Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Dec 6 2004, 03:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Dec 6 2004, 03:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Dec 6 2004, 03:28 PM
Weren't you the guy betting me the Afghan election would be fixed?
Looks like you're down 1-0 with one more to go in Iraq.
Cowperson
|
You're still saying the Afghani election wasn't fixed? Seems I'm not the only one to think that and disagree with you based on some of the links posted here. I don't know how you can think it wasn't. The Americans got the man they wanted and made sure he got elected using what ever means they could. I mean, this is the part of the world has a massive hate for America, and yet an America friendly politician is elected during American occupation. The result just doesn't seem to align with the base beliefs of the people IMO. Oh yeah, I forgot, that's democracy in action!
I'm not sure how you can say I'm down 1-0. I said that America's candidate would win, and win in a landslide. That's what happened. Seems we were both right on the result, just having different beliefs on how that result was attained. [/b][/quote]
You said the election mechanisms of the Afghan election would be fixed by America to produce a particular result.
At the time you said it, independent opinion polls in Afghanistan had Harmad Karzai in the lead by a wide margin.
Claiming the result was fixed because the most popular candidate happened to win is a little like telling us America arranged to have the sun come up tomorrow morning.
Nice try but it rings hollow.
In truth, no fixing was necessary in this election and, aside from endorsing Karzai, America was a bystander.
Absent from your argument is any credible agency or government claiming the election was fixed. In fact, the opposite occurred, neighbouring governments, global politicians and even the disgraced Kofi Annan endorsing the result as free and democratic.
Where's the hue and cry and massive debate as we see with Ukraine? It doesn't exist. You simply can't overcome that fact. And in the ensuing weeks, the bulk of the opposition in Afghanistan has also accepted the result as the will of the people.
However, I can't help but notice that if you type "Afghan Election Fixed By America" into Google you get a limited list of hits from literature generated by the desperate far left. Entirely predictable.
Our intellectual challenge with each other is whether or not an election will be fixed to procur a particular result. That obviously didn't happen in Afghanistan.
Next up is Iraq. Hopefully.
Provided elections can be held in Iraq, you'll be happy to know the USA endorsed candidate President Allawi is slipping in the polls. That might be more of a challenge for our bet should he happen to win. Afghanistan is not.
(By the way, in Iraq, its estimated a typical ballot will have 200 choices on it!!)
My point of view looks directly at places like Latin America and Vietnam where America DID fix elections. The lesson repeated over and over is that these governments eventually fail, particularly in places of armed conflict, because they lack the moral authority only general acceptance can provide. The people don't want them and the people won't fight for them. It's that simple.
In short, fixing the election is a one way ticket to losing badly. If I thought fixing would work, I would endorse it. That's how shallow I am!!
But, I don't see the point. Particularly not in Iraq or Afghanistan.
You're down 1-0. And counting. Cheer up. It looks like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are staying so you might win that one.
Cowperson