Elections in Iraq

[dude1394]

Lately a bro-ha-ha has been brought up about elections this january in iraq. One side is allawi/bush/rummy that elections should go forward even if voting will be difficult or impossibly in some of the regions. The other side is that the elections MUST contain all of the parties or they are fradulent. Taking this tack looks to be like a postponement of those elections would be preferable until all violence is under control.

I don't understand the reasoning or logic behind delaying these elections. It seems that having them (and then potentially having them again) makes a lot more sense than delaying them.

I also would suppose that the elections could continue even in the disputed areas but they might either be very poor turnout because of the residents being afraid or of course violence. Now I would expect violence either way, so my hat is off to those brave iraqi's who are risking it for their freedom, but it still seems like the way to go.

I also sort of compare it to the most dangerous parts of our own cities. I would imagine that voting turn-out there is very,very low as people may/may not want to get out, but I really wouldn't know about that.

[dalmations202]

You have to go on with the elections. If you don't, then it portrays the picture that you can influence the government with terroristic activity. Will some groups claim that they were not properly addressed? Yes. Will they at least have a government that is lead by the Iraqi people, yes. Some will not like it, just like some here will not like Bush or Kerry (whomever wins this election). But at least some will feel like they had a voice, and made a difference.

Then they can start governing themselves, and the US can start removing themselves from the country (although we won't be totally out of there for years). At least it will politically look better, if the troops are being recalled back to the states.

I don't see any way that they don't have the elections, if GW is re-elected. Now if JK is elected, then he will probably just remove the troops and let them go into a civil war in that country, and try to pick up the pieces after the slaughter.

Also, some will see the elections as fraudalent no matter the outcome. Many of the Sunni or Shiites will say that whatever outcome, it is just a puppet government of the US (with a little validity there). So their is no reason to wait on the vote, except to strengthen terrorism.

[Epitome22]

I agree that the elections need to happen. They won't be optimal, but they should happen. These elections will be a braver strike to the insurgency than any bomb or troop storming.

[seal614]

agreed

[Mavdog]

The statement "if JK is elected, then he will probably just remove the troops" is incorrect, Kerry has stated many times he will keep the troops, promising that he will have them home by the end of his term. He has even said that he will add troops BTW.

A very tough situation. You want to have the elections, as a statement the terrorists won't be successful, that democracy can take root.

OTOH, elections must be conducted with the voters not fearing to cast a ballot. Areas that are not stable can't provide this security and elections in these (new overused term) "hot spots" can't be seen as valid.

Phased elections? perhaps.