|
26 Jan 05 - 11:56 AM (#1389091) Subject: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,native Guest Do you think a 10 % vote in Iraq ,would be concidered an a victory for the Bush people? |
|
26 Jan 05 - 12:15 PM (#1389126) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: breezy Let us pray for the people of that poor country, rehabilitation takes time, considering the problems that srill exist, its good that any kind of progress is being made. Any progress is better than none so all credit to those who are trying especially the politicians who take on the responsibiblity often at the risk to their own lives. Its still a mess in Israel. It was once a bigger mess in Northern Ireland 'let peace prevail' and hope in the future for mankind. Never lose sight of the responsibility of your vote in a democracy. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 01:21 PM (#1389215) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST It was never a bigger mess in Northern Ireland. Get things in perspective! |
|
26 Jan 05 - 01:22 PM (#1389217) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk The question is, who are they really voting for? Think about that. Who picks the candidates who get to run? Who decides who does and doesn't run for office in such a situation? He with the most money and firepower, that's who. Just like in North America. Guess who wins such a vote? The favorites of he who has the most money and firepower. And they call it "democracy"? Ha! It isn't democracy here...it is far less so in Iraq. It's the rubberstamping of the appointees of a dominant order by its human victims. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 01:36 PM (#1389226) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: John Routledge It was once a bigger mess than it is now |
|
26 Jan 05 - 01:38 PM (#1389227) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: s&r can this be moved below the line Stu |
|
26 Jan 05 - 01:42 PM (#1389233) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: PoppaGator This is NOT a music thread! It's a serious subject, certainly, and not "bulls**t" in the general sense ~ but in Mudcat terms, this should really be situated below the "BS" line. Breezy, I agree that we should all pray for peace and a favorable outcome, but I beg to differ with your assertion "all credit to those who are trying especially the politicians who take on the responsibiblity often at the risk to their own lives." My take on the politicians responsible for this mess is that, while they are more than willing to put the lives of many *others* at risk, they themselves aren't risking a thing. Well, maybe there's some risk that their munitions-contract profits will only be large, rather than obscenely huge... |
|
26 Jan 05 - 01:46 PM (#1389239) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Nerd breezy may be referring to the Iraqi candidates, who put their lives at risk merely by announcing that they will run. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 03:01 PM (#1389310) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Bev and Jerry To answer the question directly, the Bush people will consider it a success no matter what happens. Bev and Jerry |
|
26 Jan 05 - 03:05 PM (#1389315) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Once Famous This thread would be much more interesting if it was called: Erection in Iraq So many here seem to have a hard on about it. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 03:14 PM (#1389323) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Amos I think the politicians being referred to are those who are willing to take the risk of running for office in Iraq. God save them. A |
|
26 Jan 05 - 03:18 PM (#1389327) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: PoppaGator Nerd and Amos, point taken. The candidates running in the Iraqi election are indeed putting themselves at great risk. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 05:08 PM (#1389471) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk Bev and Jerry - You are absolutely right. Astute observation. For Mr Bush, it is an important PR exercise. He must create the impression that he is building a democracy there, for the sake of the home audience. He must maintain the impression that he is "fighting terrorism" too. Either way, he will view anything that happens there as a success, I'm sure. (unless someone blows off an A-bomb, anyway...) |
|
26 Jan 05 - 09:04 PM (#1389787) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Bev and Jerry In today's press conference, Bush was asked, "What would be a credible turnout number?" His response was, "The fact that they're voting, in itself, is successful. Again, this is a long process. It is a process that will begin to write a constitution and then elect a permanent assembly. And this process will take place over this next year. It's a -- it is a grand moment for those who believe in freedom." Bev and Jerry |
|
26 Jan 05 - 09:14 PM (#1389794) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Teresa Well, Bush was (again) successful in sidestepping a question. :> Teresa |
|
26 Jan 05 - 09:16 PM (#1389797) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Amos Well, he is a sentimental old sot, and I agree with him, about it being grand and all, but I wish he could have managed it competently instead of how he did. A |
|
26 Jan 05 - 09:31 PM (#1389812) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk Oh well, EVERY moment is a grand moment for "those who believe in freedom", isn't it? LOL! What a smarmy statement. Who the hell doesn't believe in freedom? It would be quite difficult to find people anywhere who do NOT believe in freedom (as they understand it)...but very easy to find those who can blithely dispense with someone else's chosen freedoms whilst righteously securing their own. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 09:55 PM (#1389832) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Bobert I keep hoping to read where Bush has thrown his hat into the ring in the Iraq election. Heck with Karl Rove, Katherin Harris and Diebold he could take any of them teal Iragis... Then he could resign the presidency here, move to Iraq and take over where Saddam left off, which would be right up his alley... Bobert |
|
26 Jan 05 - 10:28 PM (#1389856) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Once Famous Complete bullshit Bobert. In fact, stupid. Not clever. Not funny. Moronic, childish, and written by someone who never has anything good to say about America. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 11:31 PM (#1389924) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Bev and Jerry Bobert: It won't work. He can't say Abu Ghraib. Bev and Jerry |
|
27 Jan 05 - 04:04 AM (#1390054) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Boab Something good MAY result from this election. If it does you can bet your last dollar that Bush and co WONT be pleased..... |
|
27 Jan 05 - 11:57 AM (#1390198) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk You know what this is? It's grand hubris. It's as if we were a small power here in North America, a minor country with a 3rd rate military, and the Muslim World was a superpower...think about it for a minute...and they came here in overwhelming force with thousands of soldiers, tanks, airplanes...smashed everything up, devastated our armed forces, towns, and cities... And then they occupied the whole country with armed troops. They further proceeded to give us the "gift" of their entire culture, with their viewpoints about freedom, liberty, etc...which meant giving us their version of exactly how to set up and run a good Islamic society. Would we all be grateful and cooperative for their kindness? I don't think so! |
|
28 Jan 05 - 04:20 AM (#1391019) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: beardedbruce LH Sort of like the Deep South in the early 60's. ANd when the troops came in, all those good ol' boys did was to blow up a few places of worship and kill some of them uppity invaders... I guess that would be ok, then? |
|
28 Jan 05 - 07:37 AM (#1391116) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,Susu's Hubby It was in the news yesterday.....even the terrorists have said in their latest tape to the media....they are fighting the installation of a democracy. They would rather have a totalitarian dictatorship (Bobert...that means one mean man in charge of everything). Their hope is to bring back the culture of the 8th century when the Muslims were conquering pretty much everything in that part of the world. Any success in implementing (Bobert...that means starting) a democracy in Iraq would be a crushing blow to all insurgents (Bobert....that means bad guys.) Susu's Hubby |
|
28 Jan 05 - 02:54 PM (#1391571) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: dianavan Susu's husband - I realize that on an internet forum we are all prone to oversimplification but your comments above, really take the cake. A totalitarian dictatorship? If its a choice between an imposed U.S. democracy with Arabs at the helm, maybe you're right. Their choice is between invaders and theocratic rule. I think you are right about their desire of forming an alliance of Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq but I question your statement that: "Their hope is to bring back the culture of the 8th century when the Muslims were conquering pretty much everything in that part of the world". You are right about the 8th century being the Golden age of Islam but before you decide that it was a 'bad thing' maybe you should read some history. http://www.stormwind.com/common/islam.html Rather than "conquering pretty much everything in that part of the world", you should say they are re-claiming their ancient roots. Why should the U.S. determine their fate? |
|
28 Jan 05 - 03:20 PM (#1391586) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,Frank The question remains: why are American troops there? 1. To establish fourteen military bases there. 2. To spend a billion on an American Embassy there. 3. To establish a springboard to invade Iran. 4. To destablize the Muslim communities there and offer Christianity to them. 5. To have American businesses get the contracts to rebuild Iraq. 6. To impose a leader who will be indebted to the US government. 7. To get even for the failures of Vietnam. It's not going to work. Americans are there for the wrong reasons. There can be no freedom,democracy and security when a foreign power occupies a land through pre-emptive warfare and imposes an election on it. Imagine what would happen if Main Street America were invaded premptively by a foreign power who wanted to spread their ideas of freedom and democracy? Then they would set up elections to put in power someone of their choosing? Frank |
|
29 Jan 05 - 04:20 PM (#1392565) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: dianavan Isn't this just an interim election? Don't they have to vote again in 10 months? Hmmm... I wonder if the Shiite moderates can hold on to their power (assuming that they will win the election) or if the U.S. will have to protect them from Iran. This is far from over. |
|
29 Jan 05 - 04:27 PM (#1392575) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk Anything short of the American forces being physically thrown out of Iraq by the Iraqis will be considered a victory by Mr Bush. He's a real optimist about stuff like this. :-) |
|
29 Jan 05 - 06:24 PM (#1392664) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: dianavan I would like to change my question above, to the following: I wonder if the Shiite moderates can hold on to their power (assuming that they will win the election) or if the U.S. will have to protect them from extreme fundamentalists from the Sunni sect and/or fundamentalists from the Iranian Shiites. If you were Iraqi, would you rather be governed by Islamic fundamentalists or the American military? I don't think Bush has solved any of the problems in the middle east and I doubt if the Iraqi people think that his intervention was worth the many lives which have been altered by death, injury and destruction to their homes and infrastructure. Fact is, apart from Saddam, who has he actually conquered? What has he actually achieved? Its enough to make the women of North America want to cover their heads in solidarity with the women of the middle east. We are all daughters, sisters and mothers! How much more can they endure? |
|
29 Jan 05 - 06:49 PM (#1392691) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST IRAQIS BITTERLY DIVIDED OVER OSCAR NOMINATIONS Sunnis May Sit Out Awards Night, U.S. Fears The announcement of nominations for the 77th annual Academy Awards have exposed deep divisions within Iraq, with Sunnis and Shiites "bitterly" split over this year's Oscar nods, U.S. officials said today. The angry reaction to the award nominations, especially among members of Iraqi's minority Sunni population, was seen today as a major setback for the U.S.-led coalition's mission to stabilize that strife-torn nation. At the State Department, hopes had been high that the announcement of this year's Best Picture nominees would be a unifying event for the Iraqi people, inspiring them to set aside age-old rivalries and hatreds to celebrate the best that Hollywood has to offer. Some U.S. diplomats were cautiously optimistic, for example, that Martin Scorcese's "The Aviator" could succeed in galvanizing the Iraqi people in a way that Interim Prime minister Iyad Alawi has so far been unable to do. But after "The Aviator" scooped up 11 nominations, drawing cheers from Shiites across the country, furious Sunnis howled in protest that "Sideways," a Sunni favorite, only picked up six. In oil-rich Kirkuk, Sunni accountant Adnan Abu Al-Attar, 37, said he had considered hosting an Oscar party before the nominations were announced but was now "so hopping mad" about the potential for an "Aviator" sweep that he would sit on his hands instead come Oscar night. "As far as most Sunnis are concerned, the Oscars have lost all credibility," he said. "They might as well be the Golden Globes." Elsewhere, U.S. officials said that exit polls for the I |
|
29 Jan 05 - 06:57 PM (#1392699) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: DougR The election in Iraq is to elect people who will write that country's constitution. The election to elect officials comes later. Who can say what percentage of turn-out signals a successful election with certaintity? Beats me. If it's a 80% turn-out, which has been predicted there will still be those who say it was not successful. I should think anything in the neighborhood of fifty or sixty percent would be adequate. DougR |
|
29 Jan 05 - 11:36 PM (#1392919) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: mg I'd say if you have to run a death gauntlet to vote 20% would be amazing. mg |
|
29 Jan 05 - 11:52 PM (#1392926) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: dianavan Exactly right, Mary. How many people (of any nation) would risk their lives to vote? How many voted in the last U.S. election? But then we will never really know how many voted because there are no international observers. Whatever number George comes up with will be the exact percentage and I'm sure it will be high. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 07:22 AM (#1393076) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST I wonder who Saddam voted for? |
|
30 Jan 05 - 07:51 AM (#1393095) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: greg stephens To introduce a little music into the thread: one of the Iraqi musicians I have been working with over the last few years(in England) has put on his national dress, taken a drum for a bit of music, and gone to Manchester to vote, and sing some celebratory songs. I know it is fashionable for people on the left to sneer at these elections, but I would like to put it on record here that Iraqis I know are taking this very seriously and are delighted to get a chance to vote. I am just off to work this afternoon with several Iraqis, so I will report back here if anything interesting is said about the elections. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 08:22 AM (#1393121) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Keith A of Hertford Iraquis have been given the right to vote, but their safety not guaranteed. The insurgents told them not to vote on pain of death. Overwhelmingly, they have chosen to vote. some have already been killed because of it. (Dianavan, there are UN observers. They are saying turnout is over70%) So now you know. If you oppose the election you oppose the will of the ordinary Iraquis, clearly and openly expressed in the face of intimidation. You are saying that you know better than them what is best for them. Think on it. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 09:35 AM (#1393172) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Amos There is a thrill of delight going through Iraq as people all over the country are actually voting in spite of terrorist discouragement. This all by itself is a wonderful thing, and certainly badly needed in the middle of Bush's highly problematic nation-builing project. I wish them well in their creation of a parliament. I also wish that those elected do not get blown away in the coming weeks. A |
|
30 Jan 05 - 11:32 AM (#1393276) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,heric Apparently the UN did send observers . I had been bothered by earlier reports that they would not monitor the election. I believe Bobert wrote yesterday that there was only one UN observer, and that in the Green Zone. Not sure where he got that. "UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's representative in Iraq described the election as "transparent and fair" and took heart at what he said was a high turnout. 'Even in security difficult areas, there are people lining up to vote. In the north and in the south, the turnout is particularly heavy,' the UN official, Ashraf Qazi, told AFP." Anyway, it seems it was a pretty good day in Iraq. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 01:00 PM (#1393366) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: DougR Thanks, Dianavan, for proving my point. Regardless of how successful the election is in Iraq, there will be those who question it's authinticity. It would seem to me that all one has to do is view the joy in the faces of the Iraqis who voted on television to determine that a historic event has taken place before our very eyes. Still gloom and doom Mudcatters will decry that, in fact, the sky is falling. DougR |
|
30 Jan 05 - 01:05 PM (#1393368) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: robomatic "Guest- I wonder who Saddam voted for? " I would guess "Fahrenheit 9/11" If the Iraqi turnout is greater than US turnout percentage wise, I think that will be a true humiliation. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 01:23 PM (#1393380) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,heric Actually I don't see good evidence that the UN particpated in monitoring the election. Ashraf Qazi seems to be a UN "special representative" in Iraq, for general purposes. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 01:45 PM (#1393393) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: dianavan heric - I believe the observers were independent of the U.N. From your link: "A group that organised 10,000 independent observers for the vote said there had been very little fraud." "Our observers remarked that in general the elections went ahead in an excellent way and there was very little fraud or violations."a spokesman for the Ain (Eye) non-government organisation told a press conference." Thank goodness there is someone watching. For the Iraqis, this is a big day! It seems that holding up the finger that has been inked has provided the Iraqis with a symbol of solidarity. I am very happy for them and I hope that their new found freedom will sustain them in the months ahead. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 02:42 PM (#1393454) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: greg stephens It was fantastic today, I was rehearsing a show with a very multi cultural cast and two were Iraqis wiwth purple fingers, who had voted in Manchester. Extraordinary, a real feeling of history being made, of optimism and courage.Sneerers, keep sneering if you want, but you have been sidelined by a genuinely popular and very moving event. Who knows what the futiure will bring, but lets salute some really brave people, who risked being murdered(and many people were) to exercise the right to vote. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 02:49 PM (#1393457) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: DMcG This "Purple Finger" business bothers me - hopefully unnecessarily. If any wanted to attack people who voted, they would have had to attack or monitor the polling stations, which are comparively well guarded. Instead, they now seem to have a ready means to identify anyone who voted for the next day or two, well away from any kind of protection. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 02:55 PM (#1393468) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: DougR danavan: Thanks for that post. I'm happy you recognize the historic significance of this election, and that the Iraqi people may, at last, have a real chance at establishing a government of their own choosing. DougR |
|
30 Jan 05 - 04:00 PM (#1393534) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: mg there was an article somewhere that talked about how the old women were essentially offering themselves up as those to be shot, I presume to spare the younger ones...I doubt I will be as brave when i am old because I am surely not now. mg |
|
30 Jan 05 - 04:11 PM (#1393548) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST Sham elections are always popular. Espcecially when people are being fired upon and followed to the polls by Bradley tanks, to make sure they are "safe". |
|
30 Jan 05 - 04:16 PM (#1393554) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST I know this is a sham, because I know it. It's obvious. sham sham sham shamshamsham. Just another sham. Sham. Just another fake US staged sham, like all the others. Take your heads out of the sand, idiots. Guns to their heads. Sham. Hegemony. Imperialism. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 04:20 PM (#1393560) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST Anyone here remember the US staged elections in Vietnmam? That is to say, the MANY elections? Do any of you remember how many Vietnamese premiers were assassinated during that whole fiasco? Well, if you can't remember, maybe that's why you think these Iraqi elections are just the bees knees. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 04:27 PM (#1393565) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk It is a sham all right, like those elections in South Vietnam were...But...I send my good wishes to all Iraqis who went out and voted in all good faith for positive change, regardless. I hope at least some of their hopes are rewarded. You see, I am quite prepared to see both sides on this particular issue. There are generally good people on both sides of any issue. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 04:34 PM (#1393574) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST You got sucked into the sentimentalism too, eh Little Hawk? Do you feel sentimental about those sham elections in Vietnam too? In El Salvador? In Palestine? Why exactly is it a good thing to hold elections and vote, just because you can pull it off, so long as it is done under martial law? That's right folks. The Iraqis are being forced to vote under martial law. You don't think that a whole lot of Iraqis are voting today, because they fear paying a price with the occupation authorities if they DON'T vote? |
|
30 Jan 05 - 04:39 PM (#1393580) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: greg stephens I haven't actually noticed the martial law forcing my friends to vote in Manchester. Perhaps our anonymous friend will explain how that works.. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 04:41 PM (#1393583) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST Martial law? You don't know how martial law works, greg stephens? Seriously? |
|
30 Jan 05 - 08:42 PM (#1393799) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,Tom in Tennessee So many sad, lonely, angry, people on this and other threads, shrieking at each other about things they know nothing about. Some are so frightened they can't even sign in with a screen name. I'd pity y'all if y'all weren't so disgusting. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 08:45 PM (#1393806) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST Yawn. |
|
31 Jan 05 - 12:49 AM (#1393933) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk Yes, GUEST at 4:34 PM, I fully understand your reaction to my post...believe me, I do. It amazes me that people in the USA are still naive enough to vote for either the Democrats or Republicans, as far as that goes. Will they EVER learn? Seemingly not. They still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. This is all somewhat new to the Iraqis, though, so I'm sure some of them will be fooled too. We'll see. Mr Bush is rearranging the curtains on their prison windows, but certainly not for their benefit. |
|
31 Jan 05 - 03:12 AM (#1393984) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Boab No ---I don't think the elections in Iraq were a complete sham. They certainly weren't democratic --an impossibility under occupation---but I am willing to believe that the people who voted did so according to what they thought would be best under the circumstances. As the Nicaraguan people did after having suffered a US blockade for as long as they were able. I think I said on another thread something to the effect that I hoped something good comes from this election, for if so Bush and co WONT be pleased. I note one probably-elected candidate already voicing his opinion that the occupiers should leave as soon as possible. A form of legitimate democracy may well develop in the mid-to-far term; I think that Tony [or his successor] and G.W. [or HIS successor] will then find they have a tiger by the tail..... |
|
31 Jan 05 - 06:18 AM (#1394076) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Amos Not sham, rabid anonymous Guest. Sixty per cent (according to my newsfeed, anyway) of the population went out and said "Screw you" to the terror int heir streets and voted in spite of hell and high water. I say that this is a major advance over where the nation was just after the invasion. The war in Iraq is lunatic and ill-conceived; but the voting in Iraq is the vest thing since dictatorship. A |
|
31 Jan 05 - 08:19 AM (#1394154) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST As I said, you have no way of knowing what the intentions were of the Iraqi voters Amos, you are just mouthing what you've heard in the mainstream media. As someone pointed out above, there can never be transparent and free elections in these circumstances. As others have noted, elections do not a democracy make. But the US citizenry has been bamboozled into believing that where there are elections, there is "freedom" or "democracy" when nothing could be further from the truth. Freedom and democracy requires the presence of certain particular democratic institutions, like an independent judiciary, progressive penal and police systems, uncorrupted legislative and governing institutions, a free press, that sort of thing. Having elections doesn't even create a climate for democracy. Banana republics and dictators have known this for quite some time. Americans are getting sucked into the "let freedom ring" propaganda and spin they are being bombarded with through their media outlets. It really is that simple. What the intentions are of the people voting in war zones who are forced to participate in elections (and putting an indelible mark on them so that they can be easily identified in the coming days is a means of coercing people to vote out of fear) is impossible for anyone to know. But that doesn't stop the US propaganda machine from spitting out this "they voted in defiance of the terrorists because they love freedom and want democracy" crap, when the reality on the ground seems to be that people went out to vote for many reasons, most of which aren't being reported by the US media. So the attempts to project these intentions on the Iraqi voters SHOULD be the warning flag. We can't even figure out the whys and wherefores of American voters, much less the Iraqis. So all this "isn't it a fine, proud day for Iraq's fledgling democracy" is nothing more than a propaganda victory for Bush. That is why we make the countries we invade have sham elections. To give the appearance that we aren't really an occupation force, dictating the terms to the conquered. We are. Elections don't change that, and intelligent, thinking, discerning people can easily figure that out. If you believe the Iraqis are all enthusiastic (and weren't paid to dance like monkeys for the US news cameras) about this election, then it's because you WANT to believe it. But you should at least understand that you are believing it because it makes you feel better about what horrific things your government is doing in your name, and NOT because that is actually the truth of the matter. |
|
31 Jan 05 - 08:41 AM (#1394173) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks Let's assume, "rabid anonymous guest," that the Iraqis really did go to the polls out of fear. They had plenty of candidates to choose from, and they could leave their ballot blank if they wished to. So unless the count shows millions and millions of blank ballots, the election still shows support for democracy. Some voted out of fear, but most undoubtedly voted out of a combination of pride, faith in the Coalition, and in defiance of the Saddamite torturers, nationalist revenge seekers, and brainwashed suicide bombers and terrorists who are the authors of all the current violence in Iraq. Any decent Iraqi who served in Saddam's military, and any member of their families, knows what it meant when the Coalition let the soldiers go home without parole or supervision rather than do what all nations usually do: demand an official surrender and put all the POWs in cages for weeks or months until they can be ID'd and released. War is always hideous, but the United States and its allies have waged this one with a level of restraint that is unparalleled in history. |
|
31 Jan 05 - 09:31 AM (#1394208) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Donuel When I listen to the iraqis who voted they say: I voted to replace the US chosen council. I voted to to get electricity and water. I voted to get religion out of politics. The US welcomes those who want religion out of politics as long as it is not Americans at home. |
|
31 Jan 05 - 10:03 AM (#1394247) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,Larry K 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. And who are the "bush people". Since he is the president of the USA, than all USA residents are "bush people". For those of you who say that Bush isn't your president, than you are clearly living in the wrong country and get the hell out. Nunavut is lovely this time of year. Despite the threats, over 60% voted. Some had to be carried to the polls to vote. There was dancing in the streets. Polls indicated that Iraq's think their country is headed in the right direction. This was a vote for freedom. And "black sunday" for all democrats, liberals, progressives, and haters of America. |
|
31 Jan 05 - 10:15 AM (#1394267) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk To paraprhase that, Larry... "For those of you who say that Hitler isn't your chancellor, then you are clearly living in the wrong country and get the hell out!" - Joseph Goebbels, 1935 (or thereabouts) |
|
31 Jan 05 - 11:41 AM (#1394348) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks I am a liberal. Always have been, always will be. |
|
31 Jan 05 - 11:49 AM (#1394353) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Amos LarryK Screw you and your arrogance. Do you think I have no right to celebrate the courage of the Iraq people because I thought Bush; was an idiot and a warmonger? My dissent from Bush is part of the freedom he is sworn to protect. Don't forget that with your fistful of condescending labels. A |
|
31 Jan 05 - 11:51 AM (#1394359) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Nerd There is no reasonable estimate available for how many voted. The interim government said 72%, let the media declare them geniuses for doing such a good job, then admitted they only "guessed" 72% a day later. So new media reports say "early reports of 72% are unconfirmed, so we really don't know whether it was less than 72% or more than 72%; all we know is that 72% figure may not be entirely right. By the time the media is finished, everyone has heard 72% about a thousand times, and Larry K sounds modest when he says "over 60." But the fact is, no one knows yet! |
|
31 Jan 05 - 12:41 PM (#1394420) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: kendall Can you say "Puppet government"? |
|
31 Jan 05 - 02:04 PM (#1394524) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST The main reasons why Iraqis would vote out of fear, is because everyone who voted had their hands marked with an indelible ink that won't wash off for a couple days. So imagine you live in Sadr City in Baghdad. You have business in the City Centre today, and so leave Sadr City to go towards the Green Zone to take care of your business. You did not vote, because of threats and intimidation from the insurgents in your neighborhood, despite the fatwa from al Sistani. You of course are stopped by US occupation forces on your way to the City Centre, to have your papers checked, etc. The soldier sees you don't have the election mark on your hands, asks you to step over to the side. Upon examination of your papers, he sees you are from Sadr City. He is immediately suspicious of you because your address is in Sadr City, and because you obviously haven't voted. The soldier immediately suspects you are associated with the insurgency, and has you arrested on the spot. You are taken to a jail on the outskirts of the city, but no one in your family knows this. Does that help any of you understand why this might matter to an Iraqi? In El Salvador, the citizens were required by law to vote in the sham elections. If they didn't have the proper party stamp proving they had voted for the leaders of the death squads running for office on their identity papers, the death squads would kill them on the spot. At the polling place where you voted in El Salvador, the "election officials" made you put your paper ballot into a see through box, so they could see how you voted, and tell the death squads if you voted wrong. Not exactly a secret ballot, like we expect in a proper democracy! In the El Salvador elections, there were also many members of the death squads working as election officials, so many people who "voted wrong" (ie not for the party of the repressive regime, but the reform parties) were identified, and later murdered. So who were the election officials in Iraq? Now, it isn't |
|
31 Jan 05 - 05:04 PM (#1394752) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Keith A of Hertford Some people might have believed there would be reprisals for not voting, but everyone knew that savage execution was promised by the insurgents to those who did vote. The inky finger reduced the turnout of voters. |
|
31 Jan 05 - 05:13 PM (#1394770) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: DougR Reduced the turnout? What are you shooting for, 70%? 80%? The actual turnout was terrific, and those of you who think otherwise just have your heads up your wazooo! DougR |
|
31 Jan 05 - 05:36 PM (#1394812) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Once Famous I mentioned this on another thread. The rest of the Arab world saw a determined Iraqui people voting on TV news. What is their reaction? "Freedom's just another way of saying's nothing's left to lose?" I don't think so. C'mon Arab world. Who else is willing to make sacrifices for freedom and democracy? Get ready for a great state of the union address, whiners. |
|
31 Jan 05 - 10:18 PM (#1395185) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: dianavan I don't think I will take the word of Bush or Alawi as to how many turned out to vote. Nor will I accept the images I saw on t.v. because I know how easy it is to stage events and manipulate people. I am trying to find out what the independent observers are saying. I mean who really knows when the borders were closed, martial law was the state of the day and no international observers were present? Seems to me that alot of people are willing to believe just about anything from an administration that has lied and decieved the public over and over again. Why would anyone believe them now? |
|
31 Jan 05 - 11:39 PM (#1395244) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Bev and Jerry Larry K: Please state what you think we said that was wrong. The answer is nothing and we demand that you apologize to us forthwith 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." We have posted three times on this thread. Once we said that Bush would consider the election a success no matter what the turnout, once with a direct quote from Bush proving the previous post, and once to say that Bush cannot pronounce Abu Graib. All three of these statements are absolutely true. Do not post on this thread again until you apologize. Bev and Jerry |
|
31 Jan 05 - 11:41 PM (#1395245) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Bev and Jerry Got this in an e-mail today: "United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of the turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam." - Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967. Bev and Jerry |
|
01 Feb 05 - 12:48 AM (#1395279) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk Oh, that is droll... :-) What short memories people have. Yup. I can definitely say "puppet government". It's a familiar scenario. I would say that people in Iraq are in peril regardless of what they did. If they voted, they're in peril from one set of people. If they didn't they're in peril from the other set. Just like it was in Vietnam. The vote, in any case, is a rubber stamp for a puppet government, imposed by an invading foreign power, with an "election" as a Pr exercise. Who do you think okays who gets to run in such an election? Who do you think decides who gets the funding and media coverage to win a seat? Who do you think controls the whole business afterward? The occupying foreign invaders, that's who. Dead simple and dead obvious. And lots more dead Iraqis and young American soldiers too. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 01:11 AM (#1395291) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Amos From Zeyed, an Iraqi in-country: "unday, January 30, 2005 Hold Your Head Up High, You Are Iraqi I chose to cast my vote in Amman this very day, even though Iraqi exiles have been voting here since Friday. Voter turnout in Jordan was exceptionally lower than in other countries and I was quite surprised to hear some of the same rumours that infest Baghdad repeated over here in Amman. One problem was the special ink that voters have to dab their fingers with. Many Iraqis were concerned that insurgents would catch them on their way back to Baghdad and recognise people who had voted. Some resourceful Iraqis had already devised several methods to get rid of the stain. One of these is to paint your fingers with skin lotion before you enter the polling station, wipe your finger clean immediately after voting and before the ink dries, on returning home dip your finger in boiling detergent and rub it repeatedly. The turnout in Iraq was really like nothing that I had expected. I was glued in front of tv for most of the day. My mother was in tears watching the scenes from all over the country. Iraqis had voted for peace and for a better future, despite the surrounding madness. I sincerely hope this small step would be the start of much bolder ones, and that the minority which insists on enslaving the majority of Iraqis would soon realise that all that they have accomplished till now is in vain. Another surprise was to see some Iraqis who had fled the country in fear of reprisals, such as the families of ex-regime figures and ex-Ba'athists, actually voting and encouraging others to vote! I know some of those from school and college and I imagined they would be bitter about the whole process, but many were not. Jordanians were wishing Iraqis luck these few days everywhere on the streets. One young man at a mall, on recognising my Iraqi accent, asked me who I would be voting for. I politely told him that I would vote for who I believe is sincere. Strangely, he said that he personally preferred Allawi and hoped most Iraqis would be voting for him. I wished his country luck as well since the King had promised direct elections for municipal councils as a first step. He dismissed that as nothing much and said that "One should start from the 'Head' down, not the other way around". This last remark played on my survival instincts, even though the fellow looked far from being a Jordanian Mukhabarat agent, so I left the man in peace. I really want to write much much more but I have to run for now. I promise I will post again soon. In the mean time: Hold your head up high, Remember that you are Iraqi." |
|
01 Feb 05 - 01:16 AM (#1395295) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk A perfectly understandable reaction from someone who has had his first chance to vote. You recall the tremendous public enthusiasm in Eastern Europe after Communism fell? You see the cynicism and disappointment now? It takes people a while to catch on to the charade that has been played on them by a wealthy and powerful few who promised them "freedom", but gave them oligarchies, organized crime, and corruption. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 03:17 AM (#1395337) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Keith A of Hertford I know people are suspicious of news reports, but you can trust the BBC on this. They never miss an opportunity to rub Blair and Bush's noses in any mess. In the second city, Basra, journalists can still move about the city. They showed us lines outside polling stations. There were no casualties in Basra at all. British troops kept off the streetes all day. Basra is not Iraq, but it still tells a story. The election was popular. When you speak against it remember that you are opposing what the people wanted. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 06:50 AM (#1395434) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST The BBC is no different than the other major news outlets. That is blatantly obvious when you read Google News, and see virtually the same stories, most of them identical word for word, being circulated as "the news". Never, ever confuse the news with the facts or the truth. News is seductive, the facts and truth are much harder to live with. Little Hawk is right. Coming around aren't you Little Hawk ;-) There were video images of happy Iraqis. There were the man on the street interviews of happy Iraqis. Anyone recall seeing ANYWHERE on the news an Iraqi voter being interviewed saying they were voting for their own safety, because they feared reprisals from the occupation authorities if they didn't? Not a ONE. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 07:17 AM (#1395449) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST And did I mention, the same stock footage was being used by every single tv news outlet for this election? Without mentioning they were escorted to the occupation authority approved locations by occupation authority approved "guides" and shot video of only happy, dancing Iraqis or inspirationally crippled Iraqis walking miles to the polling places? Happy dancing Iraqi voters. Inspirational, crippled Iraqi voters. Cute wee Iraqi babies accompanying gramps to the polls. All it was missing was the red, white and blue bunting, and the red and blue provinces. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 07:35 AM (#1395459) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks A puppet government does the bidding of someone else. The elected government of RVN was notorious for tolerating internal corruption that the US State Department insisted they eliminate and for throwing up roadblocks to both the peace talks and to the 1973 agreement. Some puppets! |
|
01 Feb 05 - 07:40 AM (#1395465) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST Yes, and former Reagan ambassador to the UN, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, had a saying about those sorts of despots the US was supporting and propping up. "They might be bastards, but they are our bastards". Of course the puppets try to flex their muscle now and then, especially when it comes to the corruption they benefit from mightily. They always do. It doesn't mean they aren't puppets, with the strings being pulled by Washington. It just means they are wealthy puppets who can do anything they want, so long as they don't mess with Uncle Sam's imperial mission. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 07:43 AM (#1395467) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST BTW Guy Who Thinks He Thinks, to which "elected government of RVN" are you referring. There were so many of the Golden Elected Ones who were being assassinated, you could even say they were disposable, as far as the US was concerned. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 07:58 AM (#1395479) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies Larry K, Doug R. et al.--- It's obvious that the Iraqi election is a good first step. I'm sure everybody on this forum wishes the Iraqis (and the Americans) well. However, it is just a first step. As I said in my post of 7:02 29 Jan 2005 on the Good News in Iraq thread, there are still many unanswered questions. Will al Sistani, who sets the tone for many of his followers, continue in his quietist strain of Islam? Will the Kurds be satisfied with the degree of autonomy granted them by the central Iraqi government now to be constituted? Will the Iraqis have the patience needed when 24 hour electricity, water, etc doesn't magically materialize as a result of the election? Will the Sunnis consider themselves included in the new government? Etc. Euphoria should be tempered. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 08:23 AM (#1395495) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST Actually Ron, in case you hadn't noticed (or were simply choosing to conveniently edit out the opinions being expressed here with which you disagree), some of us don't believe the sham election is a first step towards anything but a cliff with a precipitous drop. Maybe the $9 billion that disappeared in the Iraq budget (according to the latest US government audit) went to bribes? Or maybe it went to "independent contractors"? Or maybe it was used to buy the election, and the Anglo American occupation authority just forgot to write down the actual cost of the election? God knows, the $9 billion wouldn't begin to cover the "security costs" (spit). Hmmmmm...hard to know, when there is no transparency in government or the fourth estate media charged with critically examining the government, isn't it? But hey, you "free" election cheerleaders be sure to write your congressional representatives today, and tell them you are SO inspired by these "free" elections (spit), that you would just love Uncle Sam to burn up some more taxpayers bucks--to the tune of $80 to $100 billion, just like our Fearful Leader asked for--so we can watch it disappear in the desert again like the last barrel o'bucks we sent over to the "free" Iraqis. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 08:31 AM (#1395504) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks Ok, Guest. You don't bother to address the issue of RVN obstructionism when it came to talks with the VC and the North. Was that following Uncle Sam's orders? Wait, I think I know. Please provide us with your long long list of assassinated RVN presidents. Messrs. Thieu and Ky took office in '67 and were still alive and kicking in 1975 when the peace-loving North blithely violated the 1973 accords and crushed the South with military force. It's only tangential to the situation in Iraq today, but people need to learn some history before they can learn from it. Comparisons with the war in Indochina are facile and superficial at best. If civil war breaks out, and it could, it'll have little to do with conditions in Viet Nam nearly 40 years ago. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 08:53 AM (#1395532) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies Oh joy, the conspiracy theorists are back. I just wanted to say that we wish the British well also--didn't mean to leave that out. Any honest observer would have to say it's been a UK-US show so far---all other members of the so-called coalition have been also-rans. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 09:47 AM (#1395596) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,bflat I suppose some of the above posters think it was better when the Iraqis had 100% turnout and one name on the ballot. I have nothing but admiration for the brave Iraqui voters, who have endured so much and have a long and uncertain road ahead. My wish is that they someday know the same freedoms I enjoy. My politics will not taint my post. Ellen |
|
01 Feb 05 - 12:45 PM (#1395792) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Dewey How utterly pathethic that mudcatters are so immersed in politics, as to not rejoice in the liberation of another group of human beings, every bit as smart, every bit as intelligent, and and every bit as deserving of their freedom the rest of you are here on thuis board, that already have it and deserve it. So you didn't like Bush's invasion of the country, So you didn't think it was right to destroy and rebuild so much of the country's infra-structure. So you thought the Amercian government was a bit a of nosey, ignorant, imperialistic bully. So be it! Those things are your God given right! and be it far from me to tell you that you are wrong to believe as you wish to believe. But the follow is terrible and unforgivable to anyone living under Tyranny whoever they might be throughout this world: to actually make fun of and scoff at the first free election in modern middle-east history, merely because you do not agree with the sitting U.S. President, and the means by which this miracle came into being. Despite the war and occupation, I doubt if the Iraqi people, would share your sentiments at all, (at least concerning the elections) After all, If you, yourself lived in such a country,you would want a vote, especially after being half gased to death, tourtured, imprisoned without cause, mutilated. etc. There were far worse gorvernments in the past that have emerged than the one that is imerging now. Or are Mudcatter noststalgic for the days of Saddam, In truth, It can be said that any form of government, even the fragile one that is emerging now is better than the one that was and is now thankfully over. (I already know many of you do not like the current U.S. President, but that is not the issue we are facing today, Yesterday was about the free election in Iraq, it is about the Iraqu people) The Iraqi people might have not liked the protracted and obviously continued occupation of their country. I seriously doubt, however, that they would not like the right to vote and choose their own destiny and future. FOR THEMSELVES BY THEMSELVES. The Iragi people are every bit as smart, every bit as capable and every bit as deserving of freedom as any other group of human beings on this existing planet. Freedom is for EVERYONE! Not just opinionated Spoiled rotten mudcatters (from free nations by the way) that have NEVER had the wieght of tyranny at their throats, nor the threat of death and/or torture in their lives. Even if you don't respect the Bush Policies over-all, at least have the respect to rejoice in this first ever free election, a clean election which generated more turn outs than the recent U.S. election. A 60 percent voter turn out in a dangerous country is an amazingly admirable feat, and should make even the most caloused left winger out there understand the power and potential of freedom. Surprise! Surprise! Folks! Guess what! The Iraq's like their freedom and to think and choose just as much mudcatter's do. Freedom for any group of people is not an ordinary desire. It is a BURNING desire, and is as natural in its postive energy as is running water. And I gurantee you that if (I mean WHEN) the Iragi's do get their freedom they'll hold on to it for dear life, And they will never forfeit it to anyone who wants to take it away again. Dewey (who had an awesome day yesterday watching fellow human beings get the same previleges I enjoy every day) P.S. I am sorry that many of the rest of your DO take your freedoms for granted, Fortunately/Unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't share your view!) |
|
01 Feb 05 - 02:15 PM (#1395890) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST And thank you all for voting for the status quo, voting for your favorite Bush/Berry in November, and for paying for the liberation of the Iraqi people. I know they really appreciate everything the Anglo American occupation forces have done, and will continue to do for them in the future. And for blowing hundreds of billions of MY US tax dollars on the liberation of the Iraqis, and of course, running up my grandchildren's debt to play war games in the desert. Thanks so very much. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 02:44 PM (#1395918) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Wolfgang Some reactions from the Arab press: "The Iraq wins the elections" (al-Dustur, Jordan) Arab News (SA) praises the courage of the Iraqis. "Real patriotic heoes" have gone to vote despite being threatened with death. Abd al-Wahhab Badr Kahn (in al-Hayat) speaks of a "historic opportunity" and that the elections are a beginning and not the end of a road. There are several more pessimistic voices too, but I thought I'd bring a bit of a balance into this thread with some more optimistic voices. The turnout seems to be higher than many had expected. The expatriate voters interviewed in Germany have been mostly contented (the others may not have voted, perhaps). Of course, it is possible to make a solid guess of a turnout before the final result. You count some samples. That's how easy it is. Wolfgang |
|
01 Feb 05 - 03:38 PM (#1395988) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,heric "It was only a personal threat of violence that motivated some people to go to the polls." They came "only because of the gun at their backs". How many would that be? Six million? Fourteen thousand? Couple of dozen? Hard to tell from McGeough's report. Perhaps he's just confused. Isn't it Australia where you're forced to vote whether you want to or not? |
|
01 Feb 05 - 04:51 PM (#1396052) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Charley Noble I have to agree with Little Hawk. The election while demonstrating great courage on the part of Iraqi voters are likely to prove a sham as a step toward "democracy." A good friend reminded me of what the New York Times had to say about an election in Vietnam some time ago: The New York Times -- 09-04-1967 "U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror by Peter Grose, Special to The New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2) WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here. Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February. The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta. Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power. Significance Not Diminished The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken. The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting. American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring. Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent. Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon." NYT. 9/4/1967: p. 2. Deja vu all over again. Charley Noble |
|
01 Feb 05 - 05:18 PM (#1396089) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,Frank This election unfortunately is not valid. It was held at the point of an occupier's gun. It is illegal. What we saw on TV was a Potemkin. It was an effort to make it look good but not reflective of what's really going on there. The Iraqi people are being exploited by assuming that American soldiers will pull out soon. It's not in the master plan which is to remake Iraq into a Neo-con image. The Bush Neo-cons want a submissive Iraq that's indebted to the interests of the Bush Administration. The New World Order agenda is to take over the Middle East. if you don't believe this, wait for the invasion of Iran. Domino theory. Then Syria and other Mid-East countries. It follows the "Manifest Destiny" of American history and is incorporated into a Manichean view of fundamental Christianty which doesn't allow for Muslims or any other religion. The Iraqi people are being mislead. Their good intentions are subverted by the Bush political agenda which is to exploit and create an economic indebtedness. It's not just about oil. Frank |
|
01 Feb 05 - 05:48 PM (#1396110) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk Absolutely correct, Frank. It's about oil, and political and regional control, and maintaining a certain chronic level of war and insecurity in the World...which maintains lucrative military contracts and arms sales...and jockeying for power against western Europe, Russia, and China to see who gets to control the World. The Iraqis are among the little regional mice that get eaten while the big cats play. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 05:56 PM (#1396118) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST And of course, part of that "global reach" plan includes bankrupting the US social welfare institutions to fund the military industrial complex and Wall Street instead. |
|
01 Feb 05 - 06:06 PM (#1396131) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Amos Just to clarify Frank's very pithy description: anicheanism Mani was its founder who had taught in Persia, and had met there a martyr's death by crucifixion in 276 or 277. The fundamental belief of the religion pictured the universe as the scene of an eternal conflict of two powers, the one good, the other evil. Man, as we know him, is a mixed product, the spiritual part of his nature consists of the good element, the physical of the evil. His task, therefore, is to free the good in him from the evil; and this can be accomplished by prayer, but especially by abstinence from all the enjoyments of evil: riches, lust, wine, meats, luxurious houses and the like. Like Gnosticism, taught that the true spiritual Jesus had no material body and did not actually die. Augustine was a Manichean for nine years, from 372-383, before dissatisfaction with its teachings arose in his mind. http://tatumweb.com |
|
01 Feb 05 - 06:10 PM (#1396139) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk A very familiar story, isn't it? :-) |
|
01 Feb 05 - 08:17 PM (#1396319) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: akenaton The high turnout in Shia and Kurdish areas had nothing to do with democracy. Are you people on the right really thick, or are you just trying to wind up the rest of us? I know some of you have a genetic excuse, but there are at least two who are quite capable of joined-up thinking. The Iraqi election was to do with power,just like the pretend elections we have. The power once gained is always stolen by those who pull the strings. Sistani and the Shia clerics want power to consolidate their position and ultimately to impose an Islamic republic. Is that what you mean by freedom? The Kurds are hoping to grab as much of the oil rich areas to the North as they can. If they succeed, the wealth will go to tribal leaders and warlords not to the people. Is that what you mean by freedom? The Sunnis of course didn't vote, oreven wish the election to take place, as they knew they had no hope of retaining power. Is that freedom? We have no real democracy in the West, just a facade. Capital determines all policy regardless of which part is "in power", so how can we expect democracy in a tribal, fanatically religious country like Iraq. The mess is not getting better, USA and UK are out of their depth, and the manipulators are now the manipulated...Ake |
|
01 Feb 05 - 08:45 PM (#1396350) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk Exactly, Akenaton! Hear! Hear! Amen! And similar phrases... :-) Wake up, people, and smell the reality. |
|
02 Feb 05 - 06:47 PM (#1397195) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: greg stephens There seems to be very few people posting here with any actual knowledge of the elections. Many thousands voted here in England(no, we are not under American martial law actually, here, Mr GUEST), and it has been very instructive to talk to those who did. Were Iraquis voting in America also? I recommend anyone goes and talk to some actual Iraqis, it's very interesting. There is a world beyond America and Britain. The most interesting thing here in Britain was the attempt in Manchester, by local Islamists, to intimidate the Iraqis into not voting. It didnt work, but did end up(hardly surprisingly) in fighting and a fair few people in hospital. This has not had wide national coverage here. |
|
02 Feb 05 - 11:28 PM (#1397428) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies Amen, Greg Stephens. Ake-- You are oversimplifying here (1 Feb 2005 8:17 PM) "Sistani and the Shia clerics want power to consolidate their position and ultimately to impose an Islamic republic" Proof, please, about Sistani. All I have found indicates that he adheres to a quietist strain of Islam at this point. In fact, this is probably why the election was as successful--if it had been obvious his goal was a Shi'ite Islamic republic, the secularists would never have voted and it would have inflamed the Sunnis, who would have expressed this in a more direct way than staying home. If you impute Ayatollah ambitions to Sistani, (who has a lot of clout), what evidence do you have? "The Kurds are happy to grab as much of the oil rich areas to the north as they can". Not likely--in fact for 14 years they have already had a de facto separate state, including some oil-rich areas of Iraq. Oil-rich Kirkuk is still in dispute, but between the Turks and the Kurds. What the Kurds probably want is no change at this point. They do not consider themselves Iraqis and will push for as much autonomy as possible from what is likely to be a weak central Iraqi state. They have had a strong economy for 14 years now--since the end of the Gulf War. They would like total independence--may in fact get it within 10 years, acccording to a report I heard on To the Point, a public radio program I heard last night. But they realize that asserting independence right now would mean creating a weak state surrounded by more powerful neighbors. My guess is that the Allawi faction, as one of the top vote-getters, will seek an alliance, to form a majority, with the Kurds----and the Kurds will demand--- and get---- a high price in autonomy--this may result in a de facto long-term break-up of Iraq. None of the north Iraqi Kurds' neighbors (especially Turkey, with its 20 million Kurds) wants a breakup of Iraq, however, it seems,---may be contagious--so a de jure separation is unlikely now. The question of course is: will this de facto but not de jure Kurdish state have any obligation to share oil revenues with Iraq? If anybody has any information on these issues, I'd like to hear it. I mean that seriously. The more information, as distinguished from overheated unsubtantiated rhetoric, the better. |
|
03 Feb 05 - 02:35 AM (#1397540) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: dianavan Sistani may be a quietist but he is probably one of the most powerful figures in Iraq. I believe that eventually Iraq will be a part of an Islamic Republic. Furthermore, I think thats what most Iraqi people want. After Sunni/U.S. rule, they are ripe for the safety of the traditional cleric. Bush seems to have played right into the hands of Iran. In another thread, I suggested that in the end it would be Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq which would form the Islamic Republic. Why not? Because most of the other middle eastern countries and the U.S.A. do not want to see that happen. I doubt if the Kurds would like it either - unless they could have their independence at the same time. |
|
03 Feb 05 - 06:07 AM (#1397647) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: akenaton Ron... I didn't say Sistani was stupid, I said he was a manipulator. Do you think if Sistani had adopted the stance of the radical Sadr, imposing elections would even have been attempted at this time? Anything that I'v read suggests Sistani is a wily politician, and at the moment appears to be following a Softly Softly approach. Sistani knows he needs to placate the Americans in the short term, but I agree with Dianavan that his mind is surely on the "long game" |
|
03 Feb 05 - 06:22 AM (#1397651) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: akenaton Ron ...If you want to read "facts" that in the present climate can mean anything,I suggest you find some of the cut and paste merchants. Anything I write on Mudcat is my own opinion, and if you happen to think its "overblown rhetoric" your welcome to say so. Sometimes true feelings show up so called facts for what they are ...Ake |
|
03 Feb 05 - 08:10 AM (#1397719) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies OK Ake, point taken. But I'll have to say I'll take facts over speculation most times. And even speculation is well served by a few bits of evidence to back it up. Certainly a lot of what I said was speculation--but I labelled it as such. If we want to get anywhere in a political discussion (but maybe we don't want to, I don't know) facts are a better route than rhetoric. |
|
03 Feb 05 - 08:18 AM (#1397729) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies After all Ake, wouldn't you have preferred it if Bush had not rejected every fact about Iraq in favor of unfounded speculation which happened to dovetail with his prior plan--then sold the US public on a bill of goods based on the speculation? |
|
03 Feb 05 - 12:55 PM (#1398078) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: akenaton Ron ..In my opinion the people who pull Bushs' strings knew very well that there were not stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. If there had been they would not have been so eager to attack. Every thing points to a pre planned war, advise from Blix and his team, even the CIA were telling them that it was "unlikely". Saddam was in fact complying with trumped up requests for the destruction of missiles whos range was probably within or very near to the proscribed limits. As far as I can see,they did not depend on speculation. No the American Govt thought the invasion and democratisation would be dead easy. An easy war ...Good PR for the neo-cons (Like Thatcher in the Falklands) and also the chance to plant the "democratic" Trojan Horse in Iraq , to ensure uninterupted oil supplies for decades to come. Unfortunately for the West, Mr Sistani must have read about the siege of Troy, as he appears to have outflanked everyone |
|
03 Feb 05 - 05:47 PM (#1398246) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,Frank An election is always a good idea I think if: 1. It is an honest representation of the people 2. If there is no fraud 3. If it is done for the best interest of the country in which it is conducted. Here's the problem. Occupation doesn't ensure democracy. Even with the best intentions of the Iraqi people some of our tax dollars are going to bribe Iraqi officials. The Bush father and son are good at this. Bush Senior did this with Saddam in the matter of the Iran Contra affair. Rumsfeld actually met with Saddam and negotiated to thwart Iran. The elections have been conducted for the purpose of continuing American presence in Iraq, not as the Iraqi people believe so that American troops will leave. They are being mislead because they think the elections will molify the Occupiers. The goal stated by the New World Order is to take over the Middle East through US domination. These elections are the first step. Then, the building of the billion dollar American Embassy and more military bases so that Bush can strike Iran, then Syria. The Iraqi people are the casualties. Frank |
|
03 Feb 05 - 06:16 PM (#1398270) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: DougR Gee, Frank, have you informed the Iraqi people the election was not legitimate? I'm sure they would like to here the scoop from the horse's ..er..mouth. Greg Stevens: yes Iraqi nationals were allowed to vote in five U. S. cities and the turn out was very good, even though many had to travel long distances. DougR |
|
03 Feb 05 - 06:35 PM (#1398301) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk They're new to the game, Doug! It would be cruel to burst their little bubble of optimism at this point. You, on the other hand, do not have that excuse...nor do other North Americans who are taken in by this sort of stuff, over and over again. An American-sponsored election in occupied Iraq is like an American-sponsored election in South Vietnam. A PR exercise. It will not result in a free Iraq, and it will not create a true democracy. The USA itself does not have a true democracy...nor does Canada, come to think of it! We have a rich oligarchy that functions through a bunch of puppet political parties, that's all. |
|
03 Feb 05 - 11:18 PM (#1398579) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
03 Feb 05 - 11:33 PM (#1398588) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
04 Feb 05 - 12:14 AM (#1398616) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: dianavan 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. |
|
04 Feb 05 - 04:38 AM (#1398710) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: akenaton 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 |
|
04 Feb 05 - 08:58 AM (#1398857) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST If any Iraqis are actually afraid of an attack from Israel, then American troops incountry are an awesome insurance policy. |
|
04 Feb 05 - 12:14 PM (#1399027) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: DougR 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 |
|
04 Feb 05 - 02:16 PM (#1399177) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: akenaton 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". |
|
04 Feb 05 - 02:19 PM (#1399180) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,heric But I thought you said the election was fixed? |
|
04 Feb 05 - 02:23 PM (#1399185) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: akenaton Alternatively...he could ask Ron or Greg. |
|
04 Feb 05 - 02:33 PM (#1399196) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: akenaton 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 |
|
04 Feb 05 - 04:06 PM (#1399306) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
05 Feb 05 - 01:49 PM (#1399964) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: akenaton 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... |
|
05 Feb 05 - 04:36 PM (#1400086) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,Frank 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 |
|
05 Feb 05 - 06:49 PM (#1400190) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: dianavan 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. |
|
05 Feb 05 - 08:13 PM (#1400261) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
05 Feb 05 - 08:55 PM (#1400286) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: akenaton 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 |
|
05 Feb 05 - 08:58 PM (#1400290) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk Maybe so... |
|
05 Feb 05 - 09:11 PM (#1400298) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk 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? |
|
06 Feb 05 - 04:13 AM (#1400472) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: akenaton 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. |
|
06 Feb 05 - 08:32 AM (#1400564) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
06 Feb 05 - 06:10 PM (#1401069) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: akenaton 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 |
|
06 Feb 05 - 10:11 PM (#1401246) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: mg 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 |
|
06 Feb 05 - 11:14 PM (#1401291) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: dianavan 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. |
|
09 Feb 05 - 11:54 AM (#1403622) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,Wolfgang 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 |
|
09 Feb 05 - 08:23 PM (#1403938) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: akenaton 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 |
|
09 Feb 05 - 09:07 PM (#1403968) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
10 Feb 05 - 02:12 AM (#1404166) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ebbie 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. |
|
11 Feb 05 - 08:14 AM (#1405728) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies 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? |
|
11 Feb 05 - 08:24 AM (#1405741) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
11 Feb 05 - 08:34 AM (#1405752) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow 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... |
|
11 Feb 05 - 09:55 AM (#1405813) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: GUEST,Larry K 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. |
|
11 Feb 05 - 09:34 PM (#1406686) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Bev and Jerry 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 |
|
11 Feb 05 - 11:37 PM (#1406790) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
12 Feb 05 - 12:06 PM (#1407257) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: DougR Ron: YOU talk about smugness? Re-read your last post. DougR |
|
12 Feb 05 - 01:43 PM (#1407338) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
13 Feb 05 - 05:51 PM (#1408494) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
13 Feb 05 - 05:55 PM (#1408504) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Wolfgang ...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 |
|
13 Feb 05 - 07:40 PM (#1408609) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
14 Feb 05 - 07:55 AM (#1409106) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
14 Feb 05 - 01:01 PM (#1409467) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: DougR 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 |
|
14 Feb 05 - 01:02 PM (#1409470) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: dianavan 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. |
|
15 Feb 05 - 10:57 PM (#1411405) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
15 Feb 05 - 11:03 PM (#1411411) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
16 Feb 05 - 04:45 PM (#1412286) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: dianavan 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? |
|
16 Feb 05 - 11:30 PM (#1412658) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
16 Feb 05 - 11:35 PM (#1412662) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies Obviously, William Sloane Coffin would have been a better choice for my comparison than Berrigan. But the parallel holds. |
|
17 Feb 05 - 03:20 AM (#1412768) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: dianavan 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. |
|
17 Feb 05 - 10:38 PM (#1413662) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: DougR 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 |
|
17 Feb 05 - 10:50 PM (#1413670) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
17 Feb 05 - 10:53 PM (#1413673) Subject: RE: Election in Iraq From: Ron Davies 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. |