Election in Iraq

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 10:53 PM

Read my posts for once, Doug R, and stop staring at Rush and your own navel.

That's right, Bush-haters-------as in my main source of criticism of Bush and Bushites-----the Wall St Journal, as I like to say--that well-known leftist rag.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 10:50 PM

Dianavan--

Kurdish Islam will probably not be a crucial element.   The Kurds are by and large rather secular in outlook and more prosperous than the rest of Iraq, already somewhat Westernized, but also with ties to Turkish culture (there are 20 million Kurds in Turkey).

Not all the oil fields are in Kurdish territory. The US (and the UK) wants access to all of them, so would want to avoid choosing between between an Iraqi state (for which many US and UK soldiers have already died) and a Kurdish entity. As I said earlier, the Kurds
1) are in the driver's seat as to makeup of the Iraqi parliament
2) are also aware that outright independence would bring enmity of many larger neighbors (especially Turkey, with its own 20 million Kurds).
The Kurds cannot even claim outright ownership of Kirkuk for the same reason.

My point with the parallel between Islam and Christianity is that in both cases there's a whole range of strictness of belief. In Islam, it's not Sharia or nothing--just as in Christianity it's not Jerry Falwell or nothing.

Believe it or not, Bush wants to get out of Iraq ASAP--so long as the US has access to Iraqi oil. He definitely wants to stop the body bags coming back from Iraq--as long as the dead are Iraqi, no sweat off his nose. He may even have sense enough (though this is presuming a lot) to realize how damn lucky he is that the despised UN made possible an Iraqi face on the resistance to the insurgency.

Of course he's too stubborn, narrowminded, obtuse, and duplicitous to admit the whole invasion was made just to fulfill his own pre-conceived plan, without any regard to facts.
Remember what he said when, in debate, he was asked to name any mistakes he'd made in the past 4 years.

Interesting you would raise the possibility of Kurdish independence in exchange for control of the oil fields in Kurdish Iraq. A variation of that is, in fact, a fall-back position of the Bush "administration", according to the Wall St Journal editorial page, usually a pretty accurate reflection of Bushite plans.

The idea would be that if Iraq does disintegrate into warring factions, the Iraqi oil fields being targets, the US would choose to intensify support of a Kurdish de facto state; indeed the US has already been supporting that state since the end of the Gulf War.
At that point, control of the oil fields wouldn't even be necessary. The Kurds would know who their #1 protector is and access would be no problem. But this is not a Bushite goal, since by doing this they would be alienating both Turkey and whatever Iraqi state existed.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 10:38 PM

Ron: but it's perfectly acceptable for you, Amos, and others to quote Bushhaters and expect that we accept that as truth, right? I don't think so.

DougR

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 03:20 AM

Ron -

1. You're right, it is now a moot point. One thing for sure is that the Kurds do not trust the Sunnis and that Kurdish Islam is more mystical than a Theocracy could ever tolerate. For some reason the Kurds are putting a lot of faith in the U.S. (oh-oh) and it makes you wonder about the electorate in general. Lets face it, the oil fields are in Kurdish terristory so of course the U.S. will be their buddies. You don't suppose the U.S. will help the Kurds gain independence and then try to control the oil fields, do you? This is getting messier and messier.

2. There are many forms of Protestants but they must all learn the apostles creed, "...I believe in the holy Catholic Church,..." so basically Christians all have the same roots. Through time, there have been many splinters and reformations. Every congregation is different but they all share a similar belief system.

If you want to relate it to the situation in Iraq, the U.S. should get out and let Islam sort it out. Seems that everyone except the Kurds are hoping that happens.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 11:35 PM

Obviously, William Sloane Coffin would have been a better choice for my comparison than Berrigan. But the parallel holds.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 11:30 PM

Dianavan--

1) It's likely this discussion will be a moot point. Without a clear majority--- (the Shi'ites took 48.2% of the votes, which according to the way the voting system works, will give them a slim majority in the new parliament--140 of 275 seats (Wall St Journal 15 Feb 2005)---they will need a coalition partner. Therefore, even if they wanted to, they will not be able to install a Shi'ite theocracy in Iraq.

They will have to compromise with their coalition partner. It seems evident to me that partner has to be the Kurds. Not only are the Kurds the #2 vote-getters, but if they are not included in the government, they will have no incentive to send oil revenues from their part of Iraq to the central government.

2) Yes, I am splitting hairs, just as if I were to allege that the Jerry Falwell brand of Protestantism is different from that of Martin Luther King or Philip Berrigan. What's your view on this?

From what I read and hear, the Iraqi Shi'ite leaders, including al-Sistani, are not enthusiastic about a Saudi or Iranian-type Moslem state.

Thus, for many reasons, Iraq will not be a state ruled by Sharia.

Still waiting for any evidence from you that it will.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 04:45 PM

Ron - You said, "what he intends is that the constitution to be written is compatible with Islam but that Iraq is not ruled by clerics, nor does he intend to make Sharia the law of Iraq."

What I said is, "Sistani has already said that Sharia will be the rule of law for Muslims in Iraq and that the constitution will have to be in line with the law of the Koran."

I don't see the big difference. Are you splitting hairs?

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:03 PM

Doug--

All you have to do is actually read a thread before you comment, and start quoting non-Bushite sources rather than constantly regurgitating half-digested lines by Limbaugh, Hannity etc, and we'll get along fine.

I'm fully aware there are many positions on political issues---but sources and facts count--or there's no point to debating.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 10:57 PM

Dianavan-

From what I read and hear, al-Sistani does not in fact have the intention of pushing for Sharia in Iraq. Again I ask you for your source that he does have that intention, with exact quotes by him. According to a radio program dealing with this issue tonight, including Iraqis (as well as American Enterprise Institute people and Washington Post correspondents), what he intends is that the constitution to be written is compatible with Islam but that Iraq is not ruled by clerics, nor does he intend to make Sharia the law of Iraq. What is more likely is that it will vary by region--in some areas religious law will have more application than in others, for instance in forbidding the sale of alcohol at certain times.

If you have contrary information, please share it---with sources.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 01:02 PM

Ron - I am not overwrought about Iraq instituting Sharia immediately. Sistani has already said that Sharia will be the rule of law for Muslims in Iraq and that the constitution will have to be in line with the law of the Koran.

It may not happen right away but, I think, the Iraqi govt. will pay lip service to western democracy until they are in a strong position to impose the laws of Sharia. Read what Sistani has said regarding the constitution.

At this time, the Kurds seem to want positions of power within the new govt. They would rather be independent but it seems they are trying to achieve a compromise.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 01:01 PM

Sorry, Ron, but your posts don't bother me a bit. The arrogance you show in your posts from time to time (particularly when you preach to someone) is a bit amusing though.

DougR

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 07:55 AM

From what I read today, it appears that neither al-Sistani nor al-Hakim, the man who heads the victorious slate in the Iraq elections. have any intention of instituting Sharia in Iraq anytime soon. So Dianavan's fears appear overwrought, at least for now.

Now we'll see if the problems I raised will be serious--unreasonable expectations of immediate 24-hour water, electricity and lots of jobs as a result of voting--and the idea of taking majority rule but not minority rights seriously.

Added to this, it's still pretty clear that the Kurdish north wants very little to do with the central Iraqi government---all they want is continued autonomy and eventual independence, actually sooner rather than later.

Will the central Iraqi government, weak as it's likely to be, be getting any oil revenues from the Kurdish north? The Kurds, whether part of the new government ( as the number 2 vote-getters) or outside it, will probably not want to cede any power to the government.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 07:40 PM

I would fairly much agree with that assessment, Wolfgang. I do not regard everyone who fights against foreign occupation of Iraq to be a terrorist, though. I think the Americans and British are committing terrorism, in fact...under the guise of fighting it. No "terrorist" thinks of himself as a terrorist. He thinks of himself as someone fighting for a worthy cause...or for a command structure he is loyal to, at least.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 05:55 PM

...Shiites winning absolute majority of the seat and close to absolute majority of the votes with a 59 % turnout is a good result. This result will turn out (I hope) to be equally unpalatable to the foreign and native terrorists and to the USA led coalition.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 05:51 PM

Thanks for the link to the very interesting Chomsky article, McGrath. His position is a (to me) welcome break from the usual complaints read at the beginning of this thread. These elections have been a (moderate) success story for Iraq

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 01:43 PM

Doug--

Who made an assertion both smug and absurd that Bush's policies are helping the world political situation? Clue. It wasn't me.

Who specializes in talking off the top of his head, and feels free to use his imagination when allegedly discussing history or politics (e.g. extensive neo-Nazi violence in Germany 1945-1955)? Not I.

Who made a snide comment about the Bush indifference thread belonging on Amos' thread, then a few days later had convieniently forgotten about the actual indifference thread topic, nor did he make the terribly strenuous effort to actually find out about it?   Look in the mirror.

As I've said several times before, it is perhaps asking too much to expect a Bushite to actually read carefully and think before he posts, but it would be refreshing.

It breaks my heart that my postings seem to bother you.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 12:06 PM

Ron: YOU talk about smugness? Re-read your last post.

DougR

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 11:37 PM

Larry K--

Not only do you owe Bev and Jerry an apology, but also, based on your track record, you have no credibility on either political issues or history.

For example, I'm still waiting for your proof of the extensive neo-Nazi violence in Germany 1945-1955 that you were waffling on about in your usual incoherence.

Your only possible hope of being taken seriously is to start quoting non-Bushite sources, as I do not quote Howard Dean, Michael Moore or Al Franken.

You have a history of wild generalizations. Your latest fits right in.

Also, smugness does not become you, besides being premature, to say the least. To ascribe improvement in the world political situation to Bush is, to put it mildly, dubious. He is, after all, the American who has been responsible for more deaths, both American and non-American, than any president since the Vietnam War--as responsible as if he had held a gun to the head of each one----the reason being that the war he started was entirely unnecessary.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 09:34 PM

Larry K.:

You still owe us an apology for your demeaning post of 31 January at 10:03 AM in which you said, "I reread all the threads from the beginning.   Starting with "do you think a 10% vote would be considered a victory for the Bush people?" Do any of you feel guilty about how wrong you were? Especially Bev and Jerry?   My guess is no.    You have been wrong on everything for 50 straight years. Why stop now."

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 09:55 AM

To quote Rich Mullings:

"Don't look now, but the Bush Doctrine appears to be working...

Four months ago the election in Afganastan went so see you haven't read a word about it in months

In the Ukraine two months ago Viktor Yushchenko, the candidate considered closest to the West, won the second election: the first having been declared fatally flawed by the Ukranian Supreme Court

One month ago, the Palastinians elected Mahmoud Abbas to replace the late Yassis Arafat as their president.    Abbas ran on a platform of moderation.   (this morning he fired three top security generals for allowing the attack on Israel- a very good sign- LK)

Ten days ago the Iraqis voted to elect its Tranistional Assembly.   Sunni Muslims more or less boycotted the election...Three days ago the Sunni leadership, recognizing tha the world considered the election to be legitimate, realized they better get in on the deal and have decided to join the Assembly.

Yesterday, Abbas and Isreali Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met in Sharm el-Sheikh to announce the cessation of violence providing the first real glimmer of peace in over three years (there is still of lot that has to be done but Syria and Egype have returned ambassadors to Israel- that is surely a good sign as well- LK)

Do you see a pattern here? A pattern of (dare we sy it) freedom and liberty" .... Rich Galen

Some of you do.   Vast majority of you don't.   We need more Ward Churchills and Howard Deans, and Nancy Pelosi's, (and mudcatters) to make sure that democrats and progressives never win enough elections to have control of this country.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:34 AM

Here is a piece by Noam Chomsky on the elections which makes interesting reading.

Here are the opening paragraphs:

In many respects, the elections were successful. The main success, however, is being mentioned only marginally, by a few reporters: the US was compelled to allow them to take place.

That is a real triumph of non-violent resistance, for which Sistani has been the symbol. The US sought in every possible way to avoid elections, but has been compelled to back down, step-by-step. First, it tried to ram through a US-written constitution. That was barred by a Sistani fatwa. Then it tried to impose one or another device (caucuses, etc.) that could be controlled completely. Also blocked by non-violent resistance. It continued until finally the US (and UK, trailing obediently behind) had no recourse but to allow an election—and of course, the doctrinal system went into high gear to present it as a US initiative, once it could no longer be avoided...

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:24 AM

Ake--

It's not democracy which is seductive, but Western culture (Disney, Coke etc). Actually, as I'm sure you know, there is a danger that Iraqis will quickly turn cynical about democracy itself when 24 hour water, electricity, and lots of jobs don't magically appear as a result of voting. Another danger is that they will take the majority-rule part of it and the majority will forget about the "rights of the minority" part.


Also, as I said earlier, the Kurds want nothing to do with Iraq anyway--they want independence or, failing that, no diminution of their current de facto autonomous status.

Regarding your cynical statement about democracy, remember what Churchill said about democracy.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:14 AM

Dianavan--


First--Sistani has said Sharia will be the law of the land---your source, please.
Second--by this you mean he is saying that Sharia, with its chopping off the hands of thieves, and stoning adulterers to death, will be Iraqi law?---otherwise what is the point of your post?

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 02:12 AM

Tonight on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, his guests were two generals, one especially well versed in Iraqi politics and history. That one, in particular, was somberly pessimistic about what is happening. Their concensus was that unless the Shia's bring the Sunnis and the Kurds into the government with approximately 25% representation each, Iraq's future is heavily freighted toward civil war.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Feb 05 - 09:07 PM

I think it's large-scale capitalism (meaning, centralized control of marketing by giant multi-national corporations) that is causing tremendous damage. It's quite similar in a sense to centralized communism, only it's tied directly to profit, rather than solely to authoritative power. Money itself then becomes the authoritative power, the invisible ruler.

Small scale capitalism strikes me as quite healthy and natural.

The future scenarios you propose are quite interesting, Mary. I hope things do move in that direction. The tendency toward centralization tends to oppose such a move.

I'm in favour of more local autonomy, more local creativity, more local representation...combining capitalism and socialism. Capitalism to market products, socialism to maintain a generally decent level of life and education and medical care for people.

That sounds to me a bit like what the Indians had before the whites arrived in North America...

I don't regard the present American policy in Iraq to be anything more than misleading propaganda in service of oil companies and military objectives. Iraqis, naturally, are hoping for a change for the better, so they will grasp at whatever straw is presented, but I think the American political moves in Iraq are as unreal as their political moves in South Vietnam were in the 60's and early 70's...and as self-serving.

Ake, you are quite right when you assert that corporate capitalism is directly opposed to the central teachings of Christianity...if Christianity is based on what Jesus taught and demonstrated. He said that you cannot serve two masters...God and money...you must choose between them. God is Love. Money is material gain and worldly power. The ruling system in North America and in most of the World at present serves money first, and all else after that. "Love" is only commonly presented in this culture as sexual attraction/infatuation, for the most part, but a society must be run on the larger principles of Love in action if it is to build a genuine community of freedom, equality, and justice.

A community build on the raw power of money is little more than a den of thieves.

Money is arbitrary. It's an invented thing. We could live entirely without it. Love is not, and we cannot really live without it.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Feb 05 - 08:23 PM

Mary..In some ways I agree with you on how small units would be the ideal for the future.
Not quite so sure about agricultural based society though, as it was agriculture that caused all this mess to begin with.
If however, you were intent on dividing society into smaller self sufficient units, the biggest tyranny which you would have to overcome would be the Capitalist system, which you have supported strongly in many past threads.
At the moment ,Capitalism remains the biggest impediment to a better ,more fulfilling life, and must be removed before any significant progress can be made.Ake

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 09 Feb 05 - 11:54 AM

Speaking about elections in Iraq. One of the neighbouring countries, Saudi Arabia, will have local elections soon:
50 % of the seats are taken by candidates preselected by the SA Royals. Women can't vote. No, not what you think, there are purely administrative reasons for that: (1) Most SA women do not have identitiy cards with photos (2) there are not enough female helpers to man (sorry, woman) all the separate voting stations necessary for the female voters. But in 2009, maybe.

How an SA-spokesman can announce this reasoning and keep a straight face expecting the listeners to believe him is hard to understand. he might have learned from Comical Ali.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 11:14 PM

Ron - Sistani has already said that Sharia will be the rule of law for Muslims in Iraq and that the constitution will have to be in line with the law of the Koran.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: mg
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 10:11 PM

The future I see is very different. I think we are teetering back from the brink of nuclear war. It could still happen, as could various other scenarios. I think we are reversing in many places the population explosion. We will find ways, and have them I am sure locked in storage somewhere, to totally replace oil. i think THEY will ride the wave as long as they can and then unlock the closet with all the new toys. I think that as the industrial revolution sighs its last sighs, many more people in developed countries will return to agriculture on a small, specialized and local scale. We will return more to village rather than big city life. We will quit building with wood, which is wasteful and nuts in many disaster-prone areas of the world, and build more with stone and earth/ceramic/sand, which will bring money to places with a lot of those items, which tend to be poor countries by default. We will think in smaller terms...we don't need huge windfarms..we need lots of small units everywhere. We need households to produce their own electricity or whatever replaces it. We need to work less, get outside more, and that will result in increased health etc. Work will be distributed more fairly..some now work way to much (even me) and some too little, for lack of education, opportunity etc. Education will be much more easy to spread...everything is in place. Literacy will be almost universal. Health care needs will be greatly diminished. Agriculture, particularly animal husbandry, will involve many more people and the products will be much more humane and safe. This is not the far future..ten or twenty years I would say.

Some tyrannies will dissolve as their people just assume they are free people. Some tyrannies will need to be blasted out of place. As more people are free, many problems just dissolve..how to vaccinate children, how to get food to disaster areas...it is way easier if no one is shooting at the delivery team.

Part of the energy that will go into these changes will come from each of us and how much doom and gloom we put out for the entire world to see has its effect. I think we have to take that into consideration..it's like spreading viruses etc...which by the way are a big problem and will get worse, especially as people join the ranks of the promiscuous. Value laden term..the multiple sequentially partnered.

Well, let's meet in ten years and see what is happening. mg

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 06:10 PM

Ron.. The "trojan" is not Allawi as an American puppet but the "democratic" process itself.

The western leaders know that the promise of "instant gratification" contained within their version of democracy is very seductive and will ultimately lead to the dilution of Islam in much the same way that the power of the Christian church has been decimated in the West.

Although Bush and his accomplices like to use Christian imagery to fool the public,and perhaps themselves,In reality the Capitalist system is anti-Christian in concept..Ake

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 08:32 AM

Ake--

I had a lot more to say--can't remember right now-- but just off the top of my head----

Any predictions of a Shi'ite republic in Iraq are decidedly premature for several reasons. If Sistani's group doesn't get an outright majority, they'll have to form a coalition   with another group. If they do get an outright majority, they still will probably not be able to do it. Saddam, during his long rule, tried hard to secularize Iraq, til towards the end, he decided to try to get on the right side of the theocrats. But as a result of the earlier years, the majority of Iraqis are now accustomed to living under secular government----neither Sistani nor anybody else will likely be able to institute Sharia, for instance, even if that's the long-term plan--for which you still have no evidence.

Re: Trojan Horse-- Trojan Horse implies guile or deceit. Allawi knew what he was doing--and who his paymasters were. If he's in fact totally rejected--can't even be part of a coalition--then he also cannot be seen as a successful Trojan Horse strategy.

The only thing that's virtually certain at this point is that nobody better try to bring the Kurds more strongly under any central Iraqi government---they like their autonomy and mean to keep it--the main question there is if they'll get official independence any time soon---as I said earlier that's unlikely.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:13 AM

Hawk...When I look at the future,I see a post Orwellian world.

Class conflict rather than national conflict.
The whole world divided into stratas.
The ruling elite ,necessary workers and Army, and a huge criminal underclass.
All the planets resources owned by the ruling class and protected by their army.
A continuous state of war with the underclass.
World population would be allowed to drop by 75% for easier management.
Democracy,a long forgotten ideal.

Just like science-fiction really.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 09:11 PM

The problem is, though, after that they would still need to find another enemy...in order to continue mass producing weapons of war and satisifying their hunger for military contracts. Who would it be?

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 08:58 PM

Maybe so...

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 08:55 PM

Maybe you are right LH, but I think Russia and China are too "locked in " to the system to initiate a global war.

The Islamists are the only people left with ideolgical differences .

These differences are based on culture and religion, and are pretty impervious to Western "democracy"
The Russians are already at war in Chechnya, against Muslims that we were supporting not long ago; so they have more to gain by supporting the US.

China can see future power throught economic strength, and would certainly ally themselves with US.

In my opinion this alliance will destroy fundamentalist Islam, either by "democratisation" or if it becomes necessary by the use of WMDs

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 08:13 PM

You think the USA will be out of Iraq in a year or two, Dianavan? I doubt it, unless the Bush government is brought down by some really incredible scandal that totally discredits the war in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans.

I think they are presently preparing for an attack on Iran. If that goes ahead, they will hit Iran from both Iraq and Afghanistan, in a pincer movement...and they will have Iraqi and Afghan resistance fighters at their backs (plenty of them) and millions of Iranians in front of them. Iranians have shown in the past that they are willing to give hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives in the defence of their soil. It will not be nice. It could even end up provoking the 3rd World War if Russia and China decide to get involved.

I frankly hope that I am completely wrong about this, and that you are right, and the USA brings its soldiers home from Iraq soon.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 06:49 PM

I think you are right, Frank. Iraq will seem moderate for a year or so (at least until the U.S. troops are out) and then they will unite with Iran as a defense against Israel and the U.S.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 04:36 PM

Doug, the elections haven't solved anything. Why? Because they were a sham. They didn't include the Sunnis. The estimate of turnout is not as high as was reported here in the American press. The elections may have made some Shia Iraqis feel better but they will be sorely disappointed when they find that the occupying troops will stay in their country. The Bush Administration would like to establish military bases in Iraq to escalate the war to Iran.

In short, the Iraqi people are being mislead. At least the Unocal minister, Allawi, was defeated.


As for democracy in Iraq, the Shia community may well side with Iran to oust American troops. This would make the government a theocracy and strengthen Al Qaida.

If you are interested in my sources of information, I would be glad to share them with you.

Frank

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 01:49 PM

Doug... I saw the light as far as politics are concerned ,long ago.

Actually I was quite a conservative in my very young days.
Experience in the building trade soon convinced me that something was wrong.

The firm I started with, used to send the workers 50 miles on open lorries in the middle of winter. When we complained they threw us tarpulin covers to pull over our heads.

It wasn't too hard to work out that we we of no value personally, only what we produced!!

Our leaders still have the same attitude to the ordinary people of Iraq.
Only pawns to be used in the game...

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 04:06 PM

I'm optimistic about Life, Doug. :-) (and I don't mean the magazine) I'm also optimistic about the chances of the USA eventually getting kicked out of the Middle East just like they were out of Southeast Asia...or the Russians were out of Aghanistan. It won't be easy, it'll take time and many lives, but they will get kicked out.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 02:33 PM

Sorry Heric ...Didn't see you lurkin there.

No I didn't think the Election was fixed.
These people couldn't fix their supper.

Once again they've got it wrong . Just another blunder in a long line of blunders.

"Democracy my arse".......Ake

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 02:23 PM

Alternatively...he could ask Ron or Greg.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 02:19 PM

But I thought you said the election was fixed?

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 02:16 PM

The Times...4th Feb 2005.

A Shia coalision backed by Grand Ayatolla Ali al Sistani emerged last night as the force likely to dominate government after last Sundays election.

In Shia areas, Sistanis' group polled 71.6 %.
Prime Minister Allawis' group "a long way behind" on 18.1%.


"Oh fuck George, what we gonna do now"?


"Shut up and get your tits out Condi".

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 12:14 PM

Ake: you almost got me. I read your post stating your opinion about why the West wants to establish democracies and thought you finally see the light. Then you finished the sentence, and I realized that you didn't. In my opinion they want to establish democracies because democracies don't attack each other.

L.H.: You wouldn't recognize optimism if it jumped up and bit you in the ass. Have you EVER been optimistic about anything? (other than the U.S. is responsible for all of the ills of the world).

DougR

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 08:58 AM

If any Iraqis are actually afraid of an attack from Israel, then American troops incountry are an awesome insurance policy.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 04:38 AM

Ron ...Good post .
Time is short this morning, but dont discount the Trojan Horse theory.
In my opinion, the West sees "democracy" as the means of breaking the power of the Mullahs and ensuring a government which will be easier to manipulate.

The piety of the muslims is the big headache for the west.

To be able to manipulate people you must have something that they want.
At the moment, the Islamic peoples still want God more than they do Mamon....Ake

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 12:14 AM

I'm only speculating, Ron.

Without outside interference, the Iraqi and Iranian people are traditionally Muslim and would probably welcome the strength in unity. Don't forget, its politicians who wage war, not people.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 11:33 PM

Dianavan--

The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988--17 years ago. It was a vicious war, with horrendous casualties. What makes you think they are willing to form one republic,----( and with Afghanistan, no less) a country not exactly the most easy-going in the world)--- no matter what religious aspects they may share,? (an assertion which is also not proven). If you have info we don't have, please tell us.

Subject: RE: Election in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 11:18 PM

Ake--

Actually we agree on quite a few issues:

1) Bush intended from the start of his "administration" to attack Iraq.

2) US government thought Iraq war would be a walkover (except possibly some rough times in street to street fighting in Bagdad) and did not bargain for extensive "post-war" hostilities. Though of course the Bushites never did explain how you can declare victory and then say it was just part of the "war on terror", which by definition will never be over.

3) Bush intended to use any excuse he could find to attack Iraq.



We still differ on:

1) It's not all that easy to prove the absence of something in a police state like Saddam's. Therefore speculation was of necessity involved as to whether WMD's were there or not. Bush wanted to believe they were, so seized on any rumor supporting his proposed plan, while disregarding any info which didn't fit his simplistic narrow (non)-thinking.

2) "Democratic Trojan Horse"---that's too much conspiracy theory for me. Bush wanted a war--usually helps a president politically if he can claim he won it--and he did make that unfounded claim--probably similar to the report by the British general who chased Washinton's rabble out of the New York area in 1776.

Bush had a bonus--the rather slow US electorate (51% at any rate) also swallowed his line that Kerry, by not being 100% for the war, was unpatriotic. The brilliant 51% did not realize, evidently, that the war was totally unnecessary, so all the dead on all sides were Bush's doing.

The democratization was never thought out, nor was anything beyond smashing Saddam's army. Bush did not reckon with Saddam's plan, right from the start, of continuing guerilla warfare. Especially the "collateral damage" from the war and its aftermath made and makes a great recruiting tool for Moslem radicals all over the world.

Bush is damn lucky that the despised United Nations pulled his chestnuts out of the fire, as I stated in the" Irony: Bush and the UN" thread 16 April 2004 9:57 PM and 11:15 PM,--- by facilitating the selection of an interim Iraqi leader to start the "Iraqization" (read Vietnamization) of the war. This put an Iraqi face on opposition to the insurgents and undercut the "Crusader" theory.




Note:

Interestingly, today's Wall St Journal 3 Feb 2005 supports my speculation of yesterday--that Allawi and the Kurds will form a majority--if that's so, Sistani, far from "outflanking everybody", will himself be outflanked, if indeed he had plans for an Islamic republic soon---which, as I said earlier, you have provided no evidence for.