Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty";p="
You convieniently left out the paragraph leading up to that statement which said:
Quote:
|
Meanwhile, most Shiites, who have overwhelmingly backed the election, said they would skip the vote if called to do so by a religious leader they trusted.
|
Earlier they stated:
Quote:
|
"32 percent of Sunni(s) versus 87 percent of Shiite(s) say it is very likely they will personally vote."
|
Clearly this is talking about a Sunni boycott, not a Shiite one. |
The only references to the word 'boycott' in the article are connected with the Shiites. The one I quoted earlier, and this:
Quote:
|
"Seventy-six percent of Arab Shiite would comply with a boycott called by a trusted religious figure compared to 32 percent of Arab Sunnis," the poll said.
|
76% Shiite vs. 32% Sunni, in this poll in question would comply with a
boycott, if called on by a trusted religious leader.
The word 'boycott' is not synonymous with not voting:
boy·cott
tr.v.
To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion.
Not voting just means for one reason or another, the person(s) in question will not vote. (Whether that be apathy, legitimacy, security concerns, Aliens, Clinton
) There is no direct reference (though it is suggested implicitly
along with mentionings of real security concerns) to this lack of voting stemming from a boycott.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty";p="
As to your other question:
[Removed my previous quotes to save space]
Of course they are going to answer that way!! It's in complete agreement with what I said earlier. The insurgency is a Sunni one. The reason for the insurgency is to reduce support for our efforts in Iraq. They desperately do not want an election to occur. They don't want to be a minority, they want to rule. If you're against the elections occurring, then you aren't going to provide positive responses to Western surveys.
|
Then what's the point of making the poll is "they are going to answer that way"? It makes the entire poll, article and consequently this thread and debate moot.
The article directly disagrees with you, but as you don't accept the article there is little left for me to do. I don't believe you would find any other such figures any more trustworthy, would you?
Besides, it's pretty clear that the US will not postpone any elections unless entirely forced by some radical situation, so attempting to sway the US with these figures this late is pretty hopeless. I agree that the Sunni do have a political reason to not want to see this election occur, but there are other limiting conditions i.e. getting ones brains splattered all over the floor on the way to the booth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty";p="
I'm not completely dismissing the fears. I said MOST Sunnis are against the election. I would assume there are a minority who would like to vote, but may fear for their safety from other Sunnis. Thus I agree with the second statement. It would be great if the situation were such that everyone who wanted to vote could, but I believe there will be no convincing the Sunnis so long as they see a way to regain their status. The election will strengthen a sovereign Iraq, and Sunnis will eventually have to decide whether they want to fall in line, or wage a civil war with the majority.
|
I think a religious breakdown of civilian casualties would include quite some Sunni, an overrepresentation most likely. And many of them killed, either directly or indirectly by the Sunni insurgency.
This poll indicates that a
major concern among Sunnis is security. Major is left subjective, but I see little reason for this figure to be too far skewed from the truth. Can we agree that insecurity is a factor?
There is no way of verifying what the majority of Sunnis think as long as the unstable situation hinders open voting. (The Economist has a nice political cartoon about the Iraqi elections this week) So your guesses are as good as my guesses, which are more or less dependant on any numbers filtering through from Iraq. People are still debating whether the insurgency is rising or decling, whether it's 10,000 or 200,000 strong...jada jada.
I'm not so much concerned about the figures themselves, it has been pretty clear that the Sunni minority would not be very receptive to these elections. What annoyed me was the typically laconic response from JP5:
Quote:
|
Their loss. Their decision.
|
Saying it's tough luck when casting a ballot risks death, in an election in which people in general have little faith, is quite, at the lack of better word, astonishing.
Further, as this insurgency was at least partially fostered (I think most of us can agree on that) by the poor post-war handling of Iraq by the Coalition, I find it even more astonishing that the Iraqis are blamed for not risking their lives to vote for a de facto puppet government.