We didn't bet on who would win. Lets be clear on that Mr. Welcher.
That's a nice, flatuelence-laden try at a dodge but the winner in Afghanistan is actually irrelevent, hence my fair warning to you at the time of our bet.
You flat out stated America would rig the Afghan election, a dramatic over-statement typical of all of your arguments on any topic on this board.
We bet on whether or not the processes would be arranged to generate a desireable result. I said, quite sensibly, "Why bother?" and stated it would be conducted openly and fairly since there seemed little reason to upset the apple cart.
In one of your first posts in this thread, you flat out state the obvious, that you "can't prove that it was" rigged in Afghanistan.
Quote:
|
Well Cow, you cannot prove the election was not fixed, just like I can't prove that it was. - Lanny McDonald
|
With that, you lose. Pay up!!!
By the way, attempting to get me to "prove the election was not fixed" is a childish dodge in the absence of any credible argument from yourself to address the real question of our wager.
Prove an election was NOT fixed? Very funny.
I'm still waiting for you to explain the 180 in political ideology of the average Afghanistanian. Imagine every Republican in America voting for the Democrats overnight.
Where do you get an idea there was a change in political ideology? Do you have something to base that on? Answer - no. Once again, a vast overstatement that leaves you exposed as usual.
The underlying story of philosophy and issues, the tone of the electorate, is in this comprehensive pre-election poll below, the Readers Digest version of which is at this link.
http://www.asiafoundation.org/Locations/af...tan_survey.html
The more detailed version:
http://www.asiafoundation.org/pdf/afghan_voter-ed04.pdf
In the actual election day polling, Karzai was supported by his ethnic group, the Pashtuns, to the tune of about 86%. Pashtuns made up 52% of those voting so he was over the top almost on that segment alone. Why bother fixing it?
About 40% of Tajiks voted Karzai, the latter a bit of a surprise as only 34% voted for Qanuni, their ethnic candidate.
Karzai received only 16% of the Uzbek vote with warlord Dostrum getting 59% of that group.
About 21% of Hazaris voted Karzai, 62% voted Mohaqiq, Karzai's principle rival.
Its not particularly complicated nor conspiratorial. Nor does it mathematically look like a fix. Nor is it out of line with pre-election expectations. It looks exactly like what it was. Simple and straight forward.
I guess you never considered that with two Iraq wars that the Americans effectively were electing the government running the country. Also you're forgetting the invasion of Panama and removal of Noreiga, the invasions of Greneda and Haiti. You also seem to lend a blind eye to what has been considered election tampering in Venezuela to defeat anti-Bush critic Hugo Chavez. There has been plenty of work by the Americans that has affected the political climate and seen governments friendly to their goals and cooperative to their whims. But of course to someone who keeps their head buried in the sands of American propaganda you would consider this as being... Inconceivable! (Princess Bride reference)
I mentioned Venezuela in an earlier post to give you a break. I beat you to it. Potentially there is something there but nebulous and if they were rigging a vote, they certainly did a poor job of it since the guy they wanted out actually won. "They" clearly didn't want the guy to win but how far did they go to prevent it? Well, they didn't shoot him or rig the ballot boxes. They didn't poison him which appears to be something Russia may have attempted in Ukraine.
If we apply your definition of vote rigging from Afghanistan to Venezuela, then there wasn't any vote rigging since the wrong guy won. Catch 22. Hoisted by your own petard again.
The rest of your assertion is, naturally, garbage.
Invading isn't vote fixing since there isn't an election occurring at the time to talk about. Two different topics.
Lets look at your own examples so we might beat you over the head with them.
If anything, the people being invaded should be ticked off and what you don't hear about Grenada, Panama, or Haiti is that the majority of people are 1) ticked off or 2) sorry there was an invasion or even 3) that the USA forced a long-term, non-elected government on them. Prove otherwise if you dare.
Lastly, a little history lesson for you - Grenada and Panama both occurred before the collapse of communism and the use of proxy states, the qualifier I attached to my earlier comment. Why you would include those two in this argument is beyond bizarre.
Regarding Haiti, the timeline as described at BBC.com, which we can consider neutral on the topic:
1991 - Aristide ousted in a coup led by Brigadier-General Raoul Cedras, triggering sanctions by the US and the Organisation of American States.
1993 - UN imposes sanctions after the Haitian military regime rejected an accord facilitating Aristide's return.
1994 - Haitian military regime relinquishes power in the face of an imminent US invasion; US forces land in Haiti peacefully to oversee a transition to civilian government; Aristide returns.
1995 - UN peacekeepers begin to replace US troops; Aristide supporters win parliamentary elections; Rene Preval elected in December to replace Aristide as president.
1996 - Preval sworn in as president.
Where did they interfere in the democratic process? They overturned a coup and restored a democratically elected leader to his post, slimy as he was!!
Well Mr. Dan Rather?
So we move on to Iraq where you actually have a chance in the next phase of our wager, unlike the sap bet you took for the Afghan chapter and are now welching on.
Will the USA rig the balloting? Fix the result? Will Human Rights Watch, which claimed the Americans had too few troops in Afghanistan now complain the USA has too many in Iraq?
So many questions.
President Allawi is 45% in the polls, less than a majority. There are 200 political parties. Ayatollah al-Sistani of the #####es is insisting the elections happen on time. Lots of complications. Not straight forward. By the way, how would you fix something like that? The majority of Iraqi's appear to dislike Americans in their country - how is an occupation, an invasion if you will, going to help their candidate in the polls? Looks like Canada is going to play a lead role in overseeing the process.
We sit back and wait with interest.
Cowperson