Iraqi Elections: "Farce of the Century "

[G_j]

Voter Turnout Won't Be Enough to Legitimise Election (January 20, 2005)

Between 40 and 50 percent of the Iraqi population live in areas where "insecurity will restrict voting," according to the Sydney Morning Herald. Combined with an estimated Sunni voter turnout of as low as 10 percent, these factors will result in too few votes for a legitimate election. US officials, however, "really encourage people not to focus on numbers."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/election/2005/0120legitimise.htm
--------------------
Iraqi Elections: Farce of the Century (January 18, 2005)

"Under the Vienna Convention, an occupying force has no right to change composition of occupied territories socially, culturally, educationally or politically." This makes the Iraq elections illegal, according to the Centre for Research on Globalization. Widespread intimidation of voters, nonexistent security for polling stations, and severely incomplete electoral lists add up to "a farce of historic proportions."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/election/2005/0118farce.htm
-----
Iraq's Perilous Election and the Need for Exit Strategies (January 17, 2005)

On the eve of Iraq's elections, the US-led coalition faces an insurgency numbering as many as 200,000 fighters and supporters. Large areas of key districts are too unsafe to vote in, and no viable Iraqi security force exists. Given this situation, the US must seriously consider withdrawing from the country. (Power and Interest News Report)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/2005/0117exit.htm
----
Not Even Saddam Could Achieve the Divisions This Election Will Bring

By Robert Fisk

01/16/05 "The Independent" -- Sunday 30 January will be the day when myth and reality come together with - I fear - an all too literal bang. The magic date upon which Iraq is supposed to transform itself into a democracy will no doubt be greeted as another milestone in America's adventure and, I suspect, another "great day for Iraq" by Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara. He, of course, doesn't have to be blown up in the polling stations or torn to pieces by suicide bombers on the way home. The "martyrs of democracy", as I am sure the dead will be feted, will be those Iraqis who have decided to go along with an election so physically dangerous that the international observers will be "observing" the poll from Amman.

The real trouble with this election, however, is not so much the violence that will take place before, during and, rest assured, after 30 January. The greatest threat to "democracy" is that with four provinces containing around half the population of Iraq in a state of insurgency and many of its towns under rebel control, this election is going to widen the differences between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds in a way that not even Saddam Hussein was able to achieve. If the Sunnis don't vote - save for those living in America, Syria and other exotic locations - then the Shia community, perhaps 60 per cent of the population, will take an overwhelming number of seats in the "Transitional National Assembly".

In other words, the Shias, who are not fighting the U.S. occupation of Iraq, will be voting under American auspices while the Sunnis, who are fighting, will refuse to participate in what the insurgents have already labeled a "quisling" election. The four million Kurds will vote. But however many seats they gain, they are not going to abandon their quasi-independence after the election. Thus the dangers of civil war - so trumpeted by the Americans and British - may be increased rather than suppressed by this much-touted experiment in democracy. In fact, Iraq is a tribal - not a religious - society and the real war, which some in the West might like to be replaced by the civil variety, will continue to be between Sunni insurgents and the United States military.
..more..

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7715.htm

[Darranar]

1. No legitimate election can ever be had under occupation. Period.

When that occupying force has engaged in murderous repression for the past year and a half, after slaughtering thousands in a bloody invasion, that election is even less legitimate.

When the occupied nation has been infested with corporations from the occupying power, many supposedly "rebuilding" and together composing a large part of the Iraqi economy, the government resulting from the election will be not much more legitimate and representative than a government resulting from a State Department decision.

[LynnTheDem]

2. And bush is the f*ck-up of the century.

bush's Supreme Crime illegal amoral unprovoked invasion & occupation of Iraq is the most f*cked-up US military action of the century.

bush will certainly be written up plenty in History; biggest f*ck-up with the biggest f*ck-ups of total farces ever.

[0rganism]

3. "Don't focus on the numbers"

Sad thing is, we really are that stupid.

[G_j]

4. a numbingly outrageous statement

"Don't focus on the numbers"

:argh: :wow: :crazy: :eyes: :wow: :argh:

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Plus this election does not settle very much. It doesn't elect

"leaders" or administration. It just puts into place a panel to write a constitution for the future. Status quo the day after.