US 'sets conditions for Iraq election delay'

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Gulf Daily News, the Voice of Bahrain.

Vol XXVII NO. 294 Saturday 8 January 2005

US 'sets conditions for Iraq election delay'

MANAMA

MANAMA: The Iraqi elections scheduled for January 30 could be postponed for a few weeks to ensure they are held in a more secure environment, it was revealed last night. Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is reportedly conducting secret talks with the US administration in a bid to agree a joint decision, Iraqi politicians close to Mr Allawi revealed to Akhbar Al Khaleej correspondent in Baghdad Dr Hameed Abdulla.

The initiative follows the decision taken by several influential Iraqi political forces to boycott the polls.

The last few weeks have also witnessed a big resurgence of violence in a bid to undermine the electoral process.

Several Arab and European countries in addition to pro-Washington Iraqi groups are also reportedly urging the US administration to delay the polls.

The same sources said that President George W Bush had agreed to the delay in principle.

The US administration has reportedly set five conditions for the elections to be postponed. They are:

1. The Shi'ite authority, led by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and Kurdish political leaders should announce unequivocally that they support the decision to postpone the polls. Washington does not want to antagonise its potential political allies, particularly Kurds and Shi'ites.

2. Sunni leaders should pledge to take part in rescheduled elections if they are delayed.

3. Sunni leaders should put pressure on the insurgents to halt their attacks on the coalitions forces, take part in the polls and refrain from any acts of violence or intimidation.

4. The Sunnis should pledge to abide by the elections results even if the Shi'ites win by a landslide.

5. The Sunnite MPs together with other representatives should pledge to actively contribute to drafting the new permanent Iraqi constitution, without seeking to impose their own terms.

Akhbar Al Khaleej said the Security Council would then convene to set a new and non-negotiable election date.

Sunnis Scholars Organ-isation spokesman Shaikh Muthanna Dhari reiterated the decision to boycott the elections unless an exact date was announced for occupation forces to leave Iraq. He also called for UN forces to supervise the elections.

 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
It's absurd to think they can have elections in such an environment and have the vote considered valid. Ridiculous.
The Sunnis are not going to just give up all of their power without a serious fight. We're sliding ever nearer to civil war, IMO.

haha, those conditions are amusing. As if all of the parties will agree to all of those condidtions....
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
"Elections could be postponed for weeks to ensure more secure environment"

:laugh:
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
This is all starting to sound too familiar...

Despite the claims of U.S. leaders, we did not fight in Vietnam to establish democracy. Instead, we fought in Vietnam to derail democracy. After the Vietnamese defeat of French colonialism in 1954, the Geneva Conference called for free elections in 1956. But the United States and its client regime in South Vietnam blocked those elections. Why? In his memoirs, President Eisenhower explained honestly: In free elections, the socialist government of Ho Chi Minh would have won by an overwhelming margin. As is typical, the United States is all for elections in other countries, if they turn out the way we want.

Vietnam War Is A Study In US Crimes

Unfortuately this is as well...

Some Americans still talk about how we fought the Vietnam War ?with one hand tied behind our back,? yet with only one hand we managed to drop 6.5 million tons of bombs and 400,000 tons of napalm on the people of Southeast Asia. Short of nuclear weapons, it?s not clear what additional forms of violence we could have unleashed on the people of Vietnam.

If people can convince themselves that we were restrained gentlemen during the war, it is easier to ignore the saturation bombing of civilian areas, counter-terrorism programs that included political assassination, routine killings of civilians, and 11.2 million gallons of Agent Orange to destroy crops and ground cover -- all part of the U.S. terror war in not only Vietnam but Laos and Cambodia as well. All those are clear violations of international law -- that is, war crimes.

Just substitute DU for Agent Orange.



 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,520
48,008
136
These neocons learned nothing from Vietnam, I doubt they're going to start anytime soon.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: kage69
These neocons learned nothing from Vietnam, I doubt they're going to start anytime soon.

No, they learned a great deal.

No pictures of body bags.

No statistics on Iraqis killed or wounded. Nothing on non combatants killed, but lots of propaganda on "insurgents". The public really has no idea who they are. Curious, eh?

Media closely managed. "Embedded" means they can be closely watched, and not for their protection.

Yep, they learned a lot.



 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,809
6,364
126
A delay won't accomplish anything, other than making it less likely an election will ever happen.