NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, everything will be OK after the elections in January. "Freedom and Democracy" will have been brought to Iraq. Even if they don't let everyone vote (read as decide that the Sunni areas are too dangerous), it will show that the will of the Iraqi people matters right?

Or maybe not... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=21&u=/nm/20041217/ts_nm/iraq_allawi_dc_1)



Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi may return to power with American blessing after next month's election, even if he does not score a major victory at the ballot box.

Iraqi officials say it is too early to predict who will be the country's next prime minister, but privately suggest that Allawi, a secular Shi'ite heading a list that includes several ministers from the U.S.-backed government, is considered the front runner if he wins a seat in the new National Assembly.
...

Under the postwar election system, Iraq will be treated as a single electoral district. The electorate will vote for lists of candidates and names high on the lists will have the best chances of winning seats in the assembly.

While some admire Allawi as a U.S.-backed strongman who could bring stability, violence has continued and Iraq has been hit by a fuel and electricity crisis during his term.

A U.S. official, who declined to be named, said he did not know of a deal to bring Allawi back, but said it was clear any Iraqi prime minister would have to be palatable to Washington.

...
"American officials frankly tell us they favor Allawi," one senior diplomat said. "But his return is unlikely to help stem the violence. He has obviously not talked enough with the Sunnis, who are outside the election anyway."


In other words, the election goes as follows: Allow Shi'ites and Kurds to vote, Sunni's are verboten. These votes mean nothing as, it seems, as the results will be tallied and then the US gets to pick the new government from anyone they like that scored to a certain threshold.

No documentation on what that "threshold" will be is available.


And, of course, the US promises to leave Iraq if asked by this "democratically elected" government as it so clearly will represent the will of the people.

that one of the things that happen, when you start a war without plan for the time after it over.
the iraqi democracy will failed, and bush will find sombody else to blame in seconds. eventualy, the "Time's person for 2004" can't blame himself, right?

In other words, the election goes as follows: Allow Shi'ites and Kurds to vote, Sunni's are verboten. These votes mean nothing as, it seems, as the results will be tallied and then the US gets to pick the new government from anyone they like that scored to a certain threshold.
No documentation on what that "threshold" will be is available.
And, of course, the US promises to leave Iraq if asked by this "democratically elected" government as it so clearly will represent the will of the people.

Well, if you look at the map, you'll find that the Kurds and the Shiites have relative quiet in their areas, and the Sunnis seem to want to place their bets on shooting people and cutting throats and blowing up cars.

I'm sure that if they wanted to vote, instead of using violence, they could stop shooting, and participate. If they don't want to participate, and they only want to commit violence, then that's what they'll get.

Even if the US leaves, which seems to be what everyone wants nowadays, the Kurds and Shiites will be getting American weapons and American aid - and the Sunnis will have nothing - they are going to get stomped in an endless civil war.

They could have participated. But they were unwilling to give up the power that Saddam had given them for so long - the power to take the lands of others - the power to commit genocide with gas - the power to invade Iran. Just unwilling, you know. Still unwilling.

Well, if you look at the map, you'll find that the Kurds and the Shiites have relative quiet in their areas, and the Sunnis seem to want to place their bets on shooting people and cutting throats and blowing up cars.

I'm sure that if they wanted to vote, instead of using violence, they could stop shooting, and participate. If they don't want to participate, and they only want to commit violence, then that's what they'll get.

Even if the US leaves, which seems to be what everyone wants nowadays, the Kurds and Shiites will be getting American weapons and American aid - and the Sunnis will have nothing - they are going to get stomped in an endless civil war.

They could have participated. But they were unwilling to give up the power that Saddam had given them for so long - the power to take the lands of others - the power to commit genocide with gas - the power to invade Iran. Just unwilling, you know. Still unwilling.


So - Instead you will wind up with a theocracy allied with Iran - the country that IS making WMD and the country that DID aid al qaeda, and you have just restored the natural order where the majority "stomps on" a minority rather than the other way around. That was the complaint about Saddam right? You are just picking and choosing who gets to do the stomping in a country far far away.



All of this at the bargain basement price to the American taxpayer of a few hundred million dollars and thousands of American lives either lost or ruined to injury.


So, this accomplished what exactly again?

So, this accomplished what exactly again?

A whole lot of in-fighting and another term for Bush?

thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard...treating a whole country as one constituency

So - Instead you will wind up with a theocracy allied with Iran - the country that IS making WMD and the country that DID aid al qaeda, and you have just restored the natural order where the majority "stomps on" a minority rather than the other way around. That was the complaint about Saddam right? You are just picking and choosing who gets to do the stomping in a country far far away.



All of this at the bargain basement price to the American taxpayer of a few hundred million dollars and thousands of American lives either lost or ruined to injury.


So, this accomplished what exactly again?

To use the term "stomps on" I'm sure refers to the response to a minority who trys to exert its will on the majority through violence and terrorism. That was Saddam's tactics and it led to genocide, torture, rape, and neglect of the people. Saddam's followers were nothing but cheap thugs who exercised their own will with no consequences. When Iraq has its first democratic election it is logical to assume the majority will prevail. That is called the will of the people. If the Sunnis were to participate then they could expect to have a proportionate share in the governing of their country and an inroad into avoiding a theocracy. Non-Iraqi terrorists and disgruntled natives who insist on using Saddam's techniques can rightfully expect to be suppressed and dealt with appropriately...stomped on.

Other than opinion pieces, what is there to make one believe that Iraq would end up an ally of Iran? The US has made it clear that Iran (and Syria) are under scrutiny and it would be logical to expect the new Iraqi government would support our (and the world's) interest in that respect. The EU has been totally ineffective (signing treaties that are not binding :confused:) in dealing with Iran. Unless Iran can be made to cooperate in the world arena, then it is ridiculous to assume the US to support an alliance with Iran.

You speak of our people who have been killed or injured as if they are viewed as expendable commodities in this country. I am sick to death of the non-Americans on here who beat their chest and rend their clothes in mock torment for the loss of these lives in order to try to support their arguments. The dead and injured in this war are our family, friends, and co-workers. They are a part of each of us and the loss of each one is deeply felt and continually grieved. Bargain basement? The implication that the US does not value their worth is unbelievabley uninformed, self-serving, and narrow-minded.

The monetary price to the US has been far greater than a few hundred million...try billions. And what has this accomplished?

1. To give a positive view to an embarrassing situation caused by bad intel, we now know that Saddam did not have WMD (or else he did and now Syria has them) so there aren't large quantities of these things in the hands of his followers. It should also be noted that our demolitions experts have been destroying over 100 ton of Saddam's munitions a day for the last 1 1/2 years and they report they have enough to keep them busy for several more years. If Saddam had intentions of being a non-threat to the world, why the hell did he have so many weapons?

2. Another positive...The people in other mideast countries are looking at their free neighbors and wondering "why not me?". Afghanistan has had a successful democratic election. Iran is already having problems with civil unrest and the citizens' growing demand for a voice in their government. Once Iraq has an election (even if not perfect, it is 101% better than what they had before) the unrest and demands for freedom by their neighbors will no doubt increase. A quote from Yawer: I'd like to express to you the commitment of the Iraqi people to move toward democracy. We're determined to have a free, democratic, federal Iraq, a country that is a source of stability to the Middle East, which is very important for the rest of the world.

3. The 35 year regime of a dictator as insane and brutal as Hitler has finally ended. He and his officers are now starting to be called on to account for their actions. Try listening to the testimony given (Chemical Ali's preliminary trial started last week) and then you tell me...

Why didn't the world stop this butchery years ago?

To use the term "stomps on" I'm sure refers to the response to a minority who trys to exert its will on the majority through violence and terrorism. That was Saddam's tactics and it led to genocide, torture, rape, and neglect of the people. Saddam's followers were nothing but cheap thugs who exercised their own will with no consequences. When Iraq has its first democratic election it is logical to assume the majority will prevail. That is called the will of the people. If the Sunnis were to participate then they could expect to have a proportionate share in the governing of their country and an inroad into avoiding a theocracy. Non-Iraqi terrorists and disgruntled natives who insist on using Saddam's techniques can rightfully expect to be suppressed and dealt with appropriately...stomped on.


You didn't read the article did you? The article clearly states that the majority will NOT prevail. IT simply will rank a list of candidates that the US will then choose from based on their own criteria. That is not the "will of the people".

And your argument seems to support Saddam's "Stomping" of the Kurdish minority that allied themselves with IRan during the IRan-Iraq war and were in open, violent revolt against the government. Kind of like the Suni's are now.


Other than opinion pieces, what is there to make one believe that Iraq would end up an ally of Iran? The US has made it clear that Iran (and Syria) are under scrutiny and it would be logical to expect the new Iraqi government would support our (and the world's) interest in that respect. The EU has been totally ineffective (signing treaties that are not binding :confused:) in dealing with Iran. Unless Iran can be made to cooperate in the world arena, then it is ridiculous to assume the US to support an alliance with Iran.


Which part of the fact that the forerunning coalition in the election is the one put together by Sistani, an Iranian-born cleric with continuing close ties to the Mullah's in Iran has escaped your attention?


You speak of our people who have been killed or injured as if they are viewed as expendable commodities in this country. I am sick to death of the non-Americans on here who beat their chest and rend their clothes in mock torment for the loss of these lives in order to try to support their arguments. The dead and injured in this war are our family, friends, and co-workers. They are a part of each of us and the loss of each one is deeply felt and continually grieved. Bargain basement? The implication that the US does not value their worth is unbelievabley uninformed, self-serving, and narrow-minded.


Actually, it was Rumsfled who referred to them as "fungible resources". Your generalization of my concern and attempting to turn that into a personal attack is duly noted though. I could note that it's a cheap debating tactic used by people who have nothing else in their arsenal, but that would be just sinking to the same level.


1. To give a positive view to an embarrassing situation caused by bad intel, we now know that Saddam did not have WMD (or else he did and now Syria has them) so there aren't large quantities of these things in the hands of his followers. It should also be noted that our demolitions experts have been destroying over 100 ton of Saddam's munitions a day for the last 1 1/2 years and they report they have enough to keep them busy for several more years. If Saddam had intentions of being a non-threat to the world, why the hell did he have so many weapons?


Gee, I dunno - why does the US have so many then? I mean, if that is the only reason to have a military... especially in so volatile a place as the Middle EAst... :rolleyes:


2. Another positive...The people in other mideast countries are looking at their free neighbors and wondering "why not me?". Afghanistan has had a successful democratic election. Iran is already having problems with civil unrest and the citizens' growing demand for a voice in their government. Once Iraq has an election (even if not perfect, it is 101% better than what they had before) the unrest and demands for freedom by their neighbors will no doubt increase. A quote from Yawer:


You really think people are looking into ocupied Iraq and going "gosh, why can't we be that lucky"?

Now THAT's funny!

35 year regime of a dictator as insane and brutal as Hitler has finally ended. He and his officers are now starting to be called on to account for their actions. Try listening to the testimony given (Chemical Ali's preliminary trial started last week) and then you tell me...


ah yes, use the "insane" label and go from there.... and I have never supported Saddam's reign. I just don't think that bombing the hell out the people and then leaving them in a civil war under a theological reign such as that found in Iran is improving their lives. Stopping your neighbour from hitting his wife by breaking into their house to punch the crap out her husband wrecking the place while you subdue him, and then leaving her in the charge of an equally abusive rapist is not helping her situation. And it entirely possible that this is how things play out.

Why didn't the world stop this butchery years ago?[/B]

Because the US was too busy actively supporting Saddam and no-one was going to step on your turf.

Because the US was too busy actively supporting Saddam and no-one was going to step on your turf.


Especially you head in the sand Canadians.

Especially you head in the sand Canadians.
The Canadian's might have. They didn't support Saddam as much as we did. The people who definately wouldn't have bothered us about Saddam would be those in France and the USSR, who combined for about seventy times more military aid to Saddam than the USA.

We invaded a nation and you expected FAIR elections? When does that EVER happen?

A question for Zepp:

Okay, your argument makes sense, but what do you think should be done? All I'm getting is that Iraq is, in your opinion, FUBAR, and that the elections won't be representative, and that the US ought to... leave? Or not back a candidate? Or what?

Why won't America come out of its shell and just admit it wants to build an empire!

It not a dirty word and It will make them very rich but all this denial is just makes me annoyed.

Why won't America come out of its shell and just admit it wants to build an empire!

It not a dirty word and It will make them very rich but all this denial is just makes me annoyed.


Why not? The Europeans did this for hundreds of years, and look at what the world is like today. I say we start to do the same thing they did. We can't screw it up any more then those people did. The only thing is we don't have any outrageous accents.

Why won't America come out of its shell and just admit it wants to build an empire!
Ahem! Hegemony good sir, hegemony.

Hey if you don't have an impressive acent then what have you got?

Hey if you don't have an impressive acent then what have you got?

No empire, of course. Thanks for the info.

Of course those favored by the US will win. Why? Because the US is the most powerful thing in Iraq, and the one with the strongest voice. It's not to say that the Iraqis don't have a choice, but the candidates not favored by the US won't have the same resources, unless they happen to be really, really rich.
And it's not likely that the Sunnis will vote, simply because they don't want to vote. But I hope I'm wrong.
In any case, even if this doesn't work out next year, I'm confident that Iraq will be much better off in twenty years. None of you guys seem to realize that these things take time. China did not become a world powerhouse overnight. It took at least twenty years.

Why not? The Europeans did this for hundreds of years, and look at what the world is like today. I say we start to do the same thing they did. We can't screw it up any more then those people did. The only thing is we don't have any outrageous accents.

*cough* One does not have an accent, thank you very much.

Oh, and we did help create the largest democracy on the planet. Granted, we also contributed to fucked up countries like Burma, Zimbabwe and the USA but nobody's perfect.

You didn't read the article did you? The article clearly states that the majority will NOT prevail. IT simply will rank a list of candidates that the US will then choose from based on their own criteria. That is not the "will of the people".

Yes, I did read the article that Khaled Yacoub Oweis wrote expressing his opinion. I also read your spin on that article.

Iraqi officials say it is too early to predict who will be the country's next prime minister, but privately suggest that Allawi, a secular Shi'ite heading a list that includes several ministers from the U.S.-backed government, is considered the front runner if he wins a seat in the new National Assembly.

What this says is that it is not predetermined who the winner will be, but that Allawi is the US's horse in this race. You seem to have forgotten that Allawi was not the US's preference for PM, but that the Iraqi Council appointed him on their own. Since then, a cooperative, working relationship has been created to bring democracy to Iraq.


And your argument seems to support Saddam's "Stomping" of the Kurdish minority that allied themselves with IRan during the IRan-Iraq war and were in open, violent revolt against the government. Kind of like the Suni's are now.

No, that is not what I said. The Kurds allied themselves with Iran because they were the victims of Saddam's genocidal regime. Outside terrorists and a handful of the Iraqi Sunnis are slaughtering Iraqis (bombings, beheadings, torture) in order to force their will through intimidation on the majority. The Kurds were seeking sanctuary. The insurgents are trying to bring back another brutal regime.

Which part of the fact that the forerunning coalition in the election is the one put together by Sistani, an Iranian-born cleric with continuing close ties to the Mullah's in Iran has escaped your attention?

You need to read this from the Sudanese archives.. http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0406a&L=sudanese&F=&S=&P=3953

> Of course, this appointment demonstrates that the United States is
> moving away from its former strategy of aligning itself with Grand
> Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Allawi is a Shi'i like al-Sistani, but has
> much closer ties to the British and American intelligence communities
> than to al-Sistani.
>
> The U.S. has distanced itself from al-Sistani and the Shiite clerical
> leadership. It also has pressured Allawi to negotiate with al-Sistani
> over rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, according to sources in the
> former IGC. After nearly a year of attempts to meet with al-Sistani,
> Allawi finally was granted an audience. Inside sources say the meeting
> did not go well; Allawi's efforts were rebuffed. This is likely one of
> the reasons al-Sistani has been left out of the new interim government.
>
> It is not surprising that the meeting did not go well. Al-Sistani knew
> Allawi was too closely tied to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional
> Authority (CPA) and Washington -- and al-Sistani does not trust the CPA
> any more than he does the United States. Al-Sistani also likely realized
> he could not afford the risk of alienating other religious Shia by
> negotiating with a less-than-devout figure known to have ties to U.S.
> and British intelligence.
>
> Al-Sistani likely was not much interested in reining in al-Sadr. He
> relied on al-Sadr's Mehdi Army as a way of proving what the Shia are
> capable of if the new government did not include Shia in a dominant way.
> By going with Allawi, Washington has proven that there are other,
> secular Shia -- Allawi prominent among them -- it can utilize.
>
> Allawi's appointment also has made it easier for the United States to
> make inroads into the formerly impermeable Baathist bureaucracy, which
> it sees as the basis for the new government

Google Allawi and Sistani and you will find that relations are pretty strained between the two. Sistani may have been key in putting the interim government together, but it has to be noted that it has gone its own way.

Actually, it was Rumsfled who referred to them as "fungible resources". Your generalization of my concern and attempting to turn that into a personal attack is duly noted though. I could note that it's a cheap debating tactic used by people who have nothing else in their arsenal, but that would be just sinking to the same level.

No, it was not a debate tactic. It is a heart-felt opinion. To have to deal with the sacrafices and then be "scolded" by citizens of other countries that we don't care can only be tolerated for so long. It was in no way a personal attack, though the implication that using terms to name the tragedies of war,fundable resources, collateral damage, friendly fire, etc, is an indication of callous uncaring people, is a personal attack on US citizens in general...duly noted.

Gee, I dunno - why does the US have so many then? I mean, if that is the only reason to have a military... especially in so volatile a place as the Middle EAst... :rolleyes:

The US does not have a history of invading their neighbors and murdering their people. If we did you would be saluting the Stars and Stripes, too. We are involved in numerous military actions around the world, we're the target of some wannabe groups, and we are pretty much the first one called when the UN wants a military force to step in. Our military funding had been drastically decreased after the Cold War ended, but has had to be increased in recent years due to fundamentalist terrorists. In what area of the world was Saddam using his arsenal to promote peace? All I ever heard from him was his desire to destroy Israel and defeat their allies.


You really think people are looking into ocupied Iraq and going "gosh, why can't we be that lucky"?

Now THAT's funny!

No, I think they're looking at Afghanistan and Iraq and thinking "It would mean huge sacrafices, but I would like to leave my children a better more free world than the one I live in." People have been fighting and dying for their rights for centuries. They're looking at Afghanistan and Iraq and they're seeing there is HOPE.



ah yes, use the "insane" label and go from there.... and I have never supported Saddam's reign. I just don't think that bombing the hell out the people and then leaving them in a civil war under a theological reign such as that found in Iran is improving their lives. Stopping your neighbour from hitting his wife by breaking into their house to punch the crap out her husband wrecking the place while you subdue him, and then leaving her in the charge of an equally abusive rapist is not helping her situation. And it entirely possible that this is how things play out.

Because the US was too busy actively supporting Saddam and no-one was going to step on your turf.

Stopping your neighbor from killing his wife, children, parents, and the dog, and in the struggle breaking some of the furniture, is a more accurate analogy. To pre-judge the Iraqi government that has not yet been elected is beyond my psychic powers. I have to trust that they won't step too far out of line in order to maintain the support of the western world.

Correct me if my memory is wrong, but didn't Canada also initially support Saddam? We still didn't provide near the funding that Russia, France, and Germany did. If those countries' names sound familiar it's because they continued to fund Saddam through the oil for food scam.