http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4538220.stm
"A top Sunni politician has praised Thursday's poll, saying his party will work for "a strong coalition that will protect the rights of Iraqis".
Adnan Dulaimi, of the Iraqi Accord Front, also thanked insurgents for not disrupting the parliament election.
Mr Dulaimi had urged Sunnis to boycott the vote on a new constitution in October, but later said he would lead a Sunni list for December's elections.
High turnout
Iraqis were voting for their first full-term parliament since the fall of Saddam Hussein, electing 275 legislators to serve for four years.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IRAQ ELECTION FACTS
275-seat National Assembly will have four-year term
18 provinces are taken as separate constituencies
230 seats allocated according to size of population
45 seats distributed to parties whose ethnic, religious or political support is spread over more than one province
Some 15 million eligible to vote
One third of candidates in each party must be women
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Turnout was high, not only among Kurds and Shias - who have been enthusiastic supporters of the post-Saddam order - but also among Sunnis.
Sunni Arabs, who make up about 20% of Iraq's population, held power under Saddam Hussein and make up the largest portion of the insurgency.
The high Sunni turnout raises questions about who will come out on top in the new parliament, and how large the leading party's margin of victory will be.
The United Iraqi Alliance, a grouping dominated by two religious Shia parties, dominated the outgoing government.
Outgoing Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari urged Shias and Sunnis to work together in the new parliament.
"To our brothers in Mosul, Ramadi and Tikrit" - predominantly Sunni cities known as centres of the insurgency - "I say your brothers in Najaf, Karbala and Hilla have waited a long time to work hand in hand with you," he said, referring to largely Shia cities.
President Bush is to make an address on the situation in Iraq on Sunday night.
"We are now entering a critical period for our mission in Iraq, the president will talk about what we have accomplished and where we're headed," said his spokesman, announcing the rare address from the Oval Office, to be made at 2100 on Sunday (0200GMT Monday)."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4538220.stm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Congratulations !
The Iraqi elections are a success. It shows the Iraqi people are truly interested in having a country in which the conflicts and differences can be adressed in a democratic peaceful way rather than in a violent military way.
Despite of all the attempts by terrorists, or maybe you prefer to call them armed Iraqi and foreign factions, the people of Iraq will not let themselves be intimitated by force and stand up for their democratic and human rights.
These free and democratic elections are a very good reason to congratulate the Iraqi people. Congratulations !
Originally posted by ivanhoeGood fer them. Now if the foreign invaders and occupiers will get out, maybe they'll be able to have a free country albeit with a 100,000 or so less people than there should have been.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4538220.stm
"A top Sunni politician has praised Thursday's poll, saying his party will work for "a strong coalition that will protect the rights of Iraqis".
Adnan Dulaimi, of the Iraqi Accord Front, also thanked insurgents for not disrupting the parliament election.
Mr Dulaimi had urged Sunnis to boycott th ...[text shortened]... democratic elections are a very good reason to congratulate the Iraqi people. Congratulations !
Originally posted by no1marauderMultuply that number by 2 or 3 with Saddam at the helm for the next decade, and I'd say the cost was worth it.
Good fer them. Now if the foreign invaders and occupiers will get out, maybe they'll be able to have a free country albeit with a 100,000 or so less people than there should have been.
Originally posted by chancremechanicMake up any number you want; there's no way 100,000 Iraqis would have been dead in 2 1/2 years even if Saddam had remained in power. Since you're not an Iraqi with a dead family member, your opinion on whether it was "worth it" is pretty useless and ill-informed as usual.
Multuply that number by 2 or 3 with Saddam at the helm for the next decade, and I'd say the cost was worth it.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is useful when counting Kurds! What about the 100,000 or more Kurds already dead before the invasion? You're not a Kurd, so STFU and don't even try to answer the question..as usual, your answers smack of dis-barred madness...🙄
Make up any number you want; there's no way 100,000 Iraqis would have been dead in 2 1/2 years even if Saddam had remained in power. Since you're not an Iraqi with a dead family member, your opinion on whether it was "worth it" is pretty useless and ill-informed as usual.
Originally posted by chancremechanichttp://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html
It is useful when counting Kurds! What about the 100,000 or more Kurds already dead before the invasion? You're not a Kurd, so STFU and don't even try to answer the question..as usual, your answers smack of dis-barred madness...🙄
According to this more Iraqis were killed as a result of sanctions than were directly killed by Saddam. Since 2003, the US has killed (either directly or indirectly) around 100,000 Iraqi citizens. This website suggests that in 25 years Saddam killed between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi citizens. On a per annum basis, the US *liberation* has not been a success.
As I say, no problem had the US went through the UN, but they didn't care about such trivialities as getting multinational support.
Originally posted by chancremechanicThe vast majority of Kurds killed were in the 1980's during their rebellion against central authority at the time of the Iran-Iraq war. While I certainly don't condone the actions taken by Iraqi authorities in putting down that rebellion, it was 20 years ago. How many Kurds have been killed by the central Iraqi authority in the 5 years before the invasion, Chance? There's no basis to believe that the invasion and occupation with its 100,000+ dead "saved" any significant number of Kurdish lives.
It is useful when counting Kurds! What about the 100,000 or more Kurds already dead before the invasion? You're not a Kurd, so STFU and don't even try to answer the question..as usual, your answers smack of dis-barred madness...🙄
Originally posted by scottishinnzSadam "killed" those people by not following the rules of the sanctions. He had the power to follow the rules of the sanctions, yet he chose not to. He even flaunted the no-fly zonw by firing at coalition planes outside the no-fly zone. His indirectly killing his people by the above exampme is analogous to a crack whore spending her welfare check on Ripple and crack while her baby starves......why blame social services?.......you can lead a horse, but not make it drink. Saddam may not have DIRECTLY killed his people but he INDIRECTLY killed them. The US DID go through the UN, but the UN can't even wipe it's arse, as evidenced by the massacre in Rwanda, Bosnia, etc...
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html
According to this more Iraqis were killed as a result of sanctions than were directly killed by Saddam. Since 2003, the US has killed (either directly or indirectly) around 100,000 Iraqi citizens. This website suggests that in 25 years Saddam killed between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi citizens. On a ...[text shortened]... through the UN, but they didn't care about such trivialities as getting multinational support.
Originally posted by chancremechanicYeah, that A hole should have followed the rules, and none of this mess would have happened.
Sadam "killed" those people by not following the rules of the sanctions. He had the power to follow the rules of the sanctions, yet he chose not to.
He should have gotten rid of the wmds when he was told to!
D
Originally posted by chancremechanicChancre,
Sadam "killed" those people by not following the rules of the sanctions. He had the power to follow the rules of the sanctions, yet he chose not to. He even flaunted the no-fly zonw by firing at coalition planes outside the no-fly zone. His indirectly killing his people by the above exampme is analogous to a crack whore spending her welfare chec ...[text shortened]... , but the UN can't even wipe it's arse, as evidenced by the massacre in Rwanda, Bosnia, etc...
It's people and governments with attitudes like yours that are the reason that the UN fails. For example, Somalia 1992, after the US had a helicopter shot down did they say to themselves 'right, there is a problem here, we must help solve it'? No, they withdrew their troops, running and hiding in cowardice rather than actually doing anything about it. The UN stayed for another year (pretty unsuccessfully it must be said) before they too left.
For example, Rwanda 1994, the UN approves a force of 5,500 troops. Do these troops materialise? No. Now there are 5 permanent members of the UN security council, of which the USA and the UK are two. These two countries are both major arms exporters. Did we send a fraction of our armed forces to prevent this genocide? No. Yet the US will happily send 160,000 troops off to an illegal and immoral war, justified by lies and propoganda.
The UN is not perfect, there are many many ways is could and should be improved, but unless coutries like yours and mine stop taking unilateral action and start to get behind it we'll never have peaceful, legal, solutions to the worlds problems.
But hey, chancre, you're probably right to agree with everything your government does - you never know if it's YOUR phone they're tapping. Not sure about you, but orange isn't really my colour.
Originally posted by scottishinnzDont forget Sudan!
Chancre,
It's people and governments with attitudes like yours that are the reason that the UN fails. For example, Somalia 1992, after the US had a helicopter shot down did they say to themselves 'right, there is a problem here, we must help solve it'? No, they withdrew their troops, running and hiding in cowardice rather than actually doing an ...[text shortened]... w if it's YOUR phone they're tapping. Not sure about you, but orange isn't really my colour.