| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"James A. Donald" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2005 02:18:37 PM |
| Object: |
I predict the Iraqi elections |
--
I am going to stick my neck out and make a prediction:
That the Iraqi election will turn into a gigantic protest in
favor of democracy and against the insurgents, that not only
will huge numbers of Iraqis risk their lives to vote, but also
a great many will risk their lives to make a point, unlike the
western pro saddam protestors who smash McDonalds with no risk
other than that daddy will scold them for wasting their pocket
money on bail.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
wLwRdBz3UuA+pr9UXG3tbK230ZUcKpdWnDqCjbvw
4YdCmCzd5+jlwsLHOJfAhcZRvgmyFn/Ldl5+bMMQV
.
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
01 Feb 2005 12:24:10 PM |
|
|
--
James A. Donald wrote:
I am going to stick my neck out and make a prediction:
That the Iraqi election will turn into a gigantic protest
in favor of democracy and against the insurgents, that not
only will huge numbers of Iraqis risk their lives to vote,
but also a great many will risk their lives to make a
point, unlike the western pro saddam protestors who smash
McDonalds with no risk other than that daddy will scold
them for wasting their pocket money on bail.
constantinopoli@gmail.com
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/
More goodstuff from Constantinople's link - one report of one
of the many brave demonstrations by courageous protestors that
I predicted, and which our press largely failed to cover:
: : At one station there was a suicide attack and
: : several people fell; when people of the neighborhood
: : heard of this, the waiting line suddenly swelled to
: : three times in size; people rushed out of their
: : homes and came running to wait in line; it was their
: : way to express their defiance and anger at this
: : crime. The examples of bravery and courage are too
: : numerous to recount. People took courage from each
: : other, as people came out others watched and did not
: : want to be left out
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
tsQeAdhwPTpV+bAM5uLpEaOz9DAuadpU1V7dHhBN
4NLzUA72/ga6sRbitFOFDPpuKpwICqlD1kvXs0LSE
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
28 Jan 2005 02:25:12 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald wrote:
--
I am going to stick my neck out and make a prediction:
That the Iraqi election will turn into a gigantic protest in
favor of democracy and against the insurgents, that not only
will huge numbers of Iraqis risk their lives to vote, but also
a great many will risk their lives to make a point
Hmmm - I think you made the same point twice there, and you repeated the
argument as well.
More to the point, of course it will be a huge landslide in favour of the
occupying power's preferred outcomes. What else exactly would you expect
from a rigged 'election' ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Friedman" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
29 Jan 2005 02:54:25 AM |
|
|
In article <35vld2F4r5d2iU1@individual.net>,
"Steve Walker" <spam-trap@beeb.net> wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
--
I am going to stick my neck out and make a prediction:
That the Iraqi election will turn into a gigantic protest in
favor of democracy and against the insurgents, that not only
will huge numbers of Iraqis risk their lives to vote, but also
a great many will risk their lives to make a point
Hmmm - I think you made the same point twice there, and you repeated the
argument as well.
More to the point, of course it will be a huge landslide in favour of the
occupying power's preferred outcomes. What else exactly would you expect
from a rigged 'election' ?
James stuck his neck out by making a prediction. Are you willing to
match him--to specify what result you expect, and what result would
falsify your beliefs?
For instance, are you predicting that Allawi will get a majority?
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Dougherty" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
29 Jan 2005 03:43:58 AM |
|
|
"David Friedman" <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-000977.00542529012005@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
In article <35vld2F4r5d2iU1@individual.net>,
"Steve Walker" <spam-trap@beeb.net> wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
--
I am going to stick my neck out and make a prediction:
That the Iraqi election will turn into a gigantic protest in
favor of democracy and against the insurgents, that not only
will huge numbers of Iraqis risk their lives to vote, but also
a great many will risk their lives to make a point
Hmmm - I think you made the same point twice there, and you repeated the
argument as well.
More to the point, of course it will be a huge landslide in favour of
the
occupying power's preferred outcomes. What else exactly would you
expect
from a rigged 'election' ?
James stuck his neck out by making a prediction.
Really? Usually that means he's risking something. What do you think that
is?
In any case, it looks less to me like prediction, than like James has
somehow gotten hold of an advance copy of a Bush PR release prepared for the
Monday evening news, and is obediently propagating the government line
before they've even had a chance to officially hand down the marching
orders. ...as well as throwing in a gratuitous swipe at the disobedient and
insufficiently worshipful subjects of the holy state just for good measure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dracir Venostos" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
29 Jan 2005 07:19:07 AM |
|
|
"Josh Dougherty" <jdoc1357b9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:t8-dnfdVAO94x2bcRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
"David Friedman" <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-000977.00542529012005@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
In article <35vld2F4r5d2iU1@individual.net>,
"Steve Walker" <spam-trap@beeb.net> wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
--
I am going to stick my neck out and make a prediction:
That the Iraqi election will turn into a gigantic protest in
favor of democracy and against the insurgents, that not only
will huge numbers of Iraqis risk their lives to vote, but also
a great many will risk their lives to make a point
Hmmm - I think you made the same point twice there, and you repeated
the
argument as well.
More to the point, of course it will be a huge landslide in favour of
the
occupying power's preferred outcomes. What else exactly would you
expect
from a rigged 'election' ?
James stuck his neck out by making a prediction.
Really? Usually that means he's risking something. What do you think
that
is?
In any case, it looks less to me like prediction, than like James has
somehow gotten hold of an advance copy of a Bush PR release prepared for
the
Monday evening news, and is obediently propagating the government line
Now *that's* comedy. The real party line recitation has just been posted by
you. And a pretty pitiful example, even for the Liberals.
before they've even had a chance to officially hand down the marching
orders. ...as well as throwing in a gratuitous swipe at the disobedient
and
insufficiently worshipful subjects of the holy state just for good
measure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
30 Jan 2005 10:13:15 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:19:07 -0600, "Dracir Venostos" <dra@yahoo.com>
wrote:
James stuck his neck out by making a prediction.
Really? Usually that means he's risking something. What do you think
that
is?
In any case, it looks less to me like prediction, than like James has
somehow gotten hold of an advance copy of a Bush PR release prepared for
the
Monday evening news, and is obediently propagating the government line
Now *that's* comedy. The real party line recitation has just been posted by
you. And a pretty pitiful example, even for the Liberals.
Isn't it? Funny how actually close-minded are the people who preach
open-mindedness all the time.
--
I support minimum government (if we have to have govt), gun rights,
rational patriotism, fiscal conservatism, direct democracy and the
right to do as you please as long as you don't cause clear and
demonstrable harm to others. Yes, I'm proud to be to the right of
John Birch Society.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
29 Jan 2005 05:01:26 PM |
|
|
David Friedman wrote:
James stuck his neck out by making a prediction.
Not very far, since he didn't put any actual numbers to 'huge' or
'gigantic', or distinguish between the ethnic blocs.
My guess is that turnout will be below 20% in the Sunni areas. I won't
be surprised if it's over 50% for the country as a whole. That would
allow James to point out that it's higher than most American elections,
and claim it satisfies 'huge' and 'gigantic'.
Are you willing to
match him--to specify what result you expect, and what result would
falsify your beliefs?
How did James specify what result would falsify his beliefs?
I have three reasons for thinking turnout will be low in Sunni areas.
1. The insurgents have called for boycott.
2. Many other Sunni political and religious leaders have called for
boycott.
3. Voters in Sunni areas will be in the most physical danger.
If turnout is higher than I expect, it might be because the Sunnis are
less supportive of the insurgency than I think, or because they are
more enthusiastic for American-sponsored elections than I think, or
both. It could also be because the non-insurgent Sunni leaders are less
influential than I think. The single data point will tell me I'm wrong
about something, but not what.
For instance, are you predicting that Allawi will get a majority?
The Kurdish slate will get most of the Kurdish vote, so it's unlikely
anyone will have a majority. The United Iraqi Alliance seems to be
favored to win the plurality, but some think Allawi's slate could pull
an upset.
As mentioned elsewhere, it is possible Allawi will stay on as PM even
if his slate doesn't win a plurality.
David Tomlin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
29 Jan 2005 07:51:06 AM |
|
|
David Friedman wrote:
In article <35vld2F4r5d2iU1@individual.net>,
James stuck his neck out by making a prediction. Are you willing
to match him--to specify what result you expect, and what result
would falsify your beliefs?
For instance, are you predicting that Allawi will get a majority?
How would I know exactly what 'fix' Bush's people are going to put in?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
29 Jan 2005 03:43:03 AM |
|
|
I'm a reporter here in Iraq. Allawi will NOT get a majority, but his
list will probably come in a strong second. Sistani's UIA list will
likely get around 30%, Allawi 20% or so, and the Kurds about 20%. The
rest of the vote will get split among the minor parties.
Now, what does that mean for the new government? Well, since the UIA is
not a religious list-it has secular and religious parties together,
cheek to jowl-I think it will split with the secular parties joining
with Allawi and the Kurds to get the needed 2/3 vote to elect the
presidency council. (Some minor parties, some Shi'a and some Sunni)
will also throw their lot in with Allawi. I suspect he will keep his
job, but the presidency may no longer belong to al-Yawer and the veep
slots will change.
Anyway, this is just my back of the envelope prediction. We'll see.
I've been here for nine months straight, and I've learned that you'll
never see the whole picture. You will always be surprised.
best,
chris allbritton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Farhad Abdolian n e w s @ p a n j e r e . n e t" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
29 Jan 2005 03:00:11 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005 01:43:03 -0800, wrote:
I'm a reporter here in Iraq. Allawi will NOT get a majority, but his
list will probably come in a strong second. Sistani's UIA list will
likely get around 30%, Allawi 20% or so, and the Kurds about 20%. The
rest of the vote will get split among the minor parties.
Now, what does that mean for the new government? Well, since the UIA is
not a religious list-it has secular and religious parties together,
cheek to jowl-I think it will split with the secular parties joining
with Allawi and the Kurds to get the needed 2/3 vote to elect the
presidency council. (Some minor parties, some Shi'a and some Sunni)
will also throw their lot in with Allawi. I suspect he will keep his
job, but the presidency may no longer belong to al-Yawer and the veep
slots will change.
Anyway, this is just my back of the envelope prediction. We'll see.
I've been here for nine months straight, and I've learned that you'll
never see the whole picture. You will always be surprised.
best,
chris allbritton
Hi Chris,
Very interesting analysys. Do you really believe that 20% of Iraqis
will support Alawi?
I have a lot of Iraqi freinds living in Sweden and almost every single
one of them see Alawi as a CIA puppet and a useless idiot, maybe they
are not the representative of the majority of the Iraqis but I would
like to know why you think his party will get as much as 20%.
Also, is there a section in the election bylaws that says anything
about the percentage of the voters in oder to have a legal election?
What if only 30% of people show up in the polls and they are all
Sistani followers?
What is your actual interraction with the Iraqis? Do you speak Arabic?
or via translators?
I would really like to have a chat with you if you have the time, I
know you are busy, but I want to know if my perception of the Iraqis
in Sweden is similar to those in Iraq.
Best regards,
/Farhad
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
30 Jan 2005 10:11:49 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:00:11 +0000, Farhad Abdolian <n e w s @ p a n j
e r e . n e t> wrote:
I have a lot of Iraqi freinds living in Sweden and almost every single
one of them see Alawi as a CIA puppet and a useless idiot, maybe they
are not the representative of the majority of the Iraqis but I would
like to know why you think his party will get as much as 20%.
They may see the issue different than local Iraqis, don't you think?
They don't live in Iraq anymore, after all.
Anyway, it would probably be better for Iraqi democracy if voters let
Allawi go, as long as they would not replace him with some theocratic
maniac, which I think is unlikely.
--
I support minimum government (if we have to have govt), gun rights,
rational patriotism, fiscal conservatism, direct democracy and the
right to do as you please as long as you don't cause clear and
demonstrable harm to others. Yes, I'm proud to be to the right of
John Birch Society.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cmd Buzz Corey" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
30 Jan 2005 03:15:42 PM |
|
|
Bulba! wrote:
--
I support direct democracy
Ah, a direct democracy where there are no rules other than what the
majority choose. Let's suppose there are five people, three men and two
women, one male makes a motion to rape the women, a second male seconds
the motion. It is put to a vote and the vote is 3 to 2 to rape the
women. The majority win the women lose so they get raped.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
30 Jan 2005 03:36:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:15:42 -0700, Cmd Buzz Corey <us@that.net>
wrote:
--
I support direct democracy
Ah, a direct democracy where there are no rules other than what the
majority choose.
Not necessarily. Constitution can apply, too. Just like it applies
in Switzerland.
Let's suppose there are five people, three men and two
women, one male makes a motion to rape the women, a second male seconds
the motion. It is put to a vote and the vote is 3 to 2 to rape the
women. The majority win the women lose so they get raped.
Yes, this is a serious problem with democracy - you always
run a risk of scenario like "three wolves and a sheep voting
what's for lunch". Still, without democracy you risk that, too.
--
I support minimum government (if we have to have govt), gun rights,
rational patriotism, fiscal conservatism, direct democracy and the
right to do as you please as long as you don't cause clear and
demonstrable harm to others. Yes, I'm proud to be to the right of
John Birch Society.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cmd Buzz Corey" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
30 Jan 2005 08:21:07 PM |
|
|
Bulba! wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:15:42 -0700, Cmd Buzz Corey <us@that.net>
wrote:
--
I support direct democracy
Ah, a direct democracy where there are no rules other than what the
majority choose.
Not necessarily. Constitution can apply, too. Just like it applies
in Switzerland.
Let's suppose there are five people, three men and two
women, one male makes a motion to rape the women, a second male seconds
the motion. It is put to a vote and the vote is 3 to 2 to rape the
women. The majority win the women lose so they get raped.
Yes, this is a serious problem with democracy - you always
run a risk of scenario like "three wolves and a sheep voting
what's for lunch". Still, without democracy you risk that, too.
A democracy only works if there are rules to go along with it.
In the case of the three men and two women, to protect the women you
must have a rule that says rape is illegal, so even if the majority vote
in favor of rape, the rule says they still can't do it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
30 Jan 2005 11:43:59 PM |
|
|
Bulba! wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:15:42 -0700, Cmd Buzz Corey <us@that.net>
wrote:
--
I support direct democracy
Ah, a direct democracy where there are no rules other than what the
majority choose.
Not necessarily. Constitution can apply, too. Just like it applies
in Switzerland.
Let's suppose there are five people, three men and two
women, one male makes a motion to rape the women, a second male
seconds
the motion. It is put to a vote and the vote is 3 to 2 to rape the
women. The majority win the women lose so they get raped.
Yes, this is a serious problem with democracy - you always
run a risk of scenario like "three wolves and a sheep voting
what's for lunch". Still, without democracy you risk that, too.
Since you favor something that you admit is seriously flawed, you don't
seem to think utopia is an option.
Anyway, the day has come and gone. The day I have waited so long for,
the day that it seemed would never come. Time to assess the Iraqi
elections, time also to assess James's prediction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Dougherty" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
31 Jan 2005 02:17:29 AM |
|
|
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107150239.153964.295420@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bulba! wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:15:42 -0700, Cmd Buzz Corey <us@that.net>
wrote:
--
I support direct democracy
Ah, a direct democracy where there are no rules other than what the
majority choose.
Not necessarily. Constitution can apply, too. Just like it applies
in Switzerland.
Let's suppose there are five people, three men and two
women, one male makes a motion to rape the women, a second male
seconds
the motion. It is put to a vote and the vote is 3 to 2 to rape the
women. The majority win the women lose so they get raped.
Yes, this is a serious problem with democracy - you always
run a risk of scenario like "three wolves and a sheep voting
what's for lunch". Still, without democracy you risk that, too.
Since you favor something that you admit is seriously flawed, you don't
seem to think utopia is an option.
Anyway, the day has come and gone. The day I have waited so long for,
the day that it seemed would never come.
Since you are so very concerned and therefore, I assume, keeping a close
watch on all this, perhaps you could answer my question from another thread:
Who counts the votes, and what impartial observers are monitoring them?
Time to assess the Iraqi elections, time also to assess James's
prediction.
My prediction of James' prediction seems to have mostly come true already:
that the prediction will be remarkably, strikingly, similar to the
government's line, as presented by the Bush administration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
31 Jan 2005 06:12:37 AM |
|
|
Josh Dougherty wrote:
Since you are so very concerned and therefore, I assume, keeping a
close
watch on all this, perhaps you could answer my question from another
thread:
Who counts the votes, and what impartial observers are monitoring
them?
I'm not worried about that. If Sistani or the Kurdish leaders see a
problem, I'm sure they will speak up.
The anti-Bush line on this thread has been to assert without evidence
that the election was somehow unfair.
This article
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043
has a different and apparently better informed anti-Bush line. This is
that the election was reasonably fair under the circumstances, but Bush
never wanted such an election. He agreed to it only under pressure from
Sistani.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Dougherty" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
31 Jan 2005 01:46:20 PM |
|
|
<davtomcat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107173557.391471.76070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Josh Dougherty wrote:
Since you are so very concerned and therefore, I assume, keeping a
close
watch on all this, perhaps you could answer my question from another
thread:
Who counts the votes, and what impartial observers are monitoring
them?
I'm not worried about that.
But can you answer that?
If Sistani or the Kurdish leaders see a
problem, I'm sure they will speak up.
How will they know if there is or isn't a problem? Are they monitoring the
ballot counts?
It seems to me these parties will speak up if they get less out of the
election than they think they could by speaking up, and that's basically it.
And what if the problem is something that happens to be beneficial, or
indifferent to Kurdish leaders or even Sistani? Will they still speak up?
And in any case, if whoever is counting the ballots wants their desired
results, what they would do is construct "results" that are acceptable to
themselves, but also that are plausible, not overtly and obviously wrong.
You don't need to give your favored candidates 100% of the vote like in
Saddam-style elections to get what you want. They would construct results
that are plausibly accurate, and thereby difficult or impossible to
disprove, but which are beneficial to themselves and their interests. That
would be pretty easy to do considering the apparent lack of impartial
oversight, and apparent indifference of observers such as yourself. In such
a case, all anyone could do would be to "assert without evidence that the
election was somehow unfair".
The anti-Bush line on this thread has been to assert without evidence
that the election was somehow unfair.
The flip-side to this would be to, as you seem to be doing, assert without
evidence that the election was somehow fair. That's not just a default
assumption. It too requires evidence.
But it's not really so that there has been no evidence for the election
being unfair. For instance, there's been lot's of evidence provided about
aspects of it that are problematic and completely unorthodox for anything
typically considered a free or fair election. For instance, no one can tell
me who counts the votes and therefore gets to declare the winners, or if any
impartial observers are monitoring them. Sorry if this doesn't concern you,
but that's a big huge problem for any supposedly "fair" election. Unless
all the votes are counted fairly and openly, the voting and every other
aspect of the system, no matter how otherwise fair, would be a complete and
total farce, a show.
In addition to this there are lots of questionable things about the election
listed in this article, most of which would never fly in any election in a
western democracy purporting to be free and fair:
http://peaceuk.co.uk.mdl-net.co.uk/archive/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1356
For instance, some highlights:
The lists contain, between them, over 7000
candidates, many of whom are not even named for
security reasons. (many of the candidates are a secret)
None of the elected members of the National
Assembly will represent a locality.
-------
The rules for polling and who can or can't be a
candidate were set, essentially, by the US. Rules were set by the
Independent Iraqi Electoral
Commission, or some similar arrangement of those
words. The group, bar one or perhaps two members, were
appointed by Paul Bremer, before handing over "power"
in June. The Commission has absolute power to bar any
candidate or organisation. It has banned a number of
candidates but is so secretive that nobody knows who
has been forbidden or for what reason. There's been no
due process, no establishing a case against a
candidate before barring.
-------
Interim leader Ayad Allawi stated that there are 4
provinces where the security situation militates
against voting - he didn't mention that they include
Baghdad, and up to half of the population.
-----
It's a bit unclear exactly what are the criteria for
being allowed to vote but it appears to be possible
even for people who have never lived in Iraq but whose
parents did.
------
Certain parties and individuals have also been
funded by the US. The International Republican Institute, an
organisation linked to the US Republican party has
been funding certain groups in their campaigning,
giving a massive advantage.
------
Allawi and co issued a rule that the press have to
publish versions of events which put the government's
point of view. Press 'disrespect' to Allawi is banned.
Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya and an unknown number of
smaller outlets have been banned already for refusing
to conform.
This article
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043
has a different and apparently better informed anti-Bush line. This is
that the election was reasonably fair under the circumstances, but Bush
never wanted such an election. He agreed to it only under pressure from
Sistani.
That seems plausible too, but I don't follow you on why I'm supposed to
assume the election fair.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
04 Feb 2005 02:09:49 AM |
|
|
Josh Dougherty wrote:
David Tomlin:
The anti-Bush line on this thread has been to assert without
evidence
that the election was somehow unfair.
The flip-side to this would be to, as you seem to be doing, assert
without
evidence that the election was somehow fair.
I didn't make any such assertion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
31 Jan 2005 05:51:36 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Josh Dougherty wrote:
Since you are so very concerned and therefore, I assume, keeping a
close
watch on all this, perhaps you could answer my question from
another
thread:
Who counts the votes, and what impartial observers are monitoring
them?
I'm not worried about that. If Sistani or the Kurdish leaders see a
problem, I'm sure they will speak up.
The anti-Bush line on this thread has been to assert without evidence
that the election was somehow unfair.
This article
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043
has a different and apparently better informed anti-Bush line. This
is
that the election was reasonably fair under the circumstances, but
Bush
never wanted such an election. He agreed to it only under pressure
from
Sistani.
You have got to be kidding. It seems as though the conspiracy theorists
never tire of coming up with something. If the US says it wants
something, and if that something comes to pass, well, that's two major
points of evidence in favor of the hypothesis that that's what the US
wanted. More evidence is past behavior (Afghanistan elections).
While I'm sure that Sistani has been a real player and probably has
influenced the US in one or another way, I expect that all that's going
on here (at best) is that some concession that the US made to Sistani
is being spun as the key difference between a fair and an unfair
election.
I will leave others to filter through the referenced article and pull
out the good parts for me to consider.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
01 Feb 2005 02:52:03 AM |
|
|
--
On 31 Jan 2005 15:51:36 -0800, wrote:
You have got to be kidding. It seems as though the conspiracy
theorists never tire of coming up with something. If the US
says it wants something, and if that something comes to pass,
well, that's two major points of evidence in favor of the
hypothesis that that's what the US wanted. More evidence is
past behavior (Afghanistan elections).
While I'm sure that Sistani has been a real player and
probably has influenced the US in one or another way, I
expect that all that's going on here (at best) is that some
concession that the US made to Sistani is being spun as the
key difference between a fair and an unfair election.
The lie is based on spinning the following true story: Bush
wanted limited popular sovereignty, rather than the illiberal
democracy characteristic of third world countries where 51% of
the voters can boil 49% of the voters in mint source. Sistani
demanded unlimited illiberal democracy. Bush conceded. Kurds
threatened revolt. Sistani conceded to the Kurds what he would
not concede to Bush - limits on popular sovereignty, and is now
making a virtue of his conceding to the Kurds (fellow Muslims)
what he would not concede to infidel Bush.
Of course, the real story could equally be that Bush saw it
would be unwise to be seen to be pressuring Sistani, and asked
the Kurds to front for him, but the Kurds have their own good
reasons for demanding limits on popular sovereignty, regardless
of what Bush wants.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
IDkuCVnzUj5aczl8nYXj+dwF9MVTjUhOHuddzyMm
4BXgHhi0rC5ObA1ORu9Fq7JGehiaWwWzzbOwNUray
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Dougherty" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
31 Jan 2005 08:37:43 PM |
|
|
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107215496.250418.107140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
davtomcat@hotmail.com wrote:
Josh Dougherty wrote:
Since you are so very concerned and therefore, I assume, keeping a
close
watch on all this, perhaps you could answer my question from
another
thread:
Who counts the votes, and what impartial observers are monitoring
them?
I'm not worried about that. If Sistani or the Kurdish leaders see a
problem, I'm sure they will speak up.
The anti-Bush line on this thread has been to assert without evidence
that the election was somehow unfair.
This article
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043
has a different and apparently better informed anti-Bush line. This
is
that the election was reasonably fair under the circumstances, but
Bush
never wanted such an election. He agreed to it only under pressure
from
Sistani.
You have got to be kidding. It seems as though the conspiracy theorists
never tire of coming up with something.
Feel free to answer my question any time c.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
31 Jan 2005 09:29:05 PM |
|
|
Josh Dougherty wrote:
Feel free to answer my question any time c.
I cannot answer that question about the Iraqi elections any more than I
can about any American elections. I trust that things are going
reasonably well; if they are not I trust that I will find out before
long.
However, you surely can answer the question, as you (a) no doubt care
tremendously about the good people of Iraq and (b) believe that such
caring obligates you to be able to answer such questions as the one you
asked.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Dougherty" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
31 Jan 2005 10:14:57 PM |
|
|
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107228545.130441.171340@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Josh Dougherty wrote:
Feel free to answer my question any time c.
I cannot answer that question about the Iraqi elections any more than I
can about any American elections. I trust that things are going
reasonably well; if they are not I trust that I will find out before
long.
Ok, you have no idea who is counting the votes. But you trust whoever it
is. Great.
And you also "trust" that you will somehow be able to find out if the
unknown parties who are purportedly counting the votes with no, or unknown,
oversight by other unknown parties have done it honestly and accurately.
How you expect you'll find this out, I have no idea. And why you think
you'll believe it even if someone miraculously finds some way to prove
something about a vote count that is apparently being carried out so as to
be non-disprovable, I again have no idea.
However, you surely can answer the question, as you (a) no doubt care
tremendously about the good people of Iraq and (b) believe that such
caring obligates you to be able to answer such questions as the one you
asked.
If you'll notice, I'm trying to find out. You're not. But I'm having a
terribly difficult time. Everyone seems to be big on this "trust" thing
that you're on, or are just uninterested in interrupting their self
congratulation or the teary-eyed euphoria of the historic moment to figure
out such trivial details as whether an election took place.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
31 Jan 2005 11:49:31 PM |
|
|
Josh Dougherty wrote:
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107228545.130441.171340@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Josh Dougherty wrote:
Feel free to answer my question any time c.
I cannot answer that question about the Iraqi elections any more
than I
can about any American elections. I trust that things are going
reasonably well; if they are not I trust that I will find out
before
long.
Ok, you have no idea who is counting the votes. But you trust
whoever it
is. Great.
And you also "trust" that you will somehow be able to find out if the
unknown parties who are purportedly counting the votes with no, or
unknown,
oversight by other unknown parties have done it honestly and
accurately.
How you expect you'll find this out, I have no idea. And why you
think
you'll believe it even if someone miraculously finds some way to
prove
something about a vote count that is apparently being carried out so
as to
be non-disprovable, I again have no idea.
I shall explain so that you will understand. It's called "division of
labor". I do computer programming, and other people do investigative
reporting. It works pretty well. Our society is built on it.
On second thought, that probably isn't helpful to you, but then I don't
really know what would be helpful to you.
By the way, I think that your last sentence above needs to be clarified
a bit. Everybody else, see if you can make heads or tails of this
sentence:
"And why you think you'll believe it even if someone miraculously finds
some way to prove something about a vote count that is apparently being
carried out so as to be non-disprovable, I again have no idea."
Go ahead and call me dumb, you always do anyway, but I'm not getting
sense out of that sentence, and I think that maybe it could be
re-worded to be a little more clear.
However, you surely can answer the question, as you (a) no doubt
care
tremendously about the good people of Iraq and (b) believe that
such
caring obligates you to be able to answer such questions as the one
you
asked.
If you'll notice, I'm trying to find out.
No you're not, you transparent and comical liar. You're asking me, and
you have no respect for me. Asking me, when it is you that's doing it,
is not "trying to find out", it's transparently trying to do something
quite different, which I don't think I need to explain.
You're not. But I'm having a
terribly difficult time. Everyone seems to be big on this "trust"
thing
that you're on, or are just uninterested in interrupting their self
congratulation or the teary-eyed euphoria of the historic moment to
figure
out such trivial details as whether an election took place.
I'll leave it up to you. I trust you to loudly announce all the
irregularities real and imagined that I have no doubt you will find.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Dougherty" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
01 Feb 2005 01:07:09 AM |
|
|
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107236971.538545.120970@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Josh Dougherty wrote:
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107228545.130441.171340@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Josh Dougherty wrote:
Feel free to answer my question any time c.
I cannot answer that question about the Iraqi elections any more
than I
can about any American elections. I trust that things are going
reasonably well; if they are not I trust that I will find out
before
long.
Ok, you have no idea who is counting the votes. But you trust
whoever it
is. Great.
And you also "trust" that you will somehow be able to find out if the
unknown parties who are purportedly counting the votes with no, or
unknown,
oversight by other unknown parties have done it honestly and
accurately.
How you expect you'll find this out, I have no idea. And why you
think
you'll believe it even if someone miraculously finds some way to
prove
something about a vote count that is apparently being carried out so
as to
be non-disprovable, I again have no idea.
I shall explain so that you will understand. It's called "division of
labor". I do computer programming, and other people do investigative
reporting. It works pretty well. Our society is built on it.
On second thought, that probably isn't helpful to you, but then I don't
really know what would be helpful to you.
By the way, I think that your last sentence above needs to be clarified
a bit. Everybody else, see if you can make heads or tails of this
sentence:
"And why you think you'll believe it even if someone miraculously finds
some way to prove something about a vote count that is apparently being
carried out so as to be non-disprovable, I again have no idea."
Go ahead and call me dumb, you always do anyway, but I'm not getting
sense out of that sentence, and I think that maybe it could be
re-worded to be a little more clear.
The point of the sentence is that I'm not sure that there will be any way to
know if the announced results, by whomever counted the votes or whomever has
the authority to declare the winners, are or aren't accurate. The
proclamations could be simply non-disprovable. In such a case, we either
"trust" them, like you, or we are "conspiracy theorists", like me. As such,
there would be no way for someone to acquire the necessary information to
inform you that the count was accurate or innaccurate or that there wasn't
really a count. All they'd be able to say is that the results are a
non-disprovable proclamation from the still unknown party or parties with
the authority to declare the winners.
The other point of the sentence "why you think you'll believe it.." is
questioning whether you'd even believe anyone who found some way to acquire
such information, found something damning, and sounded the alarm bell. Such
things, particularly is acquired and sounded by non-white non-western
persons, would probably only see the light of day in Al Jazeera or on "left
wing" websites and such, and so you'd probably dismiss it anyway.
However, you surely can answer the question, as you (a) no doubt
care
tremendously about the good people of Iraq and (b) believe that
such
caring obligates you to be able to answer such questions as the one
you
asked.
If you'll notice, I'm trying to find out.
No you're not, you transparent and comical liar.
Actually I am trying to find out. I looked, for instance, at Nate's links
but didn't find any direct answer there. There was nothing that I saw on
how the votes would be tallied, and what protections were in place for this
process. Apparently I'm to assume that the IEC, a group of Paul Bremer
appointees, has the authority in this regard. But I'm not sure this is
correct. They did briefly talk of separate groups of observers which they
appointed, and of a small number of international observers, but it was
unclear whether they were just going to be observing the voting or what, and
what liberties they had.
You're asking me, and you have no respect for me.
That's not entirely true c. I dislike you in a lot of ways, as you do me.
And I find lots of your opinions wrong or even abominable in many ways, as
you do mine, and which is aired all the time. But I also find myself
talking to you over and over again, while I rarely find myself talking with
most of the dunderheaded GOP shills that frequent many other groups, and can
be counted on to do little more than mouth the daily talking points and hurl
prepackaged insults at "liberals". Talking to them is like talking to a
wall.
Talking to you can sometimes be like talking to a wall too, but not always.
You are relatively intelligent and can sometimes articulate your misguided
soul-destroying views in ways that are provocative and/or well thought out
or otherwise challenging. I've apparently found them worth engaging on many
occasions for a few years now.
We also agree on many things, as you've pointed out elsewhere in another
context, but those things just aren't what tends to be discussed in the
group.
So I don't think I have no respect for you. I think all of the above
indicates some level of respect. I also have some degree more respect for
you than for your mentor, so that must be some level of respect. Perhaps
not a high level, and perhaps not of the sort akin to "admiration", but some
level of respect nonetheless.
I'll leave it up to you. I trust you to loudly announce all the
irregularities real and imagined that I have no doubt you will find.
As I was saying in the sentence you didn't get, I doubt any announcement
from me will shake your "trust". I have my doubts if there is any party
that conceivably could or would announce any such thing could shake your
trust.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
01 Feb 2005 08:04:01 AM |
|
|
Josh Dougherty wrote:
As I was saying in the sentence you didn't get, I doubt any
announcement
from me will shake your "trust". I have my doubts if there is any
party
that conceivably could or would announce any such thing could shake
your
trust.
Well you just dig up the dirt. I'll see it, and we'll go from there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Dougherty" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
01 Feb 2005 10:35:08 PM |
|
|
<constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107266641.941916.46120@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Josh Dougherty wrote:
As I was saying in the sentence you didn't get, I doubt any
announcement
from me will shake your "trust". I have my doubts if there is any
party
that conceivably could or would announce any such thing could shake
your
trust.
Well you just dig up the dirt. I'll see it, and we'll go from there.
Though I've heard little about what's going on with the counting, it seems
to have started already:
Iraqi officials admit vote irregularities
Wednesday 02 February 2005, 3:29 Makka Time, 0:29 GMT
Tens of thousands of Iraqis - mainly Sunni Arabs - may have been denied
their right to vote on Sunday because of insufficient ballots and polling
centres, officials have said. ...
Iraq's interim president Ghazi al-Yawar said extra ballots had to be
supplied to Iraq's third city of Mosul, which is mainly Sunni Arab, after
twice running out on election day. "Also, tens of thousands were unable to
cast their votes because of the lack of ballots in Basra, Baghdad, and
Najaf," said Yawar. ...
Mishaan Jibouri, a candidate and national assembly member, accused the
commission of deliberately supplying insufficient materials in some Sunni
areas, believing few would vote. ... Jibouri said ballot sheets were
36,000-40,000 short in Hawija, a largely Sunni Arab area southwest of
oil-rich Kirkuk. He estimated a shortfall of 28,000 ballot papers in Baiji,
a northern Sunni city, and 6,000 in nearby Shirqat. ...
Of 5,244 polling centres planned, 28 did not open, many in western Baghdad,
because of poor security, the commission said.
While there were 63,000 polling booths across Iraq, there were just 33,763
independent local monitors and 622 international monitors, it said. Final
results are not expected for up to a week.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B410976F-73A0-496F-A62A-CB01C3FAE6C5.htm
The U.S.-backed election commission in Iraq originally announced a 72%
participation immediately after the polls closed, then downscaled that to
"near 60%" - actually claiming about 57% turn-out. But those figures are all
still misleading. The Washington Post reported (two days after the vote, on
page 7 of the Style section) that the 60% figure is based on the claim that
8 million out of 14 million eligible Iraqis turned out. But the 14 million
figure itself is misleading, because it only includes those registered
Iraqis, not the 18 million actually eligible voters.
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=9051
If we put these figures together, it turns out that there was something more
along the lines of a 40% turnout, assuming even the 57% out of the 14
million turnout claim from the election commission is accurate. In
addition, a couple hundred thousand who did try to go vote seem to have been
simply disenfranchised just by (some possibly intentional) ballot shortages.
And at least half of the polling stations in the country, given the number
of claimed "independent local monitors" and the (disputed) number of claimed
international observers, must have been simply unmonitored altogether.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
02 Feb 2005 12:40:48 PM |
|
|
--
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:35:08 -0500, "Josh Dougherty"
Tens of thousands of Iraqis - mainly Sunni Arabs - may have
been denied their right to vote on Sunday because of
insufficient ballots and polling centres, officials have
said. ...
You are grasping at straws.
The reason there were insufficient ballots etc was because poll
workers were blown up in Sunni areas and ballots destroyed. If
only tens of thousands, rather than tens of millions, were
denied the opportunity to vote, that represents a huge victory
for those holding the election, and a huge defeat for people
like yourself who call those who were distributing ballots and
registering votes quislings who deserve to die.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
4eQPz/vnQrP28s3mN4oYsvUDrT086TY1velirgY1
4Mwnp8E+n8CWkSGsu7JX7Xa3mts/pQLwQBH0BtaDW
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Dougherty" |
|
| Title: Re: I predict the Iraqi elections |
02 Feb 2005 01:31:27 PM |
|
|
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:9g7201tqeas2542us0tr1sksop32sho8vt@4ax.com...
--
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:35:08 -0500, "Josh Dougherty"
Tens of thousands of Iraqis - mainly Sunni Arabs - may have
been denied their right to vote on Sunday because of
insufficient ballots and polling centres, officials have
said. ...
You are grasping at straws.
The reason there were insufficient ballots etc was because poll
workers were blown up in Sunni areas and ballots destroyed.
If only tens of thousands, rather than tens of millions, were
denied the opportunity to vote, that represents a huge victory
for those holding the election,
There's only like three "tens of millions" in the whole place James. One of
those three is below voting age. Of the remaining two, not even one voted.
A couple hundred thousand attempted voters being disenfranchised in an
election of, at most, a purported 8 million votes is quite siginificant.
For instance, that's proportionally way over the number of votes that would
have swung either of the last two US presidential elections the opposite
way.
and a huge defeat for people
like yourself who call those who were distributing ballots and
registering votes quislings who deserve to die.
citation here please:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
