26 Sep 04
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that Iraq may only be able to hold limited elections in January, as it might not be possible to hold voting in places where violence has been severe.
He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the commander of US forces in the region might also ask for reinforcements during elections.
Earlier interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and US President George W Bush had ruled out delaying the vote.
Should the Iraqi elections in January be held nationwide?
Would it be sufficient to hold them in selective areas until the violence on the ground subsides?
Would Iraqis, and the rest of the world, consider a selective election valid?
What are your opinions on this issue ?
26 Sep 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeI doubt whether any election held in a country that is under foreign military occupation is going to be considered "fair" by the world community, so it probably won't matter much. And since Humvees are getting blown up less than a mile from the Green Zone, I wonder what area of the country is sufficiently "pacificied" to have an election under Rumsfeld's view.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that Iraq may only be able to hold limited elections in January, as it might not be possible to hold voting in places where violence has been severe.
He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the commander of US forces in the region might also ask for reinforcements during elections.
Earlier int ...[text shortened]... the world, consider a selective election valid?
What are your opinions on this issue ?
In Dubiousship,
2BitLawyer
26 Sep 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhere there is conflict is presumably where people would vote against the choice that the US backs...
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that Iraq may only be able to hold limited elections in January, as it might not be possible to hold voting in places where violence has been severe.
He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the commander of US forces in the region might also ask for reinforcements during elections.
Earlier int ...[text shortened]... the world, consider a selective election valid?
What are your opinions on this issue ?
Even if it is a fairly reasonable position to take, it's not going to look good, not after they made comments about not letting an anti-US regime being elected.
It's all about political expediency over fairness.
MÅ¥HÅRM
26 Sep 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeDonald Rumsfeld has the brain of a jellyfish and the wisdom of absolutely nothing.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that Iraq may only be able to hold limited elections in January, as it might not be possible to hold voting in places where violence has been severe.
He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the commander of US forces in the region might also ask for reinforcements during elections.
Earlier int ...[text shortened]... the world, consider a selective election valid?
What are your opinions on this issue ?
26 Sep 04
Originally posted by Mayharm"Even if it is a fairly reasonable position to take, it's not going to look good, not after they made comments about not letting an anti-US regime being elected."
Where there is conflict is presumably where people would vote against the choice that the US backs...
Even if it is a fairly reasonable position to take, it's not going to look good, not after they made comments about not letting an anti-US regime being elected.
It's all about political expediency over fairness.
MÅ¥HÅRM
If this is true it's an outrage. I thought that the point of electing a democratic government was that it reflects the will of the people. If this is contrary to what the US wants then TOUGH!!
26 Sep 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeA typical Rumsfeld statement
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that Iraq may only be able to hold limited elections in January, as it might not be possible to hold voting in places where violence has been severe.
He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the commander of US forces in the region might also ask for reinforcements during elections.
Earlier int ...[text shortened]... the world, consider a selective election valid?
What are your opinions on this issue ?
CNN :
Last week Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld commented, "Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country, but some places you couldn't because the violence was too great. Well, that's -- so be it. Nothing's perfect in life. So you have an election that's not quite perfect."
As other debaters have noted its probably good to have Florida in mind when evaluating this statement.
This is very tricky as Iraq is in dire need of a democratic elected goverment. Its very tempting to asume that a democratic election in selected areas would be preferable to no election at all. But try to think of the implications.
It would be undeniable that the election had not been regular and free, this can only fuel the beliefs widely held in the Iraqi population that there are certain rules for the election set up by the invading forces to prevent an outcome that would be unfavorable to the invaders.
So as answers to the questions:
Its not likely that you can hold a nationwide election in Iraq in January, but lets hope, its the only kind of election to hope for.
No.
No.
27 Sep 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeRead between the lines. The election will be held only in secure areas, which means the US forces will not try to reconquer the cities they have lost. And Rumsfield has also said the forces may withdraw, even if the insurgency continues.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that Iraq may only be able to hold limited elections in January, as it might not be possible to hold voting in places where violence has been severe.
He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the commander of US forces in the region might also ask for reinforcements during elections.
Earlier int ...[text shortened]... the world, consider a selective election valid?
What are your opinions on this issue ?
The opinion of Alawi is not even considered in this - so much for sovereighty.
Rumsfield is no fool and is softening up the US electorate for a withdrawal.
27 Sep 04
Originally posted by steerpikeSteerpike: " Rumsfield is no fool and is softening up the US electorate for a withdrawal."
Read between the lines. The election will be held only in secure areas, which means the US forces will not try to reconquer the cities they have lost. And Rumsfield has also said the forces may withdraw, even if the insurgency continues.
The opinion of Alawi is not even considered in this - so much for sovereighty.
Rumsfield is no fool and is softening up the US electorate for a withdrawal.
A withdrawl ? From which areas ?
28 Sep 04
Originally posted by ivanhoehttp://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/politics/9753797.htm
Steerpike: " Rumsfield is no fool and is softening up the US electorate for a withdrawal."
A withdrawl ? From which areas ?
Rumsfield is suggesting a withdrawal from Iraq. Not now of course - but before Iraq "is peaceful and perfect."
Just getting people used to the idea Alawi's forces could be left to cope on their own with the insurgency. Standard procedure for a policy shift - no deadlines, deny it is important or new policy but start the process.