Open Iraqi election thread

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
BTW - those who saw fit to character assassinate me on the other thread are the self same shower of incompetents who jumped on the WMD bandwagon...

Your stupidity was exposed then as it is now - but then being as this is apolyton, it is only to be expected.

This is the worst kind of BS I have ever seen trying to defend a position on this site. I don't know what may have hapend in that thread, but I really doubt that it was that hard if you look at what other people claims without whining when opposed.

[Shi Huangdi]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49507-2005Jan30_2.html

A good story by the WP about what this election means:

NAJAF, Iraq, Jan. 30 -- The Shiites of Najaf went to the polls Sunday with decades of grief, with memories of fathers wrenched from homes, with scars left from torture, with names of loved ones dumped in mass graves. And they put it all in the ballot box.

"Today was the triumph over 35 years of suppression," said an elections official, Nadeen Abdul Raheem. He watched in satisfaction as poll workers sitting on blankets in a schoolroom floor counted ballots by kerosene lantern. "This is a new experience."

Election Day in Iraq was an occasion of fear for many, violence for some. But in Najaf, it was a time of rejoicing.

Shiite Muslims, who make up an estimated 60 percent of the population, have been kept under the thumb of rulers from the Sunni minority for most of the last century. When President Saddam Hussein was in power, Shiites were impoverished and imprisoned. He herded Shiites into minefields during Iraq's war with Iran in the 1980s. He executed Shiites he distrusted, and sent the bill for the bullets to the family of each victim.

For many Shiites, the election Sunday was their victory over the dictator.

"My father helped bring this election today," said Farezdak Abdel Nibi, 34, at a white-washed concrete school building serving as a polling station.

When Nibi was 20, he and his father were eating breakfast when Iraqi security officials burst in and took them both away, he said. Their arrest came during a larger roundup of Shiites by Hussein's security apparatus. Nibi and his father rode together, speechless with fear, as they were taken to a police station. Nibi said he was kept for 15 days. The last time his father was seen alive was three years later. After that, there was no news about what happened to him, Nabil said

"We kept our hope that he had survived. But when we saw all the mass graves Saddam had made, I knew that we had lost him," Nibi said.

"This election is the fruit of every drop of blood that was shed in 1991," Nibi said. "I thank my father. He had three sons who married. None of us had a wedding party, out of respect for him. Today, we can celebrate. Today, we will have a wedding party."

At another polling place in Najaf, Mahmoud Juwad Kathem, 46, said that for four years, he never saw the sun. During his last year in college, Hussein's secret police arrested him for belonging to the outlawed Shiite Dawa Party.

It cost him nine years of his life. Kathem's wrists, 14 years later, still bear scars in the pattern of the chains from which he was hung. His forearm veers in an odd direction, broken by the torture. "Whether you confessed or not, you were tortured," he said.

After Hussein was ousted, Kathem went back to college, resuming his life where it had broken off in 1982. "This day means for me a new future. I am content," he said.

Throughout the day in Najaf, the residents came to demonstrate that a new day had arrived.

For three disabled brothers, Mohammad, Kathem and Saleem Monsuour, it meant rolling their wheelchairs more than two miles to the polling station.

"I came because I can feel for the first time I can do something good for my country," said Mohammad, 33. "Under Saddam, we could do nothing. Wheelchairs were so expensive. He did nothing for us."

For Amad Abdul Hussein, 30, it was a huge grin when he dropped his folded voting sheet in the ballot box, while he held the hand of his 2 1/2 year old son. "This is the first time I felt the democracy inside me," he said. "I wanted to show my son. I expect he will be voting many times."

For Assad Taee, a candidate to be governor of Najaf, it meant the completion of a long circle. Arrested in Najaf in 1977 for taking part in a Shiite uprising, he served two years in prison, was released and imprisoned again for five years, released and again participated in a Shiite uprising in 1991. When this one, too, collapsed, Taee fled to a refugee camp in Saudi Arabia for three years, and eventually left the camp with a Finnish delegation.

His family is still in Finland; he returned to Iraq to point out Hussein's mass graves. With a large Shiite vote expected to support his party, Taee stood a chance to take office when the new Najaf provincial council picks the governor.

"We just want to keep this train going," Taee said. "For us, we have won half what we want just by getting an election. If we win, it will be the other half."

Elsewhere in Iraq, many Sunnis look with apprehension at the Shiite power that will be ushered in by democracy. But the Shiites have learned their lines in the Friday sermons; none says publicly that this is a time for revenge. The Shiite parties insist they want to govern hand in hand with the Sunnis.

But there was no denying the sense of delayed justice felt among those at the polls Sunday.

"This was such a happy day," said Faheka Abedl Wahed, 31, fairly brimming with excitement. "Under Saddam, it was suffer, suffer, suffer. It was danger, prison, torture, hunger, no food, no democracy. You go to one prison and when you leave, you go to another.

"Today, for the first day," the Shiite school teacher said, "I feel like an Iraqi."

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
My prediction: this is a sham, Allawi wins... is US puppet.

And, when I say the typical Democrat is anti-American, the likes of Sava are first to criticize.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
BTW - those who saw fit to character assassinate me on the other thread are the self same shower of incompetents who jumped on the WMD bandwagon...

Your stupidity was exposed then as it is now - but then being as this is apolyton, it is only to be expected.

You don't need help character assassinating yourself as you seem to be giving it a respectable go all alone.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


That is not what I wrote.

I am suggesting that 25% of the Iraqi population is able to have a proportional say in the government of the country and not be completely shut out from its politics.

And that would be a reason to stop the voting ? Actually you are saying that by terrorising a quarter of any country, then any kind of democratic action is illegal ? even if that area had the oportunity to participate.

Those are fine words coming from the safety of your home, but the fact is that much of the Sunni area is a virtual anarchy. The election in Sunni areas is a total farce simply because any people that wanted to vote didn't feel adequately protected to do so - in fact some polling stations themselves were closed, so if someone did want to vote they may have been unable to do so...

This is pure BS. Democracy is a fight and if you don't take up the fight then you are sure to loose. Do you think that democracy was just given by the royalty ? no, it was won in more or less bloddy fights.

[Berzerker]

The Sunni Arabs, for a number of reasons, are the ones who are filled with hate.

I'd say its fear of all the people they've helped screw for decades

[Berzerker]

Anyway, this is very cool. I think Iraq will transform Iran without a shot fired.

Now, don't anyone get the idea I like democracy, I like it only when the alternative is a brutal dictatorship.

Now we need to oust Putin.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I don't know what may have hapend in that thread,

He was taking bets over how many Iraqis would die on election day. I'm suprised he's shocked people would bite at the troll.

[Dinner]

Re: A Success - On the face of it...

Originally posted by MOBIUS
No matter how you look at it, people against democracy in Iraq will be able condemn the election as being skewed and non representative of the population - so the insurgents have their victory after all as the Sunnis wake up to an Iraqi govt in which they have little or no representation.

But then again that was their goal wasn't? Most estimates were the insurgents would likely have only got 5%-10% of the vote thus their prefrence for attempting to disrupt elections they knew they wouldn't win.

I am sorry so many Sunnis chose not to vote but with election turn outs of two thirds of the voters it is hard to say the election wasn't valid. In America, blacks and young people tend to choose not to vote as well but that doesn't make the elections any less valid. True, we'd have a better democracy if more people bothered to vote but 60% - 70% turn out is very high by any measure.

I am suggesting that 25% of the Iraqi population is able to have a proportional say in the government of the country and not be completely shut out from its politics.

I agree that would be best but what do you do if that 20%-25% choose not to vote? We can't blood well make them vote.

[GePap]

Its good to see that voting in Iraq went well.

I am sad thought this is painted as yet ANOTHER "victory". This vote is a necessary step in a long list of steps that need to occur befoire Iraq is a stable, working dmeocracy- its good that it happened successfully, it means little to the long term prospects of Iraq. What matters is what now, finally, 2 years after the invasion, starts happening, which is the drafting of a new permanent constitution.

IU have said it before, and I will say it again, The biggest challange I see comes now. We can all look back to say 1994, when blacks finally had the right to vote in SA, or even to 1991-92, when free elections swept the ex-Soviet Union. Free elections do not equal a free state- they are a start, but nothing more. This is a "open up the wine and cheer" kind of momnent, not a "dance wildly in the streets" moment.

I say that because all that will happen is that when the insurgency continues as it has, and the constitutional convention starts, people then diminishs the importance of this event. This leection was important, maybe historic, but by itself it does not represent any sort of turning of the tide. That comes in a few years- when a government turns over peacefully in Iraq, then we should celebrate, then hope it happens several times in a row.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
And, when I say the typical Democrat is anti-American, the likes of Sava are first to criticize.

Ned, your mistake is to think that Sava's position on this issue has anything to do with the Democratic Party.

[Giancarlo]

Anybody who is against this election is pro-Zarqawi. That simple. Anybody to criticize this election is misintrepreting the reality.

I'm glad that even Gepap, one avowed opponent of mine, does recognize this is an important, crucial step ahead in the stability of Iraq and prosperity of the Iraqi people.

[Ramo]

Some important perspective from Juan Cole (of course):

I'm just appalled by the cheerleading tone of US news coverage of the so-called elections in Iraq on Sunday. I said on television last week that this event is a "political earthquake" and "a historical first step" for Iraq. It is an event of the utmost importance, for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world. All the boosterism has a kernel of truth to it, of course. Iraqis hadn't been able to choose their leaders at all in recent decades, even by some strange process where they chose unknown leaders. But this process is not a model for anything, and would not willingly be imitated by anyone else in the region. The 1997 elections in Iran were much more democratic, as were the 2002 elections in Bahrain and Pakistan.

Moreover, as Swopa rightly reminds us all (http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043), the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa (http://www.juancole.com/2003/11/sist...elections.html) denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections (http://www.juancole.com/2004/01/ques...q-in-past.html). Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did.

So if it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship under Chalabi, or would have had stage-managed elections with an electorate consisting of a handful of pro-American notables. It was Sistani and the major Shiite parties that demanded free and open elections and a UNSC resolution. They did their job and got what they wanted. But the Americans have been unable to provide them the requisite security for truly aboveboard democratic elections.

With all the hoopla, it is easy to forget that this was an extremely troubling and flawed "election." Iraq is an armed camp. There were troops and security checkpoints everywhere. Vehicle traffic was banned. The measures were successful in cutting down on car bombings that could have done massive damage. But even these Draconian steps did not prevent widespread attacks, which is not actually good news. There is every reason to think that when the vehicle traffic starts up again, so will the guerrilla insurgency.

The Iraqis did not know the names of the candidates for whom they were supposedly voting. What kind of an election is anonymous! There were even some angry politicians late last week who found out they had been included on lists without their permission. Al-Zaman compared the election process to buying fruit wholesale and sight unseen. (This is the part of the process that I called a "joke," and I stand by that.)

This thing was more like a referendum than an election. It was a referendum on which major party list associated with which major leader would lead parliament.

Many of the voters came out to cast their ballots in the belief that it was the only way to regain enough sovereignty to get American troops back out of their country. The new parliament is unlikely to make such a demand immediately, because its members will be afraid of being killed by the Baath military. One fears a certain amount of resentment among the electorate when this reticence becomes clear.

Iraq now faces many key issues that could tear the country apart, from the issues of Kirkuk and Mosul to that of religious law. James Zogby on Wolf Blitzer wisely warned the US public against another "Mission Accomplished" moment. Things may gradually get better, but this flawed "election" isn't a Mardi Gras for Americans and they'll regret it if that is the way they treat it.

But props to Sistani and the Iraqi people; to the extent that this election's democratic, it's their doing.

Anyways, hopefully Allawi will be out of power. Not that I trust Hakim or Jaafari any (the chief power brokers in the UIA, leaders of SCIRI and Da'wa, respectively) - especially Hakim, but probably better Islamists than Ba'athists. Hopefully, Sistani, the ICP, et al. can start rebuilding a nonsectarian civil society, and maybe down the line, Iraq'll be democratic.

As Cole says, we haven't seen the light at the end of the tunnel. There will be several very serious problems that'll need to be addressed as soon as the new national assembly assembles, namely Kurdish autonomy, closely related to that, sectarianism in Kirkuk (split between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen), the role of Sharia (given power, BTW, it seems very likely that the UIA will use religious law as personal status law - marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc.), decisions over a timetable for withdrawal, Sunni Arab influence in the new gov't and constitution, etc.

Edited in Cole's hyperlinks.

[Dinner]

Mr. Cole seems to have a lot of opinions which are contradicted by basic facts. No need to change opinions over little things like fats however.

He atleast is correct that the elections do not solve all the problems in Iraq though I do believe he is giving short shrift to what is a very good piece of news.

[Giancarlo]

Mr Cole seems to have views that are so desperately trying to hold onto a obviously wrong world view that just doesn't fit with the situation. He talks a lot, but doesn't quite back himself up. As I know, you can say stuff but it doesn't quite make it true. Mr Cole also seems to reject the notion the fact that overwhelming amounts of Iraqis voting is somehow bad. Let alone the names of candidates were revealed a week before the election for the safety of the candidates. But the ass Mr Cole doesn't seem to take the security situation into account. His rhetoric is disgusting let alone sick.