Sunnis call Iraq vote illegitimate

[dilloduck]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-02-iraq_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno

I get it now---the Sunnis are the Democrat party in Iraq. :cof:

 

[CSM]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-02-iraq_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno

I get it now---the Sunnis are the Democrat party in Iraq. :cof:

You were expecting something different?

 

[dilloduck]

You were expecting something different?

Not really--Sunnis refusing to vote and then bitching about the results just confirmed it. Was Carville over there running the Sunni campaign ?

 

[theim]

So let me get this straight...Sunnis call the vote illegitimate not because of fraud or coercion or brutality....but because Sunnis didn't vote. Wow.

 

[manu1959]

hey if you don't like the results....bitch....if you cry long enough you will eventually get someone to to take pitty on you then you can fuck them

 

[Merlin1047]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-02-iraq_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno

I get it now---the Sunnis are the Democrat party in Iraq. :cof:

LOL - I can see the bumper sticker on the camel's ass now - "He's not MY ayatollah!"

 

[spillmind]

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=27256

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes...rk+Times&desc=U.S.+ENCOURAGED+BY+VIETNAM+VOTE

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 nation 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.

now if history has ever repeated itself... bah why, do i even bother...

 

[dilloduck]

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=27256

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes...rk+Times&desc=U.S.+ENCOURAGED+BY+VIETNAM+VOTE

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 nation 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.

now if history has ever repeated itself... bah why, do i even bother...

good question--Why ?

 

[freeandfun1]

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=27256

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes...rk+Times&desc=U.S.+ENCOURAGED+BY+VIETNAM+VOTE

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 nation 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.

now if history has ever repeated itself... bah why, do i even bother...

What an idiotic comparison.... but then again, we don't expect much from you.

 

[spillmind]

What an idiotic comparison.... but then again, we don't expect much from you.

showing your age again? :blah2:

yeah, i can't get an intelligent response from anyone but the admins. i think it's more to remind myself that i didn't vote for this mess, nor do i believe in the lofty dreams of a divided country reduced to rubble embracing a western loving democracy.

so the question is, when do we invade iran? are we going to pretend to set up a democracy there to? more to the point, who's going to pay for it?

i shoulda known better than to post during a night of chimp worship.

 

[dilloduck]

showing your age again? :blah2:

yeah, i can't get an intelligent response from anyone but the admins. i think it's more to remind myself that i didn't vote for this mess, nor do i believe in the lofty dreams of a divided country reduced to rubble embracing a western loving democracy.

so the question is, when do we invade iran? are we going to pretend to set up a democracy there to? more to the point, who's going to pay for it?

i shoulda known better than to post during a night of chimp worship.

you surely should have----you losin it, Spilly?

 

[freeandfun1]

yeah, i can't get an intelligent response from anyone but the admins.

suck'n up huh? they too have told you more than once that you are screw'd in da head....

noboby bothers putting together and intelligent reply to your BS, cuz you always ignore it anyway. Everybody is T I R E D of you and your childish B U L L S H I T!

 

[spillmind]

suck'n up huh? they too have told you more than once that you are screw'd in da head....

noboby bothers putting together and intelligent reply to your BS, cuz you always ignore it anyway. Everybody is T I R E D of you and your childish B U L L S H I T!

yeah, and when civil war rears is ugly head, come back here and tell me i am full of sh!t again. because i don't have a clue of what i am talking about :huh:

 

[5stringJeff]

i think it's more to remind myself that i didn't vote for this mess, nor do i believe in the lofty dreams of a divided country reduced to rubble embracing a western loving democracy.

So when Iraq, under threats of violence, shootings, and insurgency, has higher turnout than the US, that's not evidence that the Iraqi people have embraced democracy?

 

[spillmind]

So when Iraq, under threats of violence, shootings, and insurgency, has higher turnout than the US, that's not evidence that the Iraqi people have embraced democracy?

was there not food at the polling stations?

do the people have any other option in their lives when the world around them is reduced to rubble?

what is the literacy rate in iraq? and how many people could read the ballots without help?

how is this going to bring order to iraq?

and when will the troops pull out, proving that it is a legitimate, stable democracy?

let's be honest about things, jeff.

 

[5stringJeff]

was there not food at the polling stations?

I have no idea. Was there?

do the people have any other option in their lives when the world around them is reduced to rubble?

Yes. They can become terrorists, like some in Iraq obviously have. But the vast majority of people in Iraq have rejected that option.

what is the literacy rate in iraq? and how many people could read the ballots without help?

39%, according to the UN. But since Saddam ruled that country for decades, he should be held responsible for the literacy rate. We are currently in the middle of building schools so Iraqi children can learn.

how is this going to bring order to iraq?

By providing the Iraqi people a constitution and a stable government. Or does that not fit into your view of order?

and when will the troops pull out, proving that it is a legitimate, stable democracy?

let's be honest about things, jeff.

When the Iraqi people are able to defend their own country, I'm sure we'll be out of there. But to leave now would be like abandoning a child on his first day of school.

 

[theim]

We still have troops in Germany. Is Schroeder's government illegitimate?

 

[Hobbit]

We still have troops in Germany. Is Schroeder's government illegitimate?

I vote yes, but not for that reason.

 

[spillmind]

I have no idea. Was there?



Yes. They can become terrorists, like some in Iraq obviously have. But the vast majority of people in Iraq have rejected that option.



39%, according to the UN. But since Saddam ruled that country for decades, he should be held responsible for the literacy rate. We are currently in the middle of building schools so Iraqi children can learn.



By providing the Iraqi people a constitution and a stable government. Or does that not fit into your view of order?



When the Iraqi people are able to defend their own country, I'm sure we'll be out of there. But to leave now would be like abandoning a child on his first day of school.

i'm convinced.

all these things are so great! i was so wrong about a civil war. and i should believe like you do that iraq is going awesome and we can't do a better job.

life is better believing these things anyway

 

[Said1]

what is the literacy rate in iraq?

As of 2002, only 40%.