We're expecting terrorist attacks today. The terrorists and rebels in iraq know that and are probably not going to attack too much today with all the extra security.

He just wants to keep this thread on topic. If you want to make a war debate thread, go right ahead.

... Besides, there's absolutely no pretense of democracy here and there never has been...

I am just worried about the Sunni Muslims in the country who wont vote. That could mean that things could escalate into civil war in the future... Not good. But apparently there has been a higher-than-expected voter turnout.

I just get annoyed with people who don't like arguing. Sure sometimes people get a little mad or out of hand, but I think the value of learning about someone elses beliefs and ideas makes arguing very worthwhile in the long run.

EDIT: Wrong quote. Fixed it now.

Sine not for arguing and debate? Hah! He just doesn't want it done on this thread. Nothing wrong with that.

I agree that this is not the thread for it, and that this is not a democracy, but this is the dictatorship of Brian, and nowhere in his rules does it say that threadjacking is a bannable offense. (Just for the sake of argument, which ironically, should not be done here :))

If you want to find some interesting contrasts on cable reporting, and are willing to look past what both parties say about the other station, compare the Fox News Coverage to the CNN coverage:

Paraphrased:






Seriously, a friend of mine and I often heard about the disparity in media reporting, and so on Saturday night, on the eve of elections, we did a side by side comparison of Fox and CNN (he has TiVo - such a wonderful gadget). And the above is essentially what we found. And here I thought the whole Fox "Fair and Balanced" tagline was just that, in order to get viewers - they actually were more fair and impartial than CNN.

Of course, I am talking about the news reporting - not scheduled programming like Bill O'Reilly, who I know has a conservative bias to him.

... hello, subject for new painting!

i see parellels between this thread and democratic centralism.
god bless democracy yes.

To Iraq:

Yes, I've noticed it to Joren. On the day after, it seemed more like some stations were just interviewing people on what's to come after the election (as in predicted violence, war not over, etc). We've sitting here predicting massive bloodshed and the elections go out better then anyone expected, and we're suddenly just moving past it?

I swear sometimes the media wants bloodshed and failure.

I'm personally can't imagine what went through Iraqi civilians heads with it. Voting knowing that they could die for just exercising that right - its just crazy. While Americans won't vote because we're essentially 'lazy' ("Don't want to wait in long lines!" etc). So Iraq gets a higher % of vote then US does. That's crazy, but very respectable and I'm glad for them.

And in a sarcastic note, both countries had the same tactics. Terrorists in Iraq saying if you vote, you'll die. And here in the US...P Diddy saying "VOTE OR DIE!"

Joren, thats the media for you. They have to give people exciting stuff that they want to hear. It just so happens that most people want to hear that everyone's dieing and how much of a ****ed up situation it is, so they can yell at Bush. People LOVE to hate George Bush, and so you gotta expect the media to play to that.

That's very true, politics aside even.

Despite the highest number of insurgent attacks in a single day since Iraq was occupied and hardly free of problems in itself (ranging from officials selectively denying entrance to the polls to campaign materials within 100 feet of the polling place), I'd say the election was largely a success.

Except the main benefit to this election would have been the pacification of the large Sunni insurgency, which will be galvanized instead by their complete lack of representation in this new administration, and therefore strongly motivated to force a better deal for themselves.

Sorry. I'm a pessimist and a contrarian.

Obi: Mikus was right. Stop gloating.

Ictus, something to keep in mind:

There was an iraqi tv ad they showed on Fox news, with the 3 muslim majorities (Sunni, Shiite, and the other one :p ) represented all cheering loudly and hollering down their respective streets, and then stopping at an intersection and getting dead silent - and all looking like they are sizing each other up to kill each other.

Then one kid from each group escapes and runs to the center of the intersection, and begins hugging and shaking hands, and all the grownups look stunned. They then follow suit and begin shaking hands with all 3 groups meeting in the middle to form one colorful group.


Now was that commercial trite? Sure. But for a nation like that, it got the point across, and it was especially good that the Sunni's were represented in that commercial, even though they have said they would be obstaining from voting.

I guess my point is that there are already overtures towards extending an olive branch to the Sunni faction, and stuff saying "hey, we still see you as part of this."

That can only lead to good things.

That's sweet, but doesn't mean anything. The Shi'a, after being disenfranchised for decades, are probably going to rush into power with all the enthusiasm of people on the wrong end of the beating stick for too long. The Kurds are going to be pissed if they don't get to maintain the same autonomy they had under Saddam (and lose the financial and economic props provided by the West). And the Sunnis, having removed themselves from the democratic process, have limited avenues for the redress of grievances, of which most involve window-shattering explosions and dead people.

Believe me, I understand all that. But I disagree that it doesn't mean anything. It has the potential to not mean anything, but it could provide an opening to something very meaningful.

It let's the Sunni's know they are not being ignored in the pursuit of a democratic Iraq. As long as everyone else is careful not to step on Sunni toes, and keep encouraging them to join the process, it will eventually win out.

However, if the Sunni's are publicly encouraged to join but privately discriminated against, then yes, you will see such ads become meaningless.

But it is far too early to make that assessment.

I was simply making an amusing observation- that Sine used the phrase' I hope to God' though he said he's an atheist.

Glad to see that the elections went failry smooth. I believe it was only like 24 killed? I expected all hell. I am purely amazed and happy. That's a whole lot of people coming out to vote. I wish them many more.

Well, the sooner the elections and such are resolved, the sooner we leave.

edit - typo

We're still in Germany.

Well, the bulk of us anyways...

This quote makes me smile. It's from an 80 year-old Iraqi named Rashid Majid on election day:



I think they should make that guy president.

I must live in some kind of parallel universe. It's hopeless. You people will never give up. Believe what you want, I really don't care any more.

That's really not the case. Even before the elections, they were making preparations to include the Sunnis in the constitution-writing process even if they didn't vote in large numbers. However, far more voted than were expected; supposedly the voting centers in Mosul (Iraq's third-largest, mainly Sunni city) ran out of paper twice because so many showed up.

People are also ignoring one key fact: the Sunni leaders calling on people to boycott the election told them only to boycott the general elections. Not the provincial ones, and in fact they're being encouraged to participate in the writing of the constitution.

Stop being so unflaggingly pessimistic. It may have been the word of the day in Iraq before, but now, for *once* things actually are looking up. I think a lot of people in the West simply can't accept that...not that it matters. Iraq survived 30 years of brutal dictatorship...I think it can handle a people who refuse to smile.

Comparison time.
Mikus: "I hate to say it, but I see a massive amount of suicide bomber + polling station incidents."
Obi: "The pessimist was owned! Next time you let politics influence your predictions, don't make a prediction about something that will happen a few days away."
Mainstream Media: "A US official said that insurgents had launched a record number of attacks on election day, but had almost totally failed to disrupt the vote.

Guerrillas staged 260 attacks, compared with a daily average of 60-70, including eight suicide bombers who attempted to infiltrate election facilities on foot to circumvent a near-total ban on vehicle traffic." (FT.com)

Another article said that this was the largest number of insurgent attacks since the insurgency began, but I can't find it now.

Also, IECI election officials revised their estimate of voter turnout down to 60 percent from 72 percent two hours after the initial press release, and admitted that both figures are pure speculation. Well, actually that the "figures are only very rough, word-of-mouth estimates gathered informally from the field", supposedly based on the flow of people through polling places. Personally, I'll be shocked if turnout reached 50 percent, but that's just me.

Sine: You're probably right and I have to go to class. Obi was an easier target, anyway.

I think its no doubt that there were attacks, but how many successful ones?

That's the big thing, and what was most impressive - the security.

And also people (who, if there is a God, may he bless their souls) who dove out of voting queues to tackle would-be foreign suicide bombers. One of the ones who was intercepted by an Iraqi voter was Sudanese. Another was a child with down's syndrome.

That's what this is about, now. Iraqis have a stake in their governance and they are running with it. Foreign Arabs - Jihadis, Muj, call them what you will, are trying to destroy everything they've worked so hard for. They've even resorted to using retarded children.

I guess it's no surprise, then, when the once-recalcitrant chief of police of Mosul threatened a massive crackdown on insurgents in the city. In the past, before the election, such a proclamation would be been met with skepticism if it were made at all. Now he has the backing of Iraq's first truly democratic government and a popular mandate to send those who would turn Iraq into another Afghanistan to their maker. I believe him.

An AP story posted at FoxNews.com



"Lacks legitimacy because Sunnis didn't vote after we urged them not to." Hillarious.

I don't think it's as ironic as you think. It's quite likely that the exact purpose of their urging them not to vote was so that they could make a claim of illegitimacy on those grounds.

Yeah, you live in the parallel universe where when I say "I really hope it goes well, but I don't think it will" and then a lot of people die, I "get owned"

A lot of people didn't die. Forty sounds like allot, but really that's barely more than an average terrorist attack. Compared to what they were worried about, the death toll was exceptionally low. It didn't disrupt the election at all. It's one step closer to them being able to govern them selves with out us funneling millions of our dollars into their country every day.

Exactly...and he's saying that's stupid..

As for the election, alot of people did not die. 40 (was it even that high) is definitly not alot for a day that was estimated to be a complete bloodbath.

amen ma bruver

i wish only the best for our iraqi cousins

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}