General discussion


Will Iraq elections be held?

By Aldanatech ·
A day after an explosion killed eight of its soldiers, the government of Ukraine just announced that it would withdraw its 1,650-member force by the middle of 2005. This decision was made after a meeting between President Leonid Kuchma and his defense and foreign ministers. Ukraine's contingent is the fourth largest in the U.S.-led military coalition and operates under Polish command in southern Iraq. Other troubling news are the fact that Baghdad?s deputy police chief, Brig. Amer Nayef, and his son, were assassinated by gunmen on Monday, Baghdad's governor was killed last week; and in Baiji, 142 Iraqi National Guardsmen have resigned in the face of insurgent attacks before the elections.

Speaking of the January 30 election in Iraq, Iraq's Kurdish parties (15% to 20% of the population) now favor pushing elections back. Even Iyad Allawi, Iraq's Shiite prime minister who has previously been a staunch supporter of the January 30 vote, has begrudgingly provided a window for postponing the vote. Iraq's Defense Minister Hazem al-Shaalan and elder Sunni statesman Adnan Pachachi also support a postponement of the election. Now that Ukraine made its decision, do you think other countries will follow? What about the election? Do you think it can be held among all this violence?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

A possible scenario

by jardinier In reply to Will Iraq elections be he ...

My guess -- and various other people have agreed with me -- is that there will be a civil war instead of an election.

Collapse -

It's inevitable

by maxwell edison In reply to Will Iraq elections be he ...

January 30th, the scheduled date of the election, is less than twenty days away, and the only thing that could stop it would be a total collapse of the coalition mission. Sure, there will probably be some isolated instances of disruption, but, for the most part, there is relative order throughout the country. Most Iraqis, I am certain, are anxious to look ahead and work on a future "free" Iraq.

Don't forget, while it might seem like total chaos and disruption by hearing the reports of violence as you are, those are isolated cases indeed. For each instance of "trouble", per se, there are anywhere from 9 to 99 instances of peace and stability. Don't forget the lesson we should have all learned by now, and that is the bad news from Iraq is only 1 to 10 percent of the total news. I would guess that anywhere from 90 to 99 percent of Iraq is functioning just as planned, but you just don't hear about it.

Collapse -

Media Bias

by ND_IT In reply to It's inevitable

You are right. Media bias. YOu don't hear about the what else is happening, the good going one. There is only one sector of the entire country that the terrorists are trying to disrupt. The rest of the country is pretty stable and rebuilding, but you don't hear about it. It's seems like only death and destruction make the news these days.

Collapse -

A media beef

by Cactus Pete In reply to It's inevitable

Media only seems to sell sensationalism.

That said, that's what the public buys.

That said...

I think it is important to note that the 4 provinces [out of the 18 total] in Iraq where there is "insurgency" or "unrest" make up more than half of the population and covers about a third of the land.

The problems aren't in the south, where I think most of the good is being done.

But the problems that ARE there are somewhat more than insignificant - enough so that the previously explained plan isn't quite the reality in which we find ourselves.

I would love to hear a report about what the US would like to see happen, and a guesstimate as to when it could happen. A timetable that COULD move, rather than a wholely open-ended "When it's done."

Collapse -

Guess What....

by Hargerd In reply to A media beef

....Thats where UK troops are based!

Collapse -

not gonna happen

by Jessie In reply to Guess What....

My cousin (an MP) just got back from his tour in Iraq (with ALL his men!!!) where they were training the new Iraqi police force. The new police has already been infiltrated by insurgents. The training facility was under daily mortar fire, and the non-insurgent Iraqi trainees were frequently detained and tortured by insurgents on their way to the training facility. One of the trainees entire family was kidnapped and murdered. The insurgents are way too plentiful and dedicated to allow something like an election take place. Even if the election DOES take place, it's not going to matter to the insurgents... do you honestly think that having a president is going to make them wake up the day after the election and go, "Ok, we can stop bombing our neighbors now."

Collapse -

I don't buy that argument

by maxwell edison In reply to A media beef

"Bad news sells" might apply in some cases, but how many people in Boston rushed out to buy every newspaper they could find that had the news about the Red Sox winning the World Series? That wasn't "bad news". (Well, it may have been bad news to people in New York or St. Louis.) Jane Doe wins a record six Gold Medals in the Olympics. The Bears win the Super Bowl (1986). And I'll bet that in your community, a local television station has some sort of "public recognition" award that they flaunt on their news programs.

My point being is that good news could be just as sensationalized as bad news. Moreover, if the news media, generally speaking, presents itself as the industry that is responsible for "informing" the public, then they have an inherent responsibility to do so in a fair and balanced manner. And if the recent scandals at the New York Times and CBS News show us anything, it is that they can be anything but fair and balanced -- in fact, it clearly shows that they are, or could be, advancing their own political agenda.

You said that you would love to hear a report about what the US would like to see happen, and a guesstimate as to when it could happen, and a timetable that COULD move, rather than a wholly open-ended. Well guess what? The Bush administration and the coalition authorities have been working on such a "time-table" since the beginning, meeting almost every goal along the way. If you don't believe me, spend a little bit of time and search for it. (I would provide it for you, but I might be accused of using a "biased" source.) But it's there and in place, and always has been. Gee, why isn't that common knowledge? A little media bias, perhaps?

Collapse -

I don't think we were far apart on that

by Cactus Pete In reply to I don't buy that argument

The media are a lazy bunch. I think they sell the sensational bad news because it's easier. MOST news they report is bad. Yes, of course they have recognition pieces, but they seem to go out of their way to show the bad stuff - and pump it more than necessary, I'd wager.

But there isn't a timetable that I have seen - not one with us pulling out troops. I wouldn't mind seeing the official release if you know where it is.

Collapse -

Some reading for your LONG "train ride"

by maxwell edison In reply to I don't think we were far ...

In a keynote speech, President Bush said he was taking five "specific steps" to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. These include:

1. The creation of a sovereign Iraqi government. (Done)

2. Stabilizing security. (90 percent done)

3. Rebuilding infrastructure. (50 - 90 percent done???)

4. Encouraging international support. (Done, at least for those nations who choose to support.)

5. Moving towards free elections. (Still scheduled for Jan 30th.)

By the way, if there was no "plan", per se, how come the BBC in a news editorial questioned whether or not the "plan" would work?

(Remember - this is an editorial with a lot of dissenting comments.)

How about this BBC article? If there is no "plan", per se, how could "the plan" get unanimous backing from the UN?

Was "the plan" more general and less specific as far as target dates? Sure it was. But my point was, and still is, that everything is, for the most part, moving forward in a positive way, and we are much closer to a free Iraq -- and free of U.S. forces -- than we are distanced from it.

I'll go out on a limb here, and predict that the U.S. forces in Iraq will number fewer than 50,000 (one-third the number today) by January 12, 2007. A lot depends, however, on the region as a whole.

More reading:

If you want more, just do a Google search with keywords similar to Iraq Plan, or something like that, and you'll get tons of hits with "flavors" of all kinds. And if you want to go back and see what the "plan" was in 2003, go to and search the various speeches and press releases. You'll find plenty of references to the "plan". And you'll discover, that it's pretty much on-track.

Collapse -


by Cactus Pete In reply to Some reading for your LON ...

But "the plan" you point out has no withdrawal of US troops. It is entirely open-ended, which is my biggest problem with it.

No plan to remove troops is no plan. We are obligated long after Jan 30 to be there. How long? What is the requirement for that to happen?

Granted, I haven't yet read the articles you pointed out - I'm not on the train yet. Saya sudah di kantorku. But I'm about to leave.

Related Discussions

Related Forums