bitter why? Well from what I can tell it is because he does, that is not debate.

 

I had to go to Free Speech TV to see that one. None of the media outlets in the U.S. would dare report it. There are even bigger demonstrations but the U.S. media won't report them.

 

I know and the media went to town with the pulling down of Saddam's statue even though far LESS people were there, the media acted like it was a stong turn out.

 

That was another thing Free Speech TV talked about. They showed the wide angle shot of the square that the major TV networks didn't show. There were hardly any people there. The media made sure to stay with telephoto shots to make it look like more people were there.

The average person in the U.S. doesn't realize how much the news is being manipulated. What's worse, they often come to the defense of the media when the problems are pointed out. Strange.

 

Umm.. this woman i work with, karen, had a nephew in Iraq. He was injured on election day. His leg is broken and his artery was knicked in his neck, he survived luckily.
The election returns are showing that shias voted with a frenzy, and almost 2-1 for the religious party slate. Iraq is prolly going to go towards Iran internationally and the sunnis are going to go apeshit.
The insurgency ain't gone, and now Iraq is going to be agruably worse off than they were under saddam, cause at least he was a secular asshole, and you can reason with secular assholes (most of the time).

 

I think it is a great thing...that they had an election..it means freedom for them...

72 percent of the people there showed up to vote..even though there was a threat of death...and they had no idea who was running because of no champaiging
in the us only 64 percent of the people vote..w/ out the threat of death...

i think that means something...

 

This story was picked up by every major newspaper. It was on the newswires, including the AP and Dow Jones. The story ran on CNN. As usual, you are making things up. Pathetic.

I think i see a trend here - when you say 200 firms were privatized, you mean zero, when you say the US sold chemical and biological weapons to Saddam, you mean they didn't, and when you say a story wasn't reported in the media, you mean it was. Of course at HipForums its giving people what they want to hear that matters.

===========================


Dow Jones International News

(Updates with higher number of Shiite Muslims at demonstration, more details.)

BAGHDAD (AP)--Tens of thousands of Shiite Muslims marched peacefully in the capital Monday to demand an elected government, as U.S. and Iraqi officials prepared to seek the U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan's endorsement of U.S. plans for transferring power in Iraq. Huge crowds of Shiites, estimated by reporters at up to 100,000, marched about five kilometers to the University of al-Mustansariyah, where a representative of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani delivered a speech which he said was directed at Annan, the U.S. occupation authority and its Iraqi allies.

Al-Sistani, the country's most influential Shiite leader, has rejected a U.S. formula for power transfer through a provisional legislature selected by 18 regional caucuses, insisting on direct elections instead.

Iraqi Shiites Demanding New Government be Picked in Popular Elections

16 January 2004

CNN: Live at Daybreak

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: It is back to the drawing board for plans on how to create a new self-government in Iraq. The chief U.S. administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, has meetings scheduled today with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell and possibly President Bush himself. They've got to figure out some sort of compromise. Bremer, of course, is in Washington, as you can see.

On another subject out of Iraq, Shiites -- actually, this is on the same topic -- Shiites are demanding the new government be picked in popular elections. The U.S. has a complicated plan for caucuses, though. The deadline for the hand over is July 1.

Now, let's get more on what Paul Bremer may be telling the president and his security team. And on that other topic out of Iraq, we are getting word of an explosion in Baghdad.

Our senior international correspondent Sheila MacVicar is here to tell us about the explosion and more -- hello, Sheila.

SHEILA MACVICAR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol... now, the Shia majority here have been listening to the Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the most respected Shia Muslim cleric in Iraq, a very powerful figure. And he has been amongst those voices who have been demanding elections. Yesterday, there was a demonstration in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. Tens of thousands of people took to the streets, chanting against any government that would be created without elections. And a threat from one of the aides to the grand ayatollah that he might issue a fatwa, a religious ruling, which would instruct Iraqi Shia Muslims, again, the majority here, not to accept the authority of any government created without elections. Now, as you mentioned, Carol, Ambassador Bremer is in Washington. He'll be meeting with members of the Governing Council and Kofi Annan at the United Nations on Monday. Very important meetings, indeed. They're trying to get the U.N. to come into this process -- Carol.

COSTELLO: All right, Sheila MacVicar reporting live from Baghdad this morning.

 

Give CNN some credit for that one. Maybe that's why a lot of Bush supporters don't seem to like CNN. I wish all the networks would cover these stories as much as soap operas like Scott Peterson. I've heard Peterson everyday for over two years straight and very little about the Enron trials. I'm sure you can find Enron news in the American media but it's nowhere near what you hear about Peterson and Jackson. One can always find a little fresh food in the garbage dump.

The U.S. gave Saddam anthrax, botulism, and strains of West Nile virus in the 80s. It was cleared through the Department of Commerce. That was documented by the Congress itself when they were investigating the House Bank in the early 90s and accidentally stumbled upon the records. It was another story that you had to pick in the nooks and crannies to find.

PB, you should check out some of the non-U.S. news media outlets if you haven't, especially ones that show video. It's a different perspective of what's going on in the world. They don't suffer from the fluff 'news' that the U.S. outlets do and they show a lot of straight uncut video of what's going on in the world. It's not surprising al Manar TV was declared a terrorist group by the U.S. and taken off the U.S. airways, just as they did with al Jazeera in Iraq. The U.S. has also been pressuring other countries to monitor and censor al Jazeera in their own countries when it says something the U.S. doesn't approve of.

 

No, that's Fox News and the rest of the U.S. corporate media outlets and their sugar-coated versions of what's going on in the world in a form that they feel is digestible to the American public and non-offending to the Bush administration (when they're not talking about Peterson, that is, which isn't very often).

 

I don't live in the US so I see plenty of non-US news media. It is a simple fact that many here at HipForums simply applaud what they want to hear. That's why when you said "nobody dared" broadcast that story, when if fact it had hit virtually every major media outlet, people like Psy Fox chime in to agree. He doesn't know whether or not you are right, and obvisouly neither of you made any effort to check, but it SOUNDS good so he immediately agreed. Thats how it works here, criticise mainstream media and then unquestioningly accept any other source which gives you what you want to hear.

I have read very thoroughly on the anthrax sales to Iraq, in fact I just went over this topic with Psy Fox who claimed the US sold WMDs to Iraq and then, as is usual when you get into the inconvenience of facts, had to retract the claim.

I think it is time the two of you started questioning alternative media the way you question mainstream media.

 

I do question alternative media. Let's face it, all media outlets are biased to some extent. However, I still like to see those alternative media sources to see other people's perspectives and don't like the idea of them being censored by the govt. What troubles me is that in the U.S. you have only a handful of large corporations that are controlling much of the media, including TV, movies, books, etc (Viacom, Time-Warner,Fox). The trend doesn't seem to be getting any better either. If you were in the U.S., you might be a little more frustrated by this problem.

It's also not a matter of unquestioningly accepting other media outlets. I've seen video news of events in Iraq on non-U.S. media outlets (al Jazerra, EuroNews,CCTV China, NHK Japan, BBC, Saudi TV) that just aren't shown in the U.S. or shown very little. For example, I saw a feature article about the problem of oil pipelines being blown up in Iraq that lasted a couple minutes on a non-U.S. TV network. They showed the pipeline burning and interviewed the local residents and listened to their opinion on the problem. In the U.S., I saw a 5-second clip of the fire on one of the mainstream outlets and no other details (5 seconds. Ok, so they can say they reported it ). I'd rather see all the perspectives.