Posted on 12/06/2004 5:10:58 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
I think the only "reality" is that postponing elections will accomplish only one thing: telling the terrorists that they have won and can influence our decisions.
you are correct sir.
i often wondered why we let the police and or ING, gather in crowds to get pay and or sign up.
it would be easy to set up stations outside city limits requiring a 1/2 or 1 mile walk through open space to enlist or collect. any vehicle moving anywhere is fair game.
a suicide bomber still may get near but 1 or 2 vs 10s and 20s getting hit is way much better.
Many said
Oops..Many said the same thing about Afghanistan
i think the terrorists blew it in afghanistan (thank the Lord)
they will be much more active in iraq, but we must move ahead with the vote! 1/30/2005, let freedom reign
the minds of things taking place on a daily basis in iraq, were not going on in afghanistan.
minds=kinds
"Anyone who cares to check the facts will find that only 10 states cast Electoral College votes in the election of George Washington. They’ll also find that the election of Washington was not unanimous; a total of eleven other men received votes for President in that election. But the most important aspect of that election was that it took place, and that a stable US government resulted from that."
Minor point of disagreement: As far as it was possible, the election of George Washington as President in 1789 was unanimous. Since as you pointed out there were only 11 States in the Union in 1789, New York did not appoint its allotted eight Electors, Maryland had two Electors who did not vote, Virginia had one Elector who did not vote and one Elector who was not chosen due to lack of returns from that District. So 12 Electors out of the possible 81 cast no electoral ballots.
So of the 69 electors who could vote, each was given two electors votes in their choice for President, which could not be cast for the same candidate. This means that while there were 138 possible electoral votes to be cast, a candidate could at best receive only half of them, or 69 electoral votes. George Washington received that maximum number of 69 electoral votes. one vote from each elector. Since the Constitution at that time was structured to have the candidate who received the second most electoral votes was to become the Vice-President, every elector understood that his "second" electoral vote would actually 'elect' the Vice-President, since no other candidate would receive a 'unanimous' 69 electoral votes, rather they were fragmented among 5+ other 'Presidential' candidates. John Adams became the Vice-President upon receiving 34 electoral votes.
Since a candidate could only get a maximum of 69 electoral votes of the 138 electoral votes cast in 1789, I submit that George Washington was unanimously elected under the pre-12th Amendment system. He would not have been if another candidate had also received 69 electoral votes, then forcing the election into the House of Representatives...
dvwjr
The other essential components are a Free Press, Free Speech, Free, Stable and Prosperous Economy, Domestic Tranquility and party system that has at least two major political parties.
Iraq may have an election but they will not be a Democracy any time soon.
However, it can be done, it is just going to take a while.
There cannot be freedom without stability.
Yes, there are risks, however rewarding terror by delaying the election would be catastrophic.
I don't see it as a reward to terror. the security realities are what they are, accept it, because claiming they are something they are not isn't going to help. attacks killed 80+ people this past weekend, did you see the video of that police station attacked? the bodies of the so-called police officers were everywhere, they didn't even fire a shot. most of the police are just collecting paychecks, they are providing no security at all, they can't even guard their own stations and prevents cars from approaching.
Humans do not have a democracy Gene and therefore have to be taught Democracy. Aside from stabilizing the situation, the people have to be taught that elections are a serious if not sacred event and should be conducted under the most peaceful and honest circumstances.
By holding an elections this soon it will be seen as fraudulent when one candidate gets all the US support. People will view that as "Well these elections are just like Saddam's elections" and democracy will never take root. Instead, there will be little faith future elections and leaders will be viewed as illegitimate.
Yes, I saw. Tragic.
But wouldn't you agree that US troops guarding fortified election posts would present far more formidable targets compared to Iraqi police stations?
no.
taking a worst case scenario (I am not predicting this will happen, only suggesting it could as a worst case) - the election itself may well be the trigger for the civil war.
imagine what the US media will do with that story. too many freepers in the wake of GWBs win have this impression that public support for the iraq effort is at 70%. it isn't. some watershed event, like an election turning into a mess and blood in the streets - could tip US public support for the iraq effort towards an unrecoverable negative view. if that happens, then all the people here talking about a delay "rewarding terrorism", will really have given the terrorists a big win.
We have lost way to many American Boys to establish a sham democracy and extend the situation losing more American Boys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.