Open Iraqi election thread

[Dinner]

The three big reasons for continuing black outs are 1) ever increasing demand 2) stabotage 3) Theft of copper electrical lines which are then sold for cash.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Oerdin
To clear the ignorance which has built up in this thread let us review a few facts.

1) In 2004 the Iraqi economy grew at an amazing 37% rate and economists are predicting a 41% growth rate in 2005. This is due to the ending of the sanctions, the restoration of normal business and the near complete lifting of all government tariffs. Under Saddam tarrifs and export controls averaged triple digits on most goods.

2) The New Iraqi Dinar has been doing well on international markets based upon strong domestic growth and increased rates of oil exporting. 1,950 NID per $U.S. in October 2003 to around 1,460 NID per $U.S. by mid-October 2004.

3) Financially the Iraqi government is better then it has been in decades. $55 billion in aid has been given with $33 billion more pledged plus creditors have slashed the national debt from $250 billion (if reporations owed are included) to only 20% of that amount. Iraq went from being the most indebted country on earth (as a percent of GDP) to only about as bad a Brazil.

4) In 1990 Iraq Generated 9,300MW of electricity but the 1991 war destroyed 90% of Iraq's electrical grid. The Iraqi government rebuilt throughout the 1990's though pre-invasion was only producing 4000 MW. Back in Nov 2004 (the most recent figures I found) 5000MW were being produced with demand at 7500 MW. That means 25% more electicity then pre-war and power plants currently under construction will increase capacity to 9000MW by the end of 2005 though this deadline might not be achieved.

5) Unemployment has halved since the invasion and with the projected strong economic growth it is expected to continue falling.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

How much of the Iraqi economic growth is fueled by the debt cancelations, US aid and oil industry coming back on line? Certainly there wasn't much to build from, so even small growth (in absolute terms), from whatever source, is bound to look impressive as a percentage. What I'd like to see is what foreign private investment is doing. Last I heard, nobody wanted to touch Iraq with a ten foot pole, which means the money that could be made isn't worth the risks.

[Ned]

Jaako, I see you ignored my question. I understand why, given your insistence that the resistance is self-sustaining, fueled by the Iraqis themselves. But the evidence is contrary. Suicide bombers either are Saudis or duped Iraqis. The Iraqis themselves do not seem so dedicated to overthrowing democracy and restoring the rule of Saddam and his family.

The sooner Saddam is tried and actually excuted the better. It will pull the rug out from the insurgency big time.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Ned
Jaako, I see you ignored my question. I understand why, given your insistence that the resistance is self-sustaining, fueled by the Iraqis themselves. But the evidence is contrary. Suicide bombers either are Saudis or duped Iraqis. The Iraqis themselves do not seem so dedicated to overthrowing democracy and restoring the rule of Saddam and his family.

The sooner Saddam is tried and actually excuted the better. It will pull the rug out from the insurgency big time.

The overwhelming majority of insurgents are NOT suicide bombers.

In any case, you tell an anecdote of a single day's events, that may or may not be accurate, and expect us to treat it as giving the entire picture of the insurgency. That doesn't make sense. In Fallujah for example, there were few foreign fighters. How does that reconcile with your ideas here?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jaakko


How much of the Iraqi economic growth is fueled by the debt cancelations, US aid and oil industry coming back on line? Certainly there wasn't much to build from, so even small growth (in absolute terms), from whatever source, is bound to look impressive as a percentage. What I'd like to see is what foreign private investment is doing. Last I heard, nobody wanted to touch Iraq with a ten foot pole, which means the money that could be made isn't worth the risks.

Billions of dollars have been pumped into the economy. Of course the economy will grow. Amazingly the unemployment rate is over 60%. One would think that the objective would be to create jobs. Who really cares how much the economy is growing if jobs aren't created.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Kidicious




Billions of dollars have been pumped into the economy. Of course the economy will grow. Amazingly the unemployment rate is over 60%. One would think that the objective would be to create jobs. Who really cares how much the economy is growing if jobs aren't created.

Not 60%, 26.8% by the latest I saw. That 60% includes under-employment.
That's actually another interesting thing I'd like to know, how Iraq's unemployment percentages are counted. Even western countries have been known to massage the statistics to artificially lower the percentage.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaakko


In Fallujah for example, there were few foreign fighters. How does that reconcile with your ideas here?

we dont actually know how many foreign fighters there were in Fallujah. Captured fighters origins were determined by their Arabic dialects. Dead ones were identified only by IDs on their bodies. If a foreigner was carrying no ID, or was carrying Iraqi ID, he would not have been counted as foreign.

By the way, did you know that the old pro-Saddam Iraqi embassy in Damascus is still functioning under the protection of the govt of Syria? And that it is handing out Iraqi ids?

[Brundlefly]

Indications are that Sunni minority has boycotted the election. How can any constitution be representative of Iraqi people without Sunni's involved. Until Sunni's are appeased somehow, they should be considered as insurgents who dont support the government. If the US had anyone with any foreign policy skill, they would have made sure Sunnis were on board before the election.. What a quagmire this Iraq is and will be for years..

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by bfg9000
Indications are that Sunni minority has boycotted the election. How can any constitution be representative of Iraqi people without Sunni's involved. Until Sunni's are appeased somehow, they should be considered as insurgents who dont support the government. If the US had anyone with any foreign policy skill, they would have made sure Sunnis were on board before the election.. What a quagmire this Iraq is and will be for years..

some sunnis did vote. predominantly sunni parties led by Pres. Yawer and by adnan Pachachi are expected to get several assembly seats each. NY Times this morning has an article on voting in Mosul, suggesting some Sunni Arabs voted there out of tribal loyalty to Yawer.

In any case the leading Shiites have indicated strongly that they intend to invite Sunnis into the constitutional discussions, whatever the election results. The leaders of the Association of Muslim Scholars, a key group that boycotted, seem to be interested in taking them up on that.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jaakko


The overwhelming majority of insurgents are NOT suicide bombers.

In any case, you tell an anecdote of a single day's events, that may or may not be accurate, and expect us to treat it as giving the entire picture of the insurgency. That doesn't make sense. In Fallujah for example, there were few foreign fighters. How does that reconcile with your ideas here?

Good point. But there was one other incident where a suicide bomber survived. He too was duped. He had only been told to deliver a vehicle to a location. When he began to get out, the bomb went off.

I think majority, but not all of course, of the resistance consists of former regime elements. Documents indicate that Saddam planned this form of resistance as soon as war became a distinct possibility. They have been joined by Zarqawi and other foreign fighters, who may or may not support Saddam, but really do not want democracy in Iraq.

If we eliminate Saddam, a lot of the reason for the resistance will be vanish, plus a lot of the funding. Saddam is funding the resistance with skimmed oil-for-food money, which is estimated to be in the billions. But until Saddam is eliminated, or all his top lieutenants are captured, I think the resistance continues.

(While the priniciple of attorney-client privilege is sacred in American law, I hope we make an exception with Saddam. I assume he is communicating with his people through his lawyers.)

A possible problem here is that Saddam top boys may be directing events from Syria. It will be interesting to see how we handle this if we locate them. Take them out, or demand that Syria arrest them?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Not 60%, 26.8% by the latest I saw. That 60% includes under-employment.
That's actually another interesting thing I'd like to know, how Iraq's unemployment percentages are counted. Even western countries have been known to massage the statistics to artificially lower the percentage.

I'm not going to take the coalitions word for it, when so many other sources have stated otherwise. Are there anyother sources who say the unemployment rate is lower than 50%?

[Ned]

Originally posted by bfg9000
Indications are that Sunni minority has boycotted the election. How can any constitution be representative of Iraqi people without Sunni's involved. Until Sunni's are appeased somehow, they should be considered as insurgents who dont support the government. If the US had anyone with any foreign policy skill, they would have made sure Sunnis were on board before the election.. What a quagmire this Iraq is and will be for years..

The problem is not the "Sunni's" per se. It is Saddam.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaakko


My bad, it was the leader of SCIRI that said it.
The Iraqi prez does hope for a withdrawal by the end of 2005, though, which was missing from your quote.

Do you actually read the things you link to?

From YOUR article

'Mr Hakim said Iraq's next government might discuss whether to tell foreign troops to leave. Washington has said it will pull out its forces if Baghdad asks it to, but says such a request is unlikely. Many mainstream Iraqi politicians say it is far too soon to talk about a troop withdrawal.

"No one welcomes the foreign troops in Iraq. We believe in the ability of Iraqis to run their own issues, including the security issue," Mr Hakim said. "Of course this issue could be brought up by the new government"'

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned


The problem is not the "Sunni's" per se. It is Saddam.

details? how will 'getting rid of' (killing?) Saddam solve any of Iraq's serious problems?

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Do you actually read the things you link to?

From YOUR article

'Mr Hakim said Iraq's next government might discuss whether to tell foreign troops to leave. Washington has said it will pull out its forces if Baghdad asks it to, but says such a request is unlikely. Many mainstream Iraqi politicians say it is far too soon to talk about a troop withdrawal.

"No one welcomes the foreign troops in Iraq. We believe in the ability of Iraqis to run their own issues, including the security issue," Mr Hakim said. "Of course this issue could be brought up by the new government"'

Yes, I do. Do you read the arguments you are responding to?

I originally posted the following:

As for withdrawal, it should be screamingly obvious that the American occupation is not popular, regardless of how people regard the insurgency. The vast majority of Iraqis think they can handle things themselves. The Iraqi president himself came out recently and expressed this very sentiment. In other words, you have absolutely no basis for dismissing talk of US withdrawal as the voice of suicide bombers.

The most relevant bit in bold, obviously replacing president with the Hakim fellow.

What was your accusation again?