Democratic Deficit

[Donutboy 0]

Democratic Deficit

Leader

Tuesday February 24, 2004

The Guardian

As in Iraq, hopes of timely democratic elections are fading in Afghanistan. The new UN envoy, Jean Arnault, says longstanding plans to hold presidential and parliamentary polls in June are still alive. But in practice, slippage over one or both seems unavoidable.

Lack of security in the country beyond Kabul is the main obstacle. Afghanistan has been experiencing the worst upsurge in violence since the Taliban were overthrown in 2001; over 550 people have died since August. Recent suicide bombings, a phenomenon previously unknown in Afghanistan, have underscored the threat. British and Canadian peacekeepers were among the victims last month. Afghan and foreign aid workers, de-miners and reconstruction companies have been targeted by the insurgents, who include al-Qaida and Taliban remnants, and who continue to terrorise swaths of the south and east.

A spokesman for the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, has warned ordinary Afghans that participation in the elections will expose them to reprisals. Afghanistan has about 10.5m eligible voters, but so far only about 1 million have been registered. Mr Arnault says he hopes to open 4,200 registration centres by May.

Hope is the operative word in this context. Despite agreeing last October to expand their 6,000-strong peacekeeping mission beyond Kabul and one or two other centres, Nato countries have failed to come up with additional troops on the scale required. At the same time, an internal Nato report appeared to criticise the UN for not moving quickly enough to organise the polls. But as the EU commissioner Chris Patten has suggested, holding successful elections on schedule will be impossible if security does not rapidly improve. This is the primary responsibility of allied forces. Mr Patten was also understandably unimpressed by the Nato-led force's efforts to curb the opium trade, which has boomed since the 2001 invasion. Russia accuses Nato of ignoring heroin trafficking in return for the loyalty of regional warlords.

By far the largest, most powerful military force in Afghanistan is American. The US has over 10,000 troops there. But they keep themselves apart from the under-strength Nato operation. They are concentrating instead on big spring offensives on either side of the border with Pakistan. Advancing Pakistani troops are to be the "hammer" that forces fleeing insurgents on to the waiting US "anvil". An unspoken aim is finally to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, if they possibly can, before George Bush faces his own voters. Afghanistan's elections are, it seems, a tad less important than America's.

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

once again the democrats precious UN is a failure!!!!

In the words of Gomer Pyle "surprise, surprise"

Let's let the UN handle all of our foriegn policy issues

[Donutboy 0]

once again the democrats precious UN is a failure!!!!

In the words of Gomer Pyle "surprise, surprise"

Let's let the UN handle all of our foriegn policy issues

The Bush administration is more worried about the American elections than in helping Afghanistan and Iraq establish free elections. Surprise! Surprise!

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

once again the democrats precious UN is a failure!!!!

In the words of Gomer Pyle "surprise, surprise"

Let's let the UN handle all of our foriegn policy issues

The Bush administration is more worried about the American elections than in helping Afghanistan and Iraq establish free elections. Surprise! Surprise!

According to your Democrat talking points we should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Therefore you have no interest in their elections either. If we were to listen to the Demos, we would still have Sadam and the Taliban. So much for free elections.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

once again the democrats precious UN is a failure!!!!

In the words of Gomer Pyle "surprise, surprise"

Let's let the UN handle all of our foriegn policy issues

The Bush administration is more worried about the American elections than in helping Afghanistan and Iraq establish free elections. Surprise! Surprise!

According to your Democrat talking points we should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Therefore you have no interest in their elections either. If we were to listen to the Demos, we would still have Sadam and the Taliban. So much for free elections.

Most Democrats, including me, overwhelming supported going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. Those are not the "Democratic talking points" by a long shot. In fact, all the major Dem candidates clearly distinguished that action from Iraq. I even heard Ralph Nader support it tonight, so the Greens, or whatever the hell he is now, even support it. The point is, Bush became distracted from doing the job right. Imagine that.

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

If Bush was distracted, how do explain the recent death of a major Al Qaida operative just yesterday. We are still actively and effectively fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and here at home.

Although you may not agree that Iraq is or was a terrorist state, you must understand that this is a global effort, and we ARE WINNING!!!!

[eibua12 81]

So let us think about this for a moment. When was the last time this part of the world had any election... not a history major but I would say never... so after 10,000 years of opression we expect that elections can be instituted just like that.

This is a complete culture change you need to get rid of the fear before you can make a change.

I will be interested to see in 15 years if Bush can actually finish his plan how the world will see our(U.S.) involvement in that part of the world today.

You think we have it bad in this country most of their wealth is in ,just a guess, top .01% of the population with the rest very poor. Help build a strong government get rid of the hatred for the west and massess they have hope.

Then they to can deal with crappy schools, unemployment, and a degradation of morals.