Article

2004-12-12 Iraq-Jordan

Insurgents Desperate to Derail Iraqi Elections

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2004-12-12 01:40|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Yep, that's what a lovely Iraqi/Kurd immigrant told us over dinner last night. He'd just spoken to his siblings back home (his brother wanted to compare the worth of various cars -- he was looking to buy yet another one), and was table-poundingly emphatic that the elections must go off as scheduled (yes, that emphatic!).

Posted by trailing wife 2004-12-12 6:32:52 AM|| 2004-12-12 6:32:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The Kurds have been patient and have subsumed their desire for independence to work for a unified Iraq. They may not continue to be team players if this election is postponed -- and I wouldn't blame them.

Posted by rkb 2004-12-12 6:47:26 AM|| 2004-12-12 6:47:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 sadly the terrorists are not the only one desperate to prevent an election

- the UN
- France, Russia
- the DU, MoveOn, DailyKos, Michael Moore
- Wapo, NYT, CBS,
- Faculty lounge at UC Berkeley

Posted by mhw 2004-12-12 8:18:07 AM|| 2004-12-12 8:18:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Stopping an election through violence is a very, very hard thing to pull off. Even if you attack a dozen different (armed) polling stations at the same time, all they have to do to counter it is to extend their hours. And if you manage to terrify a small town into not voting, all you have done is to disenfranchise the tiny number you have intimidated--resulting in a loss of power for your side. The only real way to derail elections is through duplicitous or weak political leaders.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-12-12 9:40:42 AM|| 2004-12-12 9:40:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I may have missed it but have the parallels to the US election of 1864 been discussed?

A nation at war with itself, an unpopular President, large portions of the country unfit to hold elections, widespread violence, foreign influence in the form of "invaders" aka immigrants?

It wasn't until Lincoln started achieving significant military wins that the tide turned in his favor, in particular Sherman's victory in Atlanta.

The US in 1864 had seen the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the Civil War and was still at war with itself, and yet American's voted.

And we elected someone I don't think - I could be wrong - the NY Times called "illegitimate".

Posted by Curious1 2004-12-12 10:25:01 AM|| 2004-12-12 10:25:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 The violence is more likely to be carried out among the areas where the terriorist can operate/hide. So in effect, those areas which tolerate the butchers are the ones most likely not to get a chance to vote. There's something fitting about that.

Posted by Don 2004-12-12 10:28:24 AM|| 2004-12-12 10:28:24 AM|| Front Page Top

11:34 N Guard
11:34 N Guard
00:23 3dc
00:14 Mike Sylwester
00:10 3dc
00:05 Stephen
00:05 Zenster
23:51 Mike Sylwester
23:50 .com
23:49 Bomb-a-rama
23:41 Mike Sylwester
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:35 lex
23:34 lex
23:34 .com
23:30 Zenster
23:25 Zenster
23:24 Mike Sylwester
23:23 Rafael
23:18 .com
23:16 Mike Sylwester
23:12 .com
23:12 Zenster
23:04 JosephMendiola