Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Afghanistan's readiness to vote debated

GRAEME SMITH

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:15 PM EST 28/07/08

Violence and government interference seen as threats to elections being scheduled for a year from now ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jim Terrets from Vancouver, writes: Gee, I wonder why these three guys are considered the "serious" Presidential candidates?

    Hamid Karzai -- close ties to the CIA and alleged connections with US oil companies
    Ali Jalali -- US citizen since 1987, worked for "Voice of America"
    Zalmay Khalilzad -- US representative to United Nations

    Unsurprisingly, these three "serious contenders" seem to have something in common. This is why this whole election is a joke. How can you have an unbiased election when the three leading Presidential contenders all have strong ties to the US and a US army is occupying Afghanistan?

    Let not forget that in Afghanistan's first "election", Karzai was flown around Afghanistan by US military transports and protected by US bodyguards. This whole exercise is nothing more than the US picking a new leader for their new colony. It's tragic and sad that Canada is involved in this pathetic situation.
  2. Lee Turner from Canada writes: Jim: Hamid Karzai worked for Unocal, no alleged about it.
  3. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: So its a lot like the first Bosnian elections post Yugoslavia...there will be stumbles, violence, etc but the elections will happen and another step forward will occur.
  4. J. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Ucant, there are elections and there are farces masquerading as elections. This, like the last is one of the latter. I'm sure a few embedded journalists will be found to depict a few paid Afghan shills proudly waving their purple thumbs.

    Harper should send representatives from Elections Canada, one of the most trusted electoral watchdog organizations in the world, renowned for their integrity and thoroughness to monitor the election. Surely they will root out any corruption....... Oh... Wait a minute......
  5. Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring Island, Canada writes: I think we should send George Bush to oversee the election in Afghanistan. By next year he'll be unemployed, he has a lot of experience in 'managing' elections, and he can demonstrate how much security has improved by visiting Afghan villages 'without armed escort'.
  6. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes:

    Any doubt that this "election" will be even more a farce than the last is erased by the last words in the first paragraph:

    "popular disaffection may distort the results."

    LOL! Funny how that weird thing works in this so-called democracy, "popular disaffection". No one asks how popular disaffection with Bush may distort the results, no whisper how popular disaffection in Canada may see Harper and his Bungling Band of Born Again Bumpkins facing unemployment in our next election.

    Whither comes this "distorting" popular disaffection? Is it distortion to be disaffected by the carpet bombing of one's family, mass murder, heroin trafficking, gross corruption, foreign occupation, no electricity, etc etc etc....?

    I guess as far as ISAF is concerned, the Popular Will will no longer be "distorted" when everyone dresses up in red, white and blue, sings America The Beautiful, and asks how many more of their children can they volunteer to be shredded by a Hellfire missile for the sake of the electoral agendas of US politicians.

    The byllshyt is getting piled so high in Afghanistan, you'd need an airplane to get above it.
  7. Brent Beach from Canada writes: The implicit faith in democracy is interesting - if we can only get everyone out to vote safely we will have a good result. Somehow, the people know what they need. Strange. The US elected George Bush twice and they are a much more informed electorate.

    Voting and democracy does not guarantee anything. You also need open and responsible government, an independent and honest judiciary, ..., you all know the drill. Right now Afghanistan does not have any of that. Western powers are supporting Karzai, our guy, in spite of this. That is a mistake.

    US support for a developing country over the last 150 years is almost always about commercial gain, not democracy, although democracy is the usual cover story. Read Otherthrow by Stephen Kinzer.

    In my opinion, the EU countries have a better approach. Canada should align its policies on Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan with the EU line. We would then be joined, perhaps, by the US under Obama next year (rather than following as Obama moves to that model).
  8. Tom Weller from Canada writes:
    Can you talk about a fair democratic election in any country where they are suffering the consequences of a yet unsettled regime change brought on them by outside forces, foreign interest? That government which is propped up by alien armies cannot be labeled democratic, neither their stage managed elections.

    Democratic - that magic word which heals all wrongs, disarms those pestering critics – when plastered to the ugly blemishes on Afghanistan like a makeup, is an oxymoron.
  9. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Any meaningful election would come with a negotiated cease fire, and amnesty to allow the Taliban to run candidates , which is no more absurd than expecting a peasant population to " vote out" their warlord or their druglords.
  10. Khalid Rahim from Canada writes: 'Jim Terrets from Vancouver' both Karzai and Khalilzad worked for Unocal.
    The latter became close to Wolfowitz and both worked towards the invasion
    of Afghanistan when Bush succeeded in 2000. After the Taliban were routed Khalilzad could have become the President! but he had different thoughts then, such as being accepted in the inner circle of ''Neocons'' and
    to be recognized as senior US diplomat. Now depending who wins in Nov'08
    he will then decide to contest the seat in Kabul or remain with State Department.
  11. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Not yet ready to vote!? Oh get over yourselves. With three hand-picked candidates, how can you go wrong?
  12. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: "Constitution of Afghanistan, Article Sixty-Two

    Ch. 3, Art. 3

    Presidential candidates should posses the following qualifications:

    Should be citizen of Afghanistan, Muslim and born of Afghan parents, and should not have citizenship of another country."

    No doubt there will be a stampede amongst those top candidates to relinquish their American citizenships.
  13. Khalid Rahim from Canada writes: If true democracy is the real plan of the West; Then allow Taliban along with other parties to contest the election. The elections must be conducted
    under UN and OIC whose members are not associated with NATO or allied to US. Clear warning must be given to the warlords of all factions, that any
    interference in the elections will only prolong the occupation of the country
    by external forces and lead to disintegration of the country. The obstacle to
    this proposal will not be any Afghan faction, but the WhiteHouse for its neocon occupants will lose their vested interest.
  14. Rubbish Binny from Canada writes: Why even give them a chance, eh? You all cut them down before they have a chance to stand up. Just give them a chance. Sorry the situation can't be resolved overnight. Whiners and complainers, the future of Canada in a nutshell. Wonder why the G&M doesn`t print the story of the muslimgroup in China threatning to attack the Olympics. Oh, it doesnt cut down Canadian interests enough.
  15. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Rubbish Binny - it would be nice to see the people of Afghanistan given a chance. The election is still a year away and a lot could happen by then. Of course, people here would rather see the situation get worse so they can dump more dirt on the US and President Karzai - they don't really care about the people whose lives hang in the balance. A lot depends on our allies dealing with the drug problem - again people criticize Karzai but it was the UK and Sweden who were against aerial eradication which has been proven to be the most effective approach. And given the NATO has not provided the military support for the ANA and the ground eradication team that has not accomplished much either because of the lack of security. It is so easy sit here and 'demand' that Karzai and the people of Afghanistan perform miracles and immediately solve problems that Western countries have not been able to fix at home. I wonder how many of the self-righteous posters would give up their vehicles or anything else if it would help the situation - my guess is none. The only ones that are willing to put their lives on the line for what they believe in is our troops - and what do they get in return? criticism and insults.
  16. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Catherine Medernach:

    Where did you plagiarize your last post from? Little Green Footballs?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top