Open Iraqi election thread

[DanS]

But I have trouble imagining that the loss of priviledged status is the reason (let alone the only reason) why the Sunnis have such a strong support for violence. Not to explore the reasons, and to dismiss the possible demands, is only bound to failure IMHO. Unless one plans to exterminate a population, it's always a good idea to keep that population sufficiently satisfied so that it behaves. And saying "screw them", or not exploring their motivations, will only end in the utter alienation of the Sunni community. A viable democratic Iraq cannot cope with that.

Sure it can. The majority can put down the revolt of the minority. Democracies have done this from time-to-time in the past. It's enough to inform the minority that a resort to violence is unwise, when other legitimate avenues for making your desires known are available.

[Ramo]

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.

If you think they're such big problems, then defend your accusations. Ignoring my refutations, and then insisting that the piece is hackery, is dishonest. I'm not going to go on with this irrelevent tangeant about Juan Cole's credibility when you don't have time to back up the meat of your objections.

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.

Spare me your self-reighteous bull****. First of all, I didn't prance him as the perfectly objective guy - I just quoted his post because I generally agreed with it, and it'd spare me the trouble of rewriting the same ideas. Secondly, how does generally opposing the gov't's actions make you a hack? Does generally supporting the gov't make you a hack?

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.

I looked at the link, and I couldn't find him calling them CIA agents. I couldn't even find the phrase "CIA" in the post they quoted. He just said that they seemed suspicious with their beliefs, their host, and IIRC, they disputed something that Cole said which is supposed to be a basic fact about Najaf's history, which Iraqis are supposed to generally know. I don't know what the situation is (nor do I particularly care), but you're totally misrepresenting him, here.

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

You don't bother to double-check the facts regarding people you disagree with, and you call Cole a hack?

[Ramo]

Which part of it is undemocratic, exactly? While we do get to see the lists earlier than that, they're dictated by party leaderships.

And party memberships.

Where the lack of democracy comes from is the widespread lack of knowledge regarding who comprise the party lists. Since, again, the party lists were announced shortly before the election, and then there was virtually no public campaigning in large parts of the country due to the security situation (presumably, that's not the case in Europe).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
[You don't bother to double-check the facts regarding people you disagree with, and you call Cole a hack?

Cole said they were suspicious cause theyre blog was on a server in Texas. Cole didnt bother to check why they were using that server, or to inform himself that many Iraqi bloggers use out of country servers.

One expects higher standards from a University of Michigan Mid East Studies prof, especially one so widely quoted as Cole, than one does from a 'poly poster, even one so compelling as Oerdin. He didnt use the word CIA, but simply questioned where they get their support from, in words that implied CIA. Standard fare from the likes of Cole.

Its hardly surprising that Cole is feeling down today.

[lord of the mark]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...401698,00.html

[lord of the mark]

david adesnik of oxblog on Coles recent post:

"The 1997 elections in Iran were much more democratic.

Maybe if I said stuff like that I could get a job in the history department at the University of Michigan. Oh, and here's another bit of Ann Arbor scholarship, taken from the same post:

If it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship under Chalabi.

Well, maybe under President Rumsfeld."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Oh, and here's another bit of Ann Arbor scholarship, taken from the same post:

Makes me wonder about the education of a certain doctor that posts here.

[lord of the mark]

So where the hell were the insurgents? We have been told that the battle of Fallujah was only a tactical victory for the coalition, if that. We've been told that the arrests of various Zarqawi lieutenants is unimportant, indeed that the arrest or death of ANY insurgents is unimportant, as they can always recruit more, and there numbers are swelling. Coalition intel work is failing, and the iraqi forces are worthless, except for a handful of overstretched Kurds.

Yet on the day that the insurgency had publicly stated it HAD to disrupt, they achieved little more than they have on numerous days in the last few weeks. A total of 44 Iraqis killed, apparently including the suiciders themselves. NO succesful attacks outside the Sunni triangle.

So what happened?
A. They never planned to target the election, that was a bluff.
B. Theyre quite strong, but targeting a particular event is beyond them - they can hit only targets of opportunity.
C. Efforts by coalition and Iraqi forces were too strong
D. The insurgency IS fading.
E. A little of each of the above

[Odin]

The Sunnis are scared to death that the Shia will treat them like 2nd class citizens , so I don't blame them for boycotting the election.

[Last Conformist]

I'd hazard at a combo of B and C. Security, I'm given to understand, was extraordinary, and on a level that cannot be sustained for an extented length of time.

As for fading, The Economist estimates they've grown considerably in numbers over the past year, FWIW.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin
The Sunnis are scared to death that the Shia will treat them like 2nd class citizens , so I don't blame them for boycotting the election.

I suppose also that you were in favor of the South seceding in 1861 for the same reason?

[Sava]

TEH ELECTIONS WERE A SUCCESSS!!!

“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 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

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned


I suppose also that you were in favor of the South seceding in 1861 for the same reason?

Let's be honest here: The South seceded because they wanted their ****ign slaves Ned.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
TEH ELECTIONS WERE A SUCCESSS!!!



- Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled ‘U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,’ September 4, 1967

Don't compare this to Vietnam, thanks. There isn't a potent enemy.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/39526.htm

"BAGHDAD — The man replacing the mayor of Baghdad — who was assassinated for his pro-American loyalties — says he is not worried about his ties to Washington.

In fact, he'd like to erect a monument to honor President Bush in the middle of the city.

"We will build a statue for Bush," said Ali Fadel, the former provincial council chairman. "He is the symbol of freedom.""

--------------

Just thought that was funny, but I dunno about the source.

At any rate, comparing Iraq to Vietnam, I think is sick in the head.

The insurgency is only fading in Iraq. That's the only plausible answer.

[Berzerker]

Jaakko

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.

Sorry, if I took you out of context then by all means show me and explain.

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.

What does this have to do with the fact, the fact you now seem to understand (sort of anyway), that the Iraqis weren't having elections under Saddam? You said Iraqi success would occur inspite of the US and I asked you about the lack of past success of Iraqis before the US went in. You're calling the catalyst of the current success a greater impediment to democracy than the Iraqis who would still be under Saddam if not for the US.

I'm just trying to make Giancarlo to commit himself to something he can't weasel himself out of.

Oh the irony.