Was the election in Iraq a positive step for the country?

I agree wholeheartedly!

I agree that the Iraqi people aren't yet free, in the real sense of the word. But I don't think that there isn't going to be an end to the violence.

You mentioned that your source of information is the tv news. News channels such as the BBC have been heavily criticised for giving too much importance to bad news and underreporting anything else. I can understand that this sort of exposure pushes people away from a vision of a better future for the country.

It is good to read an Iraqi point of view here. It was my suspiscion that the current violence is being perpetrated by supporters of the old regime, perhaps with enlisted support from beyond Iraq's borders.

I agree that the election, however flawed, can only be good for the people of Iraq, and hope they will be able to sort things out for themselves and become self-determining.

My major concern ( a little off topic) is that this was not the reason given for going to war. (or "conflict", as I believe the politicians prefer to call it.) I wonder if things would have been different, and more public support generated had we been told that the object was to topple the tyrant and free the people of Iraq from his dominance? How many really believed the stories of WMD and the 45 minute claim?

I should really like to know from Guest whether he/she feels there might have been another way to topple Sadaam which did not involve such massive bombing, destruction and loss of life. And I would really like to know whether anyone feels there would have been more support if we had been confident from the outset that the conflict was designed to topple a cruel dictator, and not a hunt for WMDs. I have no basis for this, but I have never believed that Iraq had anything to do with Al Qaeda or Sept. 11th.

IamAmérica wrote:

Certainly NOT, I think that no system should be imposed, specially by foreign force, each country should solve their political problems on their own, doesn't matter how long it takes.

While I agree with you in theory, IAA, I can't agree with you in practice. 
It's a fine line to walk, granted, but there are times when foreign powers need to become involved in a country's problems.  Sometimes those problems (and I'm not necessarily including Iraq here, as I'm unsure) are set to affect the rest of the world.

Regards--
Lazarus

The election is not the most important point on the way to the democrocy. The aim of election is to select the proper person who can achieve a contry and a nation. The person should work hard on the behalf of his/her people. The election system are set up in most of the country. However, do these nations trully advance on the way to the democracy? We should focus on the outcome. The proceeding is not the most significant. If the elction in Iraq is genuinly done under the serious surveillance of UN, it is definitely welcomed by the world. Nevertheless, if the elcetion is aim to pose the democracy, we should split on the election. There are various way to the democracy, it doesn't matther which way we are going to choose, the point is if the democracy is introduced?