Open Iraqi election thread

[Dinner]

Reguarding Juan Cole I pointed out several problems in my first post about this which you insist aren't problems at all though I imagine most thinking people followed what I said. A quick look at the net reveals a great deal about Juan Cole and his hyper partisan crusade in Iraq; I read several of his works and I can't find a single one that is supportive of anything. That's fair enough but what is unfair is to try to prance a partisan hack like Cole out as some sort of fair minded individual which he clearly is not.

Jeff Jarvis is a liberal writer and his last article on this page is about Juan Cole. http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_12_14.html

That last link is interesting because it shows just what type of conspiracy theory nut job Juan Cole is. Cole accussed Iraqi bloggers who were positive about the eletion of being CIA Agents as no body else but the CIA would dare say anything good about Iraq. In that link Cole gets his ass handed to him from being the partisan nut job that he is. Please remember these are fellow liberals who are slamming Cole for his stupidity.

Here's a few more comments for people to consider about Mr Juan Cole:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008907.php

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000659.html

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_12_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#110296170659225262

That last one is a link to the Iraqi blog which Juan Cole accussed of being evil CIA agents.

[Dinner]

In short our dear Juan Cole is well know among real journalists and people who read the work of real journalists for being an extremely partisan hack and a bit of a nut job with some of his theories. But hey, if you want to quote a guy who has a reputation for accussing people who disagree with him of being CIA plants, feel free. It's your reputation, Ramo.

[Spiffor]

To be fair with Cole, the blogosphere is likely to host propagandists from all horizons. In an age where every foreign action you take is formally aimed at aiding the people there, "first-hand accounts" can be a potent propaganda force.

Now, it's obvious that all bloggers aren't propagandists. And the diversity of the blogosphere pretty much ensures that all points of view will be represented by somebody sincere. However, the question "is it a genuinely spontaneous account, or a propaganda machine?" is a legitimate one toward especially well-groomed blogs that are widely used as source in the rest of the blogosphere/media.

[Dinner]

Don't you think he should have found some sort of evidence other then just "I don't like what they are saying" before bandying about accussations of people being CIA Agents?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Don't you think he should have found some sort of evidence other then just "I don't like what they are saying" before bandying about accussations of people being CIA Agents?

Absolutely, he should have. While raising the question is good, BAMing the answer isn't.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ramo

For starts Mr Cole seems to believe that voting for parties instead of individual candidates is some how totally undemocratic. I prefer the other way but Canada and several western European countries hold elections where you vote for Political Parties based upon that party's platform and I do believe Canada is a democratic country dispite that.

When the party lists are dictated top-down, announced a couple weeks before the election, it is undemocratic. That's not how European proportional representation systems work. Incidentally, Canada isn't PR, rather is FPTP (first past the post) like us.

Which part of it is undemocratic, exactly? While we do get to see the lists earlier than that, they're dictated by party leaderships. Since a few years, there's a possibility of ticking little boxes next to candidates names to make them raise higher in the list (potentially meaning that someone who get alot of ticks displaces someone placed higher by the party leadership from a parliamentary seat).

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Berzerker


You said, and I quote:



So, what success did they have under Saddam? Tis such a simple question



Why are you dodging my question and changing the subject?



We're a lot better, but should the US have stayed out of WWII because we were better than Hitler? Kinda bizarre statement, dontchya think?



So because Bush et al did bad or dumb things in the process of removing Saddam, the Iraqis will succeed inspite of the US? You aren't even trying to defend what you said...

Dear mr. Dissect-o-man, I'll reply to your post as a whole because it'll get disjointed and loses context otherwise. I would be much obliged if you could do the same.

Now, the Iraqis not having success under Saddam (which is obviously true) doesn't mean that the US is not an impediment to success. That happens on the merits of US' actions. For sure, they're a far lesser impediment than SH ever was, but I stand by my assertion that an impediment is what the US has been, and from the looks of it continues to be. As evidence, I give the deterioriation of the situation in Iraq, consistently contrary to the claims of pro-US boosters.
Rebuilding was a sham, even the elections had to be pushed for by Sistani et al. The sunnis continue to be alienated, civil war edging ever closer. A US administration that speculates on the use of death squads to scare them into submission must surely be inadequate in the task of stabilising the situation.

The bottom line is, "we're better than Saddam" does not a success make. Just saying that and patting oneself in the back is to ignore the still ongoing plight of many, many Iraqis.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Well, if that's how it must be. But it still makes me very sad to see you respond with such a barrage of insults to someone who wants to have a talk with you.

You didn't want to talk to him. You were just trying to make him say what you wanted to try to set him up. You admitted this at the beginning of the last page. You're not interested in his ideas or opinions at all. You're not even interested in arguing the subject other than getting satisfaction from creating a vague image of you being right. And that's all you seem to care about here.

[Jaakko]

I am very sorry for not showing Fez proper respect.

[molly bloom]

I have always felt humbled by the sight of people who either get to vote for the first time (the long, long queues of first time black voters in South Africa) or those who will risk their lives to exercise a right that most of us in the West take for granted: the franchise.


I do not see any discernible difference between the 'insurgents', or as I like to call them, undemocractic murdering fascists, and the likes of UNITA, Renamo, the Contras or El Salvador's and Guatemala's paramilitaries.

Their targets?

Schools, hospitals, civilians.


Their weapons?

Not education, or persuasion, but bullets, explosives and suicide bombings.

Their purpose?

Not 'liberation' but disruption, intimidation and domination.


This is the right election, entirely possibly for the wrong reasons, and not under the best circumstances, but it is people deciding their own futures, and not being told by a secret police force, or theocratic militants, who to vote for.

[Jaakko]

I'm worried about ethnic strife right now. Many Sunnis are extremely apprehensive of a Shiite-dominated government, and the sounds made by the US and Allawi's govt regarding death squads and "making the Sunnis pay for their support of the insurgency" certainly lend some credence to the worries. Sistani's faction on the other hand seems to be a large moderating influence, so he might be able to hold things together, if given the opportunity. The insurgency will not end when the US-led retaliation attempts get more attention from the local press than the insurgents themselves.
The other problem is Kurds. I don't know what exactly they were promised in 2003, but many seem to entertain dreams of autonomy, which I don't see happening. If bigger rifts occur, hopefully nobody gets the idea of cracking down on Kurd dissent.

[molly bloom]

Ethnic strife takes place even in democracies- Northern Ireland, Canada, Spain- it's not a reason not to have elections, and the prospect of it doesn't make elections suspect.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Ethnic strife takes place even in democracies- Northern Ireland, Canada, Spain- it's not a reason not to have elections, and the prospect of it doesn't make elections suspect.

Sure enough, I'm all for the elections. They're a good thing, but I get the feel that many foreigners cheering see them as some kind of a silver bullet, even though the issues tearing Iraq apart are still there, strong as ever.

[lord of the mark]

WRT Cole, and some other points

1. I followed the prewar debate. I certainly recall Cole as a determined opponent of US intervention. NEVER a proponent. There ARE several proponents who have become highly critical of the admin, including Andrew Sullivan Daniel Drezner, and a whole batch of folks at the New Republic. I dont think Cole is among them.

2. Why the f*** does Bush wavering on elections have anything to do with US media boosterism? The celebration in the headlines was for the people of Iraq, for democracy, and for the success of what US troops and the American people (and our allies in the coalition of the willing) have done, NOT for Bush et al. NOT everything is about Bush.

3. In any case, is wavering automatically bad? Its said the Bushies are stubborn and never change course when what they do is mistaken - in fact the history of the Iraq situation shows that they DO change course in response to facts on the ground - they just dont admit it.

4. The election happened under attack - so did the first election East Timor - the Timorese went on to build democracy - what was STRIKING was the courage of the Iraqis wrt the violence - also who little there was on election day compared to what was expected.

5. PR - well i agree single member districts would have been better - but there were reasons for PR, advanced by the UN rep. Its hardly a fatal flaw.

6. My impression, from media interviews, is that they were voting to take control of their country, to keep the past from coming back. Some may have voted to get the US out - and even those were right, this IS the best way to get US troops out - but it will take time, and I think they have patience.

7. Clerical govt - ive seen numerous reports that UIA has said precisely that there will be NO clerics at the top of the govt.

8. Sharia as personal (family and inheritance) law - that will be a controversial issue for sure, and i understand why feminists dont care for it. However it would hardly make Iraq at all like Iran - almost every muslim country in the middle east has sharia as personal law, and even Israel has a modified form of Sharia as personal law for muslims.

9. Turnout numbers - The 72% seems to have been an error, 60% looks good, we'll know more, but in any case it was substantial.

10. does anyone remember back when Allawi was first chosen, when SOME people said he was a new dictator, and elections would never take place, theyd be endlessly deferred based on some declaration of emergency?

Congratulations to the Iraqi people on their courage and determination.

[lord of the mark]

from Iraq the Model:

"The first thing we saw this morning on our way to the voting center was a convoy of the Iraqi army vehicles patrolling the street, the soldiers were cheering the people marching towards their voting centers then one of the soldiers chanted "vote for Allawi" less than a hundred meters, the convoy stopped and the captain in charge yelled at the soldier who did that and said:
"You're a member of the military institution and you have absolutely no right to support any political entity or interfere with the people's choice. This is Iraq's army, not Allawi's".
This was a good sign indeed and the young officer's statement was met by applause from the people on the street."