Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Uncledave
Yes, there are risks, however rewarding terror by delaying the election would be catastrophic.

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.

53 posted on 12/06/2004 8:21:34 PM PST by pete anderson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: pete anderson

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.


57 posted on 12/06/2004 8:27:40 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

To: pete anderson
the people have to be taught that elections are a serious if not sacred event

That being the case, how does delaying the elections convey that message? Delaying elections is a major strategic and propaganda victory for the terrorists and a major defeat for democratic reform in the country.

And how long do you delay actions? Give me your time-frame. Three months? Will the situation greatly improve in three months? Or is it more likely that a delay will encourage more violence? How about a year? Do you think you can sustain the interim government for another year without elections?

The problem is that if you delay elections too long in order to beef up the security situation and stabilize the country, you'll probably do just the opposite as people start to believe that the whole free elections proposal was a scam and is never going to happen. If you delay only a few months then you haven't really given yourself that much time to improve the security situation but you've set a precedent that elections can be delayed by car-bombings and suicide bombers. After winning that victory, the terrorist will look towards delaying elections again and again (because now they're optional and NOT sacred) with the eventual goal of cancelling them altogether.

67 posted on 12/07/2004 7:30:12 AM PST by PMCarey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson