Reply With Quote
So much for "puppet government" nonsense. Now, let's see if the Iraqis can keep to the principles of representative government.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-...nderforprint=1
Iraq: Early Election Results Show Shi'ite Party Leading
By VOA News
03 February 2005
Iraq's electoral commission says partial results from Sunday's landmark elections show the main Shi'ite coalition leading in six of 18 provinces.
The United Iraqi Alliance, which has the support of influential Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, is ahead with about 75 percent of the 1.6 million ballots counted so far.
But election officials were quick to add that the ballots counted were from Baghdad province and five other mainly Shi'ite provinces (Najaf, Karbala, Dhi Qar, Muthanna, Qadisiyah) where the Alliance was expected to do well.
Running a distant second, with about 20 percent of the votes, is the candidate list led by interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who is also a Shi'ite.
Final results are not expected for at least another week.
In another development, the head of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Jalal Talabani, said he would seek the post of either prime minister or president in the new government. His announcement could possibly complicate national reconciliation talks.
Meanwhile, insurgents ambushed a mini-bus carrying Iraqi soldiers near Kirkuk Wednesday night, killing 12. Two U.S. Marines were also killed Wednesday. And at least 10 other Iraqis have been killed in attacks Thursday.
Some information for this report provided by AP, AFP, Reuters.
So much for "puppet government" nonsense. Now, let's see if the Iraqis can keep to the principles of representative government.
maybe therell just be another shia islamic theocratic state in the ME
I doubt it but, dream on...I know it would make you happy.
yeah, he's a freedom hater.
We'll see.
actually it wouldnt be a pleasant outcome but it does put this retroactive 'exporting democracy' rationale for the war in some perspective.
Looks like regime change, again.Running a distant second, with about 20 percent of the votes, is the candidate list led by interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who is also a Shi'ite.
Not if they remain democratic.
No, it's not a regime anymore, it would just be a change in administration -- kind of like we have here. I know that's a hard concept for Demoncrats to grasp seeing as how they were screaming for "regime change" here, during the election last year.
This wouldn't be a change in form of government...so, it's really not a regime change at all.
well are they democratic at the moment? if through the democratic process they vote for a theocratic regime then is that simply part of God given democracy? if not, then what is it?
Just because the elected officials may favor a theocracy doesn't mean they'll ins ute a theocracy. They now have -- unlike under the former Ba'athist regime -- cons utional hurdles and a populace who knows what the vote and freedom mean.
You've a small-minded concept of freedom and self-governance.
given the current situation 'tis better to be a realist. to ignore is to be a small minded partisan with a disturbing reverence for the current administration.
cons utional hurdles dont mean much in that part of the world.
IMHO, being a democracy doesn't make a county great. I think there are about 108 counties with a democracy adn I'm sure you wouldn't want to live in the majority of them.
I agree, Republics are better.
And, home handle, it's been 4 freakin' days...how 'bout giving it some time. After all, Demoncrats were swearing the election would never even take place. You'd think you guys would have learned by now about shooting your mouth off prematurely. At every turn, you guys have predicted gloom and doom and at every turn, while not the rosiest of outcomes, it's always turned out better than you predicted.
There were going to be 10,000 body bags coming home from the fall of Baghdad.
There was going to be WMD attacks on our troops.
We'd never catch Saddam Hussein.
Iraq would never fall. (that one only took 21 days to shove back in your face)
Afghanistan would never have peaceful elections.
Iraq would never have peaceful elections.
And on and on and on.
How 'bout an optimistic prediction for once. Try it on...
IMHO, the WMD's have never been found either and Dubya talked and talked about that. There were never any ties to 9/11 and Dubya talked and talked about that.
So, IMHO, republicans should have kept their traps shut too.
Shiite happens.
So, where are the WMD's Iraq was known to have? And, this administration never tied Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. They only stated there were ties between Iraq and al Qaeda and other global terrorist groups.
Now, having said that, I believe there were WMD's in Iraq until sometime just prior to the invasion. There were either moved to another country, destroyed, or are currently still hidden Iraq -- but it is clear he planned to recons ute the program as soon as the dust blew over (thankfully, we didn't allow the dust to blow over). Second, I believe Iraq was complicit in 9/11 even though there is no specific evidence tying them to the attack. But, the training camp at Salmon Pak is a good example of how the Iraqi government may have known what the terrorists were up to.
i believe that saddam dismantled his weapons program back in the day and he did have plans at some point to get the un off his case so he could build back his wmd program but dammit man, end this nonsense about the wmds being flown out the country in black helicopters or by mother goose.
That is your opinion and you are en led to it, but IMHO, Bush scared enough of you that you actually still believe Saddam had ties to 9/11 and that simply is not the case.
Without evidence it is all speculation and I for one, don't like going to war on speculations.
I don't think there is anything simple about the mul ude of relationships the Ba'athist regime had with terrorism. I think it's a naive, simplistic, and restrictive view that believes no connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th is simple or absolute.
There was enough evidence to support a reasonable person's belief Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (see David Kay's final report and read beyond the sentence "no stockpiles of WMD's found," it's illuminating.). And, there was enough historical precedence, established by Saddam Hussein himself, to believe that IF he did have them, he would use them or make them available to terrorist organizations.
Enough for me...and, apparently, enough for both aisles of Congress (see Joint Resolution Authorizing Force in Iraq) to do something -- until, of course, the Demoncrats realized this President, unlike his predecessor, actually intended to do something.
so bush still stated an erroneous claim.
exactly...clear to everyone but the neocons and libertarian conservative wannabe's.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
