The "Thread before the Iraqi Election" Thread

[Hutch]

Coming up fast on Sunday, thought I would start a thread so we can make our predictions/opinions on it.

The spin I will be watching for is what percentage of voters will be considered to be...wait for it...a "mandate" for democratic rule in Iraq. If the Kurds and Shai'a turn out in the numbers I expect, they will be able to say that the turnout (by percentage) was heavy. But if the Sunni, due to intimidation or unhappiness with the Allied forces, boycott the election, will it still be able to be a 'mandate'?

My guess is that the US will let the Iraqi forces (abetted by the Kurdish and Shia'a militias) patrol the North and South and the US will concentrate on the Sunni areas, which will probably lead to casuaties. I predict about 80% turnout from Shia'a and Kurdish areas, about 50% from Sunni (just enough) and about 60& from the Shia'a in Baghdad's slums.

If they get this percentage and suffer few attacks, they just might make it. Lower, especially in Sunni areas and with high levels of violence and death......

We shall see.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Like the US election, I will be sitting this one out.

 

[Jocko]

Coming up fast on Sunday, thought I would start a thread so we can make our predictions/opinions on it.

The spin I will be watching for is what percentage of voters will be considered to be...wait for it...a "mandate" for democratic rule in Iraq. If the Kurds and Shai'a turn out in the numbers I expect, they will be able to say that the turnout (by percentage) was heavy. But if the Sunni, due to intimidation or unhappiness with the Allied forces, boycott the election, will it still be able to be a 'mandate'?

My guess is that the US will let the Iraqi forces (abetted by the Kurdish and Shia'a militias) patrol the North and South and the US will concentrate on the Sunni areas, which will probably lead to casuaties. I predict about 80% turnout from Shia'a and Kurdish areas, about 50% from Sunni (just enough) and about 60& from the Shia'a in Baghdad's slums.

If they get this percentage and suffer few attacks, they just might make it. Lower, especially in Sunni areas and with high levels of violence and death......

We shall see.

If they average 60-65%, they'll be doing better than us. Frankly I think the Sunnis will be smart enough to realize that their numerical minority will only be exacerbated by sitting on the sidelines. I expect them to be one of the higher turnouts.

As to violence, I expect a couple high-profile strikes, probably near Baghdad. Not enough to seriously compromise the process. There were many dire predictions in Afghanistan, arguably a more lawless and tribal place than Iraq. Those turned out to be almost completely unfounded.

In any event, I expect Ion to contest the outcome.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: Re: The "Thread before the Iraqi Election" Thread

In any event, I expect Ion to contest the outcome.

 

[HarryKeogh]

My guess is that the US will let the Iraqi forces (abetted by the Kurdish and Shia'a militias) patrol the North and South and the US will concentrate on the Sunni areas, which will probably lead to casuaties. I predict about 80% turnout from Shia'a and Kurdish areas, about 50% from Sunni (just enough) and about 60& from the Shia'a in Baghdad's slums.

I think your turnout percentage predictions are overly optimistic. We can barely get 50% of the population here to turn out for an election and that's without the suicide bombers and apathy the Iraqi people are facing.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/24/falluja.conditions/index.html

"Our hearts are burned," he said. And the wounds are something democracy can't heal. "How can we vote when we don't believe in what we are voting for?" he asked.

Most of the men standing in line said they would not be voting.

 

[demon]

I think this is a great article, and provides some predictions about media coverage of the Iraq election.
I`d say the article can be summed up in three words...

DIVIDE AND RULE

It is a game the British imperialists played with distinction all over the globe, leaving a legacy of ugly conflict, e.g. Fiji, Kashmir, Ulster, Sri Lanka, Africa...to name but a few.

IMHO it is the USA that might be careering equally rapidly to the edge of some kind of civil conflict. Half the country is alienated from the other. Only a regular annual injection of five million new floating voters keeps the politicians able to manipulate the system.

From znet, Frank Broadhead

complete article (a must read, imo)
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7079

quote:
"A demonstration election depends largely on the cooperation of the mainstream media. The patriotic media's role is to include in its reporting certain information or visuals while excluding others. For example, off the media agenda are discussions of the right of government opponents to campaign (without being killed); the absence of large-scale financing of favored candidates by foreign governments or patrons; the presence of meaningful freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly; the ability of voters to cast their ballots freely and safely without intimidation by domestic or foreign military forces or "death squads"; the existence of a truly secret ballot; an honest counting of the ballots; and the assurance that the person who gets the most votes will win the election. On the agenda for a patriotic mass media are primarily election-day items: a large turnout (indicating voter support for the election itself and thus identifying the election with "democracy"); statements by political leaders and "ordinary people" that they are voting because they want freedom; and ineffective opposition to the election, perhaps even military attacks, by opponents of the government. (In an election that the United States opposes, such as the Nicaragua election in 1984, the media's priorities are reversed: on the agenda is the question of the pre-requisites of democracy; meaningless and thus off the agenda are the election-day events, the long lines of voters, etc.)"