Rumsfeld: Some Iraqis may not be allowed to vote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has raised the possibility that some areas of Iraq night be excluded from elections scheduled for January if security could not be guaranteed.

"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

"Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said.
CNN

Sounds like America! Bush steals an election? That's ok, at least we had an election!

[edit on 25-9-2004 by John bull 1]

Considering the instability in Iraq I think it's pretty darn good that they will be having ANY sort of election. This first one might be a little crazy and rough but I think it's fair to call it progress.

As for Bush stealing the election ... a)hasn't that been disproven by independant investigations multiple times? and b) don't you think it's time to move on?

Jemison

People the next Iraqi prime minister will be the same PM that is in Iraq right now, US is to comfortable with him to let him go. Does anybody truly believe that US will allow the Iraqi people to take control of their country?

No in million years, no when Oil is in the middle of it.

Originally posted by Jemison
Considering the instability in Iraq I think it's pretty darn good that they will be having ANY sort of election. This first one might be a little crazy and rough but I think it's fair to call it progress.

As for Bush stealing the election ... a)hasn't that been disproven by independant investigations multiple times? and b) don't you think it's time to move on?

Jemison

So say, if only half of Iraq votes and chooses it's leader for the other half, it's ok? Don't you think the ones who will be allowed to vote, will be the ones who will vote for Bush's man? And the ones who voice displeasure at the US's occupation, will be deemed 'too dangerous to vote'?

As long as the US is in Iraq fighting their war, that the US pretty much calls anything that goes in there. Untill we are out there really is no Iraqi goverment.

Does anybody truly believe that US will allow the Iraqi people to take control of their country?

Yes, I totally believe that when Iraq is stable we will be out of there and leave it in their hands. It is a big gamble. Our hope is that because we ousted Saddam and helped them establish democracy they will become a strong ally to us. It might not turn out that way but it's a risk we are willing to take.

So say, if only half of Iraq votes and chooses it's leader for the other half, it's ok? Don't you think the ones who will be allowed to vote, will be the ones who will vote for Bush's man? And the ones who voice displeasure at the US's occupation, will be deemed 'too dangerous to vote'?

I didn't read anything that said that people that are dangerous are not allowed to vote. I think the areas that have constant fighting going on will be the ones that will not vote ... those are AREAS, not certain people. This first election is not going to be perfect, but I think if nothing else it's symbolic and I think it's a step in the right direction.

Jemison

They say it's possible the entire Al-Anbar province might be excluded from the elections. link

Al-Anbar is the largest province in Iraq and contains places like Ramadi and Fallujah.


Al-Anbar

The population there is mostly Sunni according to this link.


[edit on 24-9-2004 by AceOfBase]

So what about the sections without representation. They set up their own governments and start shooting?

If a big province with a majority of one particular tribe is excluded, will bring civil unrest, that particular tribe will not accept the elected government in Iraq as legit and a representation of their own.

Lets not forget Iraq is divided by tribes, to make fair the election it should be a representative for every group and tribe in the region.

Sad to said Mr. bush does not have a clue of the kind of people that makes the Iraqi nation, for him is only two groups the good people "the ones that kiss US behind" and the other groups "the terrorist and Insurgents" the ones that does not kiss US behind.

Now US is going to make sure that the �bad people� does not get a change in the elections.

Originally posted by marg6043
If a big province with a majority of one particular tribe is excluded, will bring civil unrest, that particular tribe will not accept the elected government in Iraq as legit and a representation of their own.

Lets not forget Iraq is divided by tribes, to make fair the election it should be a representative for every group and tribe in the region.

And then those who are excluded will be called 'terrorists', maybe even 'al queda'! Unfortunately, it's a lose/lose scenario for the Iraqi people.

Very true curme, very true, leaving a big group out of the elections is like declaring a war to that particular group.

Perhaps that is the whole idea, and then go and persecutes them as �terrorist� and takes care of them all.

Hummm this scenario kind of sound like Sadam did with the Kurds in the north. Right.

I do have a vivid imagination you know.

Wow AceOfBase, thanks for posting that map. I thought the areas that would not be voting were little tiny areas.

This might be a dumb question, but isn't there any way that the people in the unstable regions could vote by mail? That way everyone would have the opportunity to vote if they wished.

Just a thought ...

Jemison

Jemison, do not worry, that is what Rumsfeld wants you to think. He doesn't tell you he is not allowing the largest group of people to vote, so you think they are banning only a couple dozen people.

Elections? Lets see...it'll probably be an overnite thing (for the sake of safety concerns)...It'll be a small group whose lives have been threatened and it'll be a sham like the elections here a la Bush. Who in the world will believe it? The right wingers. Rush Limbaugh will devote 3 hours as to how great and cooperative Iraqis were during election process, Fox wont have film of (crowds) but will claim much support from Iraqis and will declare elections a huge success.

OR:
Due to escalating terrorism, elections have been postponed. Just like in the USA.

OR: Due to escalating terrorism, elections have been postponed. Just like in the USA

Actually I did see an interview where an Iraqi woman was saying that she would prefer to postpone the elections if there was not enough stability to ensure that all provinces were allowed to vote. She mentioned that in the U.S. if we have problems we take it to court, but in Iraq they settle things not by court, but by going out to the streets and shooting people! I'm not sure if she was exaggerating or not, but her point was that she was concerned this is what would happen if some areas were not allowed to vote and were upset by the outcome.

I believe the elections are to be held in January. If their mail system is functioning wouldn't there be enough time to send people information to register to vote and then send them absentee ballots? That would allow those in unstable areas the ability to vote. Of course, this is assuming that they have a mail system similiar to ours and that mail is still going in and out despite the violence.

I am sure that there will be problems with the elections in Iraq no matter what but the more I think, read and hear about it, I agree, unless all areas are able to vote it would not be fair to hold an election.

Jemison

Bush & voting in Iraq This is an enlightening post.