Auto-SummarySwami's post critiques the UN's involvement in Iraq's elections, arguing that American troops' efforts to promote the democratic process are misplaced. He points out that the UN's chief, Carina Perelli, admitted that the U.S. should minimize its participation, as the elections are an Iraqi process. Swami also highlights the UN's questionable stance on human rights, referencing its inclusion of countries like Syria, Cuba, and Libya. The post emphasizes that the elections are a multi-stage process involving local governance and referendums, questioning the UN's role and accusing them of pretense. Swami concludes by asserting that the coalition soldiers are more concerned about the Iraqi people's will than the UN.
Swami's latest contribution --
There is little violence in provinces where almost all of the people are of the same clan or belief and where America has yet to "accidentally" kill innocents.
What is the relevance of this? The majority of Iraqis in the majority of the country will have no more trouble casting their ballot than did the Afghanis.
However those that have long allegiances to new countries, who will not return to Iraq to live, are unlikely to vote with the best interest of local Iraqis NOW ARE THEY?
Pure speculation. Do you not believe they are in touch with relatives back home? Or that if they are in touch, they never discuss the upcoming elections? "Dear mother; How's the weather? Did Abdul's cat have her litter yet? Achmed's bunions are acting up again. Hey, guess what! I get to vote in the elections too, but don't put yourself out writing down any information on any of the candidates in your reply. I know how the four and a half unamputated fingers you have left from your stint in Abu Ghraib ten years ago stiffen up these days. Did the steroid ointment I sent with my last letter help at all? Anyway, I figure I'll just vote for whoever is at the top of the ballot."
Do you believe none of them plan to return to Iraq as so many have already done?
This is simply not true. (Note PSM's lack of usual sources.)
You have a set of brass ones, Swami, I'll grant you that. You are notorious here for your cavalier attitude toward providing sources. At best you will make up some "quotes" that are nowhere close to what the people referred to actually say, then try to excuse the deception by claiming "these are not exact quotes".
(Nice ad hominem. I have been banned for much less than this.) You base this on nothing at all that I have said.
Still sore about the administrative decision to take action on posts you made in a forum other than this one, I see. Oh well. And yes I based it on what you said. You may be unaware that in a parliamentary system such as Canada or England (for example), the voters choose whichever party (represented by a single candidate per party per district) they feel best represents their point of view. They don't vote for president, vice president or whatever. They vote for the equivalent of a member of the House of Representatives. That's it, that's all.
I get to vote on the pres, the mayor, senators, the governor, and many issues - all separately. I believe I got to place about 40+ votes on my last ballot.
The way the US runs things is not the way the rest of the world runs things. See my example re Canada above. Do you believe the elections in Canada are somehow bogus? Canadians don't vote for their senators. Nor do they vote for district attorneys. And by the way, as anyone who actually followed events in Iraq could tell you, there have already been many elections at the district (mayor and city council type posts) level. Interestingly enough, as of yet no theocratic candidates have won.
I know this may come as a shock to you, but not every country in the world holds one giant election on a single day every four years to choose everyone from president to sheriff to dog catcher. There are separate elections at the municipal, county, provincial, and federal level. Bizarre concept, no?
Where is the UN involvement in this "election"?
As usual, the UN wimped out. The organization that never met a dictator it didn't like, the organization that sees nothing absurd in having such worthies as Syria and Cuba and Libya on their committees in charge of enforcing human rights, has pulled another classic UN stunt --
"The United Nations official charged with election assistance yesterday threw a barb at American troops in Iraq, accusing them of conducting an 'overenthusiastic' campaign to promote this weekend's Iraqi election," reports the New York Sun:
Quote:
The chief of the U.N. Electoral Assistance Division, Carina Perelli, was asked in a press conference about reports that American troops helped Iraqi officials distribute information on the electoral process to Iraqi citizens, and encouraged them to participate in Sunday's vote.
Ms. Perelli said that U.N. officials spent time "asking, begging military commanders precisely not to do that," but the time has not been well-spent. The Americans were "overenthusiastic in trying to help out with these elections," she said. "We have basically been saying they should try to minimize their participation because this is an Iraqi process."
Perelli later said she "misspoke," but she also offered this less-than-stirring rallying cry: "Iraqis, she said, will have to 'decide by themselves whether they consider that this election is important enough, is valid enough, is legitimate enough in order to risk their lives to go and vote.'?"
Sounds as though the U.N. election chief is as enthusiastic about democracy as James Buchanan was about abolishing slavery.
Link -- http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmai...&ID=Ar00603
...this is a violation of the Vienna Convention (1963) which states that an occupying force has no right to change composition of occupied territories socially, culturally, educationally or politically.
Which is precisely why the decision as to how their country will be governed from now on is being left to the Iraqis. Those Iraqis the car bombers who loathe the idea of democratic rule more than they loathe pork rinds don't manage to kill first, that is.
Here's a bit more from the above link. The following information isn't news to me, but it may be to you --
Quote:
The undersecretary-general for political affairs, Kieran Prendergast, expressed support for the upcoming election, adding that even if there are disruptions, it is not the ?be-all and end-all? of the process. The assembly that will be elected this weekend will prepare Iraq?s permanent constitution, he noted. Then, in October, Iraqis will have to vote in a referendum to accept or reject the constitution, and another general election is scheduled for December.
What part of the above logical and orderly process do you find objectionable?
It is not the action of the election that is distasteful, it is the pretense that America truly cares about the will of Iraqi people and this is why Bush is bankrupting America and ruining international credulity.
It's apparent the coalition soldiers currently in Iraq, most of whom are under Bush's command, care considerably more about the will of the Iraqi people than the chief of the U.N. Electoral Assistance Division. You want to talk about "pretense"... hers is pretty much the sorriest pretense at actually giving a shit that I have seen in recent days.
But hey... you are free to reach the opposite conclusion.
Phred
--------------------
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Swami 
snoopaloop53 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
And the violence and lack of utilities will continue unchanged.
1 2 3 4 all )
RandalFlagg
pattern
Vvellum
Evolving