Unified Vote in Iraq -

[Valkyrie]

Saddam to Take Oath of Office, Address Iraqis - INA
By REUTERS


Filed at 8:47 a.m. ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will take a new oath of office and deliver a speech to the Iraqi people on Thursday, the official Iraqi News Agency reported.

Saddam won 100 percent of votes in a referendum for a new term in office, official results showed.

``Iraq's state television, Iraq's satellite channel, radios and the Iraqi News Agency will broadcast this evening the ceremony of the constitutional oath-taking by President Saddam Hussein,'' the agency said.

INA said Saddam would also deliver a speech to ``the great people of Iraq, the Arab nation and the free people of the world.''

It did not say when the ceremony would be broadcast.

Amid vows to defend Saddam to the death, Iraqis cast ballots in a nation-wide presidential referendum on Tuesday in which he was the lone candidate. Some voters ticked ``Yes'' for another seven-year term for the Iraqi leader with their own blood.

Official results, dismissed by Washington, showed every one of 11.5 million voters turned out to cast a Yes ballot.

Saddam has been in power since 1979.

President Bush accuses him of developing weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical and biological -- and wants to topple him. Iraq denies having such weapons.

The United States and Britain are trying to persuade the United Nations Security Council to pass a tough new resolution to support a return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq and threaten Saddam with war if he hinders the inspections.

France and Russia, which have veto powers, are leading resistance to Washington's strategy, arguing that any threats of military action should be put off for the time being.

[LeonardoDaVinci]

Of course those 11 million votes count for nothing. The elections did not satisfy any of the criteria required for a fair election. No freedom of speech, no viable opposition parties nor any alternative candidates.

As for the Russian and French opposition to any new US/British resolution, well it stems from their own concerns about their interests in Iraq, rather then their altruistic concern for the plight of the Iraqi people. The French are one of Iraq's closest western allies and share vital interests, and the Russians have just signed a multi-billion agreement with the Iraqi regime. And this precisely why the French and Russians are opposed to a US invasion and occupation of Iraq. This has nothing to do with international law, human values and protecting the soverignty of a weak state, it is just a battle of interests.

However, at the end of the day, I think that America's economic leverage over Russia and China will ensure that the Russians and Chinese will abstain from usin their veto right in a security council resolution. And judging from previous UN security council resolutions, the French will not use the veto without the backing of either Russia or China.

(Edited by LeonardoDaVinci at 8:07 pm on Oct. 17, 2002)

[Libertarius]

Do you think if they are allowed into Iraq without hindrance, and don't find any weapons of mass destruction, they will stop pushing for a war? NO. We all know it's oil and natural resources he's after, because he runs his own country so badly. Just because his first excuse is blown away, doesn't mean he won't scramble for a new one.

[Jaha]

bush tells UN: do what i want
UN: yes, sir

UN tells saddam: do what we want
saddam: yes.

UN tells bush: he will do what we want
bush: thats not what i really wanted!

===>i think this shows the true side of g w bush.

[Libertarius]

Actually it kind of confused me :P

As for the vote, obviously the Iraqi people don't want to be "liberated" as the President has put it. They better stay the fuck out.

48 war protesters in San Francisco were arrested after a peaceful demonstration outside the federal building. The protesters managed to stop all traffic to and from the building with stalwart blockades of people, made all the stronger when riot police put up steel fences to keep them away from the building's doors. Why arrest people who are demanding peace? It seems like a ridiculous notion to mace and club people who only want PEACE. Oh well, the San Francisco PD suffered great humiliation as they arrested protesters who were yelling their anti-war slogans in defiance of the law-enforcement officers, and the US government.

Advice for revolutionaries: Do not be afraid to voice your objections loudly and proudly. Fight off oppression stubbornly, because there are always those who will join you, and numbers are a powerful thing.

[Angie]

Quote: from LeonardoDaVinci
Of course those 11 million votes count for nothing. The elections did not satisfy any of the criteria required for a fair election. No freedom of speech, no viable opposition parties nor any alternative candidates.In dictatorial terms there was a level of freedom of speech. Yes, there was only one candidate, but since that was the case we can only assume that the ballot paper was encouraging a Yes or No answer. Assuming (yes, it's a guess) that the ballot papers didn't have the names of the voters written upon them, people were free to vote No.

They did not. That was their choice.

[Jaha]

for all anyone knows, the ballots could have been burned before counted and saddam thought of 100% off the top of his head.

Libertarius, the point the joke made was that bush wants war and he is only claiming to want justice or freedom, et cetera, et cetera....

[LeonardoDaVinci]

The ballot paper did encourage a YES or NO answer. However, the 11.5 million voters who participated in the voting process knew very well that they had a simple choice on their hands, either tick that yes, or spend the next few days/months/years of your life as an honorary guest of the secret police. That is the sort of freedom of speech that they had.