Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I think this situation is analagous to Washington: he was initially appointed because we needed something right away. First election rolled around and apparently he wasn't doing so bad, so we kept him around. The US wasn't terribly literate at the time either, I'm guessing, so the name recognition aspect was probably quite similar. I guess my opinion is that it's a lot better to have someone in power after having been elected, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the election, than having 10 different candidates who no one has heard of each get 10% of the vote. Given his first term, other politicians will surface as viable alternatives and can be chosen on their respective merits by the people.
You keep comparing Karzai to Washington and that is just so utterly wrong. Washington earned the respect of the majority of Americans and even he at first did not want to become President. He gave in because so many people wanted him to be our First President. He led us to our freedom as our main General. Picked up arms and fought and would have died to protect this country and our freedom. The American's top leaders and generals picked Washington and the civilians agreed, not the British or any other country. We picked Washington because he fought in the struggle for our freedom.
What has Karzai done to EARN the respect of his fellow Afghani's? Karzai literally popped out of NOWHERE, I doubt many Afghani's knew about him then and I doubt many even know about him now. Other than name of course. Has he ever picked up arms to defend his country? Has he put his life on the line for his fellow countrymen before being given the ability to rule over them?
He shouldn't of been allowed to run, plain and simple. They should've explained to him that he'll be known as the first president and he did well in the transition but it was time for the Afghani's to pick their OWN leader.
Originally posted by: ntdz
to some extent I believe he should've stepped down, but at this point I think someone who has been there and been the leader is more important that an absolute show of democracy. Same with Iraq, I hope Allawi gets elected so we can keep him in there.
Again why? We chose him. The Iraqi people didn't. Allawi shouldn't be allowed to run in the Iraqi elections. This is the same as Karzai. It isn't going to be fair because so many others running against those two are at a HUGE disadvantage. The people need to decide from fresh fish for this to be legitimate. The reason Allawi and Karzai even have a chance is because we appointed them. We could've appointed anybody else and they would've had the same chance of winning as Karzai and Allawi unless they were utterly terrible and even then I would say they'd still have a HUGE advantage because of name recognition alone.
Anyone even know if there were debates? Maybe a time where all the candidates were side by side and expressing their views of what they wanted to do? I doubt it. What a democracy!
Facebook
Twitter