NationStates Jolt Archive

I wonder how this will play out, if in fact it ends up being the case. I am sure that the US would not like this result under any guise of so called "democracy". It also makes me wonder if the ballots will get tampered with if it appears that the US puppet is going down to defeat?

Allawi faces defeat as Iraqi cleric's team leads the polls

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=607555

The coalition of Iyad Allawi, the Iraqi interim Prime Minister appointed by the Americans, is heading for election defeat at the hands of a list backed by the country's senior Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, partial results released yesterday indicate.

The results from Baghdad - where Mr Allawi was expected to do well - show the one-time CIA protégé with only 140,364 votes compared to 350,069 for the alliance, which is headed by a Shia cleric who lived in Iran for many years.

Among the mostly five Shia provinces tallied so far, the alliance's lead is even wider. It has 1.1 million of the 1.6 million votes counted at 10 per cent of polling centres in the capital and the Shia south. Mr Allawi's list was second with 360,500.

"Large numbers of Shia voted along sectarian lines," said Sharif Ali bin Hussein, head of the Constitutional Monarchy Party. "Americans are in for a shock. A lot of people in the country are going to wake up in shock."

A fundamentalist Islamic government dominated by the Shiites?

Um, I don't really think you could call a Sistani led government fundamentalist muslim, at least assuming he hasn't been lying and is just going to end up parroting the Iranian mullahs.

Um, I don't really think you could call a Sistani led government fundamentalist muslim, at least assuming he hasn't been lying and is just going to end up parroting the Iranian mullahs.


We introduce politics to iraq and then expect anyone to tell the truth about anything?

When was the last time a politician from either US party told the genuine truth about anything?

We introduce politics to iraq and then expect anyone to tell the truth about anything?

When was the last time a politician from either US party told the genuine truth about anything?

Touché.

Believe it or not, this is just about as good an outcome as we can hope for!

For "our" boy to lose, and having Sistani's people win will help many Iraqi people gain a new sense of collective identity. The rather Moderate Sistani may be independant of the US but he has show himself capable of working with the US on many occasions.

The Kurds seemed okay with the idea as well, given the fact that they are quasi-independant to begin with. If Sistani plays his cards right, they'll find a place in the new government.

The Sunni's are the only major stumbling block. If this cements the perception that Shi ites are trying to seize power and take revenge for their years under Sunni rule; we're in trouble.

If the Sunni's sink into relative apathy, if they are more or less content with moderate Shia rule, if they get enough concessions to consider themselfs a part of the new government; this could work.

If a moderate, appreciably independant Sistani government calls for the US to leave in a few years, it might have the air of legitimacy we need to have a safe and politically sound extraction.

It's also pretty important to remember that the only provinces whose votes have been tallied so far are ten of the eighteen Shi'a provinces, so the results are still somewhat skewed...

Ahh yes, the smell of irony...

Isn' this the exact result that the right-wingers said WOULDN'T happen? I meant "fee people don't elect theocratic regimes" do they?

Not to mention that the turnouts wer far lower than previously estimated. AND, I still have yet to hear about Sunnis turning out in decent numbers. Ahh, and the farce is exposed.

Here's a wager on the next plot twist...

Being unsatisfied with who was "elected" by the Iraqis that DID turn out, the Bush administration will find some excuse to call the election "invalid," and not allow the results to be implemented. Thus making sure that a; the troops STILL don't get to come home any time soon, and b; they get another shot at getting a US puppet into power.

Any takers? :D

Believe it or not, this is just about as good an outcome as we can hope for!

For "our" boy to lose, and having Sistani's people win will help many Iraqi people gain a new sense of collective identity. The rather Moderate Sistani may be independant of the US but he has show himself capable of working with the US on many occasions.

The Kurds seemed okay with the idea as well, given the fact that they are quasi-independant to begin with. If Sistani plays his cards right, they'll find a place in the new government.

The Sunni's are the only major stumbling block. If this cements the perception that Shi ites are trying to seize power and take revenge for their years under Sunni rule; we're in trouble.

If the Sunni's sink into relative apathy, if they are more or less content with moderate Shia rule, if they get enough concessions to consider themselfs a part of the new government; this could work.

If a moderate, appreciably independant Sistani government calls for the US to leave in a few years, it might have the air of legitimacy we need to have a safe and politically sound extraction.
But you could also look at it from this perspective?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/04/MNGSMB5MDT1.DTL

"Americans are in for a shock," he said, adding that one day they would realize, "We've got 150,000 troops here protecting a country that's extremely friendly to Iran, and training their troops."

Sooner rather than later, the new Iraqi government will ask US troops to leave? I bet that would cause Bush & Co. a few nightmares, especially since they want US troops to stay in Iraq?

Officials haven't tallied results yet from Iraq's Sunni and Kurdish areas, and the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq cautioned the early data on how the Shiite region voted cannot be used to interpret the final election results because of the skewed demographics.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/04/iraq.main/index.html

Just a quick reality check. After all, only 35% of the vote is counted, and the numbers are skewed in comparison to the iraqi general population.

This kind of early, partial numbers is very similar to those leaked exit polls in the US election around 12:30 in the afternoon, in the manner that they are not representative samples of the entire population. They are both unbalanced numbers, non-stratified.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/04/iraq.main/index.html

Just a quick reality check. After all, only 35% of the vote is counted, and the numbers are skewed in comparison to the iraqi general population.

This kind of early, partial numbers is very similar to those leaked exit polls in the US election around 12:30 in the afternoon, in the manner that they are not representative samples of the entire population. They are both unbalanced numbers, non-stratified.
Also a reality check, based on final foreign numbers:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/04/MNGSMB5MDT1.DTL

The election commission also released final vote tallies from overseas voters in eight countries, the United States, Britain, France, Iran, Syria, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Australia. The alliance won of 44 percent of the 170,000 votes cast in those countries, the Kurds 18 percent and Allawi's list 12 percent. In U.S. voting, Allawi garnered just 5 percent of the vote, less than the Communist Party total.

Also Allawi has done poorly in areas that he was expected to win in. All of this spells trouble for Allawi and his US backers.

Also a reality check, based on final foreign numbers:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/04/MNGSMB5MDT1.DTL

The election commission also released final vote tallies from overseas voters in eight countries, the United States, Britain, France, Iran, Syria, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Australia. The alliance won of 44 percent of the 170,000 votes cast in those countries, the Kurds 18 percent and Allawi's list 12 percent. In U.S. voting, Allawi garnered just 5 percent of the vote, less than the Communist Party total.

Also Allawi has done poorly in areas that he was expected to win in. All of this spells trouble for Allawi and his US backers.
Once again, this number is also very very skewed. The vast bulk of Iraqis living abroad are refugees from the Shi'a and Kurd groups. The one's who had the most reason to flee. It's still too little to draw any sufficient conclusions.

Basically what I'm saying is that it's too early to draw the conclusions you're drawing. Give it till the end of the week, then we'll see how it happened.

It's also important to remember the ratification of the Iraqi Constitution. If three of the provinces vote against it, the Constitution that gets written doesn't go. If the Shi'a alienate the Sunnis and/or Kurds, well, the Constitution will most likely not be ratified.

Doesn't really matter if you got fundies up on the throne again. And the Shi'ites still do represent the majority of the people.

As long as they don't turn dictatorial and they do a good job. Or else, they should vote in someone else.

But where it goes wrong is when they vote in a religious group, they start claiming that it's the will of Allah and stuff, and people follow because religion is absolute.

I somehow expected this to happen.

Living a holy life in front of Allah's eyes is better than a rich and prosperous free life of sin.

But you could also look at it from this perspective?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/04/MNGSMB5MDT1.DTL

"Americans are in for a shock," he said, adding that one day they would realize, "We've got 150,000 troops here protecting a country that's extremely friendly to Iran, and training their troops."

Sooner rather than later, the new Iraqi government will ask US troops to leave? I bet that would cause Bush & Co. a few nightmares, especially since they want US troops to stay in Iraq?

Sorry, I'm not sure I can equate the interests of the current administration in the US with US overall or long-term interests. I was postulating as to the best outcome for the Iraqi people and the world as a whole.

It might be the case that an Iraq friendly with its neighbors and sharing things in common with them might be better for all concerned in the long run. It almost certainly would be better than having a puppet government that earns the US hatred from said neighbors. Do you not agree?

There is one big problem with Iran; its run by radical clerics. These clerics know full well that they are disliked by the vast majority of their population, that their economy is not in the best shape, and that their military is not ready for an aggressive war.

Thus the Cleric's refoucus their people's energies by fueling the crisis in Iraq, fish for lucrative incentives from Europe by playing with Nukes, and keep the US pinned in Iraq with the insurgency.

By settling a friendly government in Iraq, the Iranian clerics would have a new partner, but no new targets. We'd still have the Nuke problem to deal with, but by taking weapon called Iraq away from the clerics, we weaken them and force them to moderate their stances on many issues.

Hope that helped explain my stance a bit better.

Sorry, I'm not sure I can equate the interests of the current administration in the US with US overall or long-term interests. I was postulating as to the best outcome for the Iraqi people and the world as a whole.

It might be the case that an Iraq friendly with its neighbors and sharing things in common with them might be better for all concerned in the long run. It almost certainly would be better than having a puppet government that earns the US hatred from said neighbors. Do you not agree?

There is one big problem with Iran; its run by radical clerics. These clerics know full well that they are disliked by the vast majority of their population, that their economy is not in the best shape, and that their military is not ready for an aggressive war.

Thus the Cleric's refoucus their people's energies by fueling the crisis in Iraq, fish for lucrative incentives from Europe by playing with Nukes, and keep the US pinned in Iraq with the insurgency.

By settling a friendly government in Iraq, the Iranian clerics would have a new partner, but no new targets. We'd still have the Nuke problem to deal with, but by taking weapon called Iraq away from the clerics, we weaken them and force them to moderate their stances on many issues.

Hope that helped explain my stance a bit better.

The biggest concern of the Shiite dominated Iran is currently Israel. After a Shiite goverment is established in Iraq, it is likely that they will become friends with Iran. Now, Iraq as always tried to be a regional leader. With them friendly with the Iranians (imagine, two shiite, religious led states), they will focus on the other big player of the region: Israel. The problem might not be Iran, but still Iraq.

Who cares if the United Iraqi Alliance wins? They are a moderate Shi'ite group that will probably cooperate with the US and other countries, give the Kurds a reasonable voice in government, and have (at worst) an ambivalient stance on Iran and Syria. You, CanuckHeaven, are just embarking on an eternal quest to find pending catastrophe in Iraq due to your moral objections to the war.

did y'all miss the part where they didnt vote for a president? they voted for an assembly to create a constitution. no one gets "defeated" who gets into the assembly.

as far as im concerned this is a really good sign. these elections were manufactured whole cloth by the US. for the iraqis to vote independantly for someone THEY want without regard for the US puppetmasters means they are willing to give democracy a shot.

i would dearly love to have something good come out of this horrible mistake. if they iraqis elect a government supported by the people that is a good thing even if it means they kick us out. we dont want to own iraq do we?

Who cares if the United Iraqi Alliance wins? They are a moderate Shi'ite group that will probably cooperate with the US and other countries, give the Kurds a reasonable voice in government, and have (at worst) an ambivalient stance on Iran and Syria. You, CanuckHeaven, are just embarking on an eternal quest to find pending catastrophe in Iraq due to your moral objections to the war.
You hit the nail on the head.

I have significant doubts about whether Iraq will successfully become a democracy and not another Iran-style theocracy.

CanuckHeaven, are just embarking on an eternal quest to find pending catastrophe in Iraq due to your moral objections to the war.
Ahhh such a simplistic statement to cover off what is in reality a very complex situation. The very fact that you support US imperialistic endeavours in the Middle East and a US global dominance in general has blinded you to the possible perils of such folly. You just want to slap a "liberated by the US" tag on Iraq and move on and the consequences be damned.

Who cares if the United Iraqi Alliance wins? They are a moderate Shi'ite group that will probably cooperate with the US and other countries, give the Kurds a reasonable voice in government, and have (at worst) an ambivalient stance on Iran and Syria. You, CanuckHeaven, are just embarking on an eternal quest to find pending catastrophe in Iraq due to your moral objections to the war.


Just how moderate this group is remains to be seen. IT certainly has ties to Iran, and it certainly has a high percentage of clerics as candidates and the support of many other clerics who have called for the new constitution to be based on Islamic law. Had the Shi'ites wanted a more secular government they would have supported Allawi.


I hope that the new constitution provides fairness, and I was heartened by Sistani's call to stop those Iraqi's who were targetting Christians, however we still have to see what sort of Constitution will be passed by the required referendum on it.

As for the Kurds, in polling during the election they indicated that over 90% wanted to work towards independance rather than remain a part of Iraq. That facet of the future of this region still has to play out, and will certainly increase tensions with Turkey if they decide to push the issue too hard.


Despite having been against the war I do not hope for any more misery to be visited on the Iraqis, however I also don't accept the lame platitudes that make it all sound rosy as hell either. the truth is somewhere in between, and it's the Iraqis who are still paying the largest price as they move towards their future.

Do some of you genuinely not realize that allawi is a Baath hitman turned CIA agent turned hated-US-puppet and that the IRAQIS KNOW THIS?


He is not a legitimate ruler in any meaningful sense, he is a US plant and it is ridiculous to expect him to have fared well in an election.

Just how moderate this group is remains to be seen. IT certainly has ties to Iran, and it certainly has a high percentage of clerics as candidates and the support of many other clerics who have called for the new constitution to be based on Islamic law. Had the Shi'ites wanted a more secular government they would have supported Allawi.
Most likely. But I don't feel that they are the radical type such as Muqtada al-Sadr. In any case, it is okay for a country to use religion for guidance in drawing a constitution, but just not as its centerpiece. I have a feeling that the United Iraqi Alliance wants just that.

As for the Kurds, in polling during the election they indicated that over 90% wanted to work towards independance rather than remain a part of Iraq. That facet of the future of this region still has to play out, and will certainly increase tensions with Turkey if they decide to push the issue too hard.
They know that they can't push too hard for independence at this moment. For one, they should want to see if the Shi'ites want to work with the Kurds, and I'm optimistic that they will. Only radicals can't see beyond ethnic boundaries, and they probably aren't as radical as they could have been.
Another reason is that the interim constitution went out of its way to gurantee privledges to the Kurds. They are still very autonomous, and they have even elected their own regional concil, which no other area has. There is a large window to convince the Kurds to stay. At the very most, Iraq will turn into a federation.

Despite having been against the war I do not hope for any more misery to be visited on the Iraqis, however I also don't accept the lame platitudes that make it all sound rosy as hell either. the truth is somewhere in between, and it's the Iraqis who are still paying the largest price as they move towards their future.
The good news is that they have a future. And in ten years, everyone should start seeing hard, concrete results, especially the Iraqis and their Arab neighbors.

Do some of you genuinely not realize that allawi is a Baath hitman turned CIA agent turned hated-US-puppet and that the IRAQIS KNOW THIS?


He is not a legitimate ruler in any meaningful sense, he is a US plant and it is ridiculous to expect him to have fared well in an election.
However, the US WANTED Allawi to do well in the election. Given his tainted past, why did the US back him in the first place, considering their hatred of Saddam Hussein?

However, the US WANTED Allawi to do well in the election. Given his tainted past, why did the US back him in the first place, considering their hatred of Saddam Hussein?


He was a CIA agent and they wanted a puppet.

Sorry, I'm not sure I can equate the interests of the current administration in the US with US overall or long-term interests. I was postulating as to the best outcome for the Iraqi people and the world as a whole.
However, what might be in the best interests for the Iraqi people just might not be in the best interests of the world, especially the US. The US went to great lengths to capitalize on the Iraqi economy through the installation of Bremer's Orders, which is mainly for the benefit of foreign investors. This might not sit well with a new government that is no longer under the leadership of the US puppet.

It might be the case that an Iraq friendly with its neighbors and sharing things in common with them might be better for all concerned in the long run. It almost certainly would be better than having a puppet government that earns the US hatred from said neighbors. Do you not agree?
What is clear, is that a Sistani influenced government, might very well improve ties with Iran, but what about Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.?

There is one big problem with Iran; its run by radical clerics. These clerics know full well that they are disliked by the vast majority of their population, that their economy is not in the best shape, and that their military is not ready for an aggressive war.
A newly installed government in Iraq that starts to build stronger ties with Iran, might not be impressed by US endeavours to weaken Iran further. The irony of all this, is the fact that US troops are in the process of training tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers who one day may turn against their occupiers? This has happened before. The name Bin Laden comes to mind and I think about all the US assistance that was given to help the Taliban oust Russia from Afghanistan.

Thus the Cleric's refoucus their people's energies by fueling the crisis in Iraq, fish for lucrative incentives from Europe by playing with Nukes, and keep the US pinned in Iraq with the insurgency.

By settling a friendly government in Iraq, the Iranian clerics would have a new partner, but no new targets. We'd still have the Nuke problem to deal with, but by taking weapon called Iraq away from the clerics, we weaken them and force them to moderate their stances on many issues.
IF Sistani has significant influence in the new government (more than likely?), then the "weapon called Iraq", is actually a new tool for Iran to hone?

Hope that helped explain my stance a bit better.
I understand your stance, however, there are so many intangibles in regards to the election outcome in Iraq that it is difficult to predict whether this new found "democracy" is beneficial to the world as a whole, or a whole new headache to deal with?

Personally speaking, I believe that Sistani wanted Iraqis to vote in this election for the sole purpose of removing the US presence in Iraq using the "democratic" method. Bush might already be re-thinking his promise to remove US troops when requested by the Iraqi government?

I have significant doubts about whether Iraq will successfully become a democracy and not another Iran-style theocracy.

Most muslim nations is like that anyways..

It's always going to be a battle for moderation and fundamentalism.

However, the US WANTED Allawi to do well in the election. Given his tainted past, why did the US back him in the first place, considering their hatred of Saddam Hussein?

the us publicly said many times that they didn't endorse any candidate.

The US also said that Iraq had WMD, and we knew exactly where they were.

*shrug*

Ahh yes, the smell of irony...

Isn' this the exact result that the right-wingers said WOULDN'T happen? I meant "fee people don't elect theocratic regimes" do they?

Not to mention that the turnouts wer far lower than previously estimated. AND, I still have yet to hear about Sunnis turning out in decent numbers. Ahh, and the farce is exposed.

Here's a wager on the next plot twist...

Being unsatisfied with who was "elected" by the Iraqis that DID turn out, the Bush administration will find some excuse to call the election "invalid," and not allow the results to be implemented. Thus making sure that a; the troops STILL don't get to come home any time soon, and b; they get another shot at getting a US puppet into power.

Any takers? :D
Idiot. Plain and simple. You do realize that this party is not a theocracy, and simply represents Shiite views? Sistani himself is a moderate, and has been faitly friendly towards the US. So, a party guided by him is not a loss at all.

The US also said that Iraq had WMD, and we knew exactly where they were.

*shrug*
Various mustard and sarin agents scattered around the country and quite a bit probably given to Syria.

Personally speaking, I believe that Sistani wanted Iraqis to vote in this election for the sole purpose of removing the US presence in Iraq using the "democratic" method. Bush might already be re-thinking his promise to remove US troops when requested by the Iraqi government?
Personally speaking, I believe your predictions of what Sistani's going to do are bullshit. Both of our statements are equally valid given the amount of info availible.

Various mustard and sarin agents scattered around the country and quite a bit probably given to Syria.

Uh huh. And how many TONS did we claim they had? And somehow they managed to sneak them ALL across the border into Syria without raising that alarm at ANY of the worlds intel agencies?

Riiiight.

The position of the government of the United States is that we will accept the will of the people of Iraq. We will still defend them against terrorists and continue to help them build their economy regardless of who they elect.

The position of the government of the United States is that we will accept the will of the people of Iraq. We will still defend them against terrorists and continue to help them build their economy regardless of
who they elect.

Well said. Couldn't have put it any better.

Uh huh. And how many TONS did we claim they had? And somehow they managed to sneak them ALL across the border into Syria without raising that alarm at ANY of the worlds intel agencies?

Riiiight.
Hmmm, no inspectors on the ground in Iraq and what amounts to an open border to Syria. Lots of covered truck traffic befoe the war. But nothing concrete, especially given that the proof would have to be as sturdy as a concrete bunker reinforced with rebar in order to get the MSM to even pay attention.

No offense fella, but your timeline is way off.

There WERE inspectors in Iraq. Bush is the one who told them to get out. It pays to check in with the MSM now and again.

And please, let's be realistic. With the beating the US has taken in the world over this issue, if we had ANYTHING to show to the world we would be waving it left, right and center.

No offense fella, but your timeline is way off.

There WERE inspectors in Iraq. Bush is the one who told them to get out. It pays to check in with the MSM now and again.

And please, let's be realistic. With the beating the US has taken in the world over this issue, if we had ANYTHING to show to the world we would be waving it left, right and center.
From may 2002 to nov. of 2002 weapons inspectors were not in Iraq. That entire time the US was basically telling Hussein to put up or be forcibly ejected from his country. There was then about 3 weeks when they were gone before we invaded I believe.

From may 2002 to nov. of 2002 weapons inspectors were not in Iraq. That entire time the US was basically telling Hussein to put up or be forcibly ejected from his country. There was then about 3 weeks when they were gone before we invaded I believe.
Try 3 DAYS. The only reason they left Iraq, is due to the fact that the US declared that they were going to invade regardless of ongoing UN inspections.

This is what most countries such as France, Germany, China, Russia, and Canada objected to.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron.asp

March 7, 2003: UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix tells the Security Council that Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors in providing information about past weapons activities has improved, although Baghdad has not yet complied with its disarmament obligations. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors had stated during briefings to the Security Council on January 27 and February 14 that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations. Yet, both deemed the cooperation insufficient.

The United States, United Kingdom, and Spain co-sponsor another resolution stating that Iraq "will have failed" to comply with Resolution 1441 unless Baghdad cooperates with its disarmament obligations by March 17. The draft resolution implies that the council members would take military action if Iraq failed to meet the deadline.

March 17, 2003: After U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to build support for the new resolution fail, the United States decides not to seek a vote on it-a reversal of Bush's March 6 statement that the United States would push for a Security Council vote on the resolution, regardless of whether it was expected to pass.

Annan announces that UN weapons inspectors will be withdrawn from the country.

Bush announces that Hussein and his sons have 48 hours to leave Iraq or the United States will initiate military action.

March 18, 2003: UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors leave Iraq.

March 19, 2003: The United States commences military action. The United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland provide troops to the U.S.-led invasion.

Personally speaking, I believe your predictions of what Sistani's going to do are bullshit. Both of our statements are equally valid given the amount of info availible.
Well check this out then:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/04/content_336696.htm

Sistani, whose Shi'ite community was oppressed by Saddam Hussein's secular Sunni-dominated administration, scuppered an initial plan for handing power to Iraqis and brought forward elections, at which Shi'ites should benefit from their majority.

A UN resolution must hand Iraq sovereignty in all "political, economic, military and security" issues, he said.

So that would mean the early removal of US forces and a repeal of Bremer's Orders?

From another article:

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4232

After fighting off Paul Bremer's plan to impose a "caucus" system of indirect elections that could be easily manipulated by occupation authorities, the Ayatollah Sistani – spiritual leader of Iraq's majority Shi'ite population – forced the Americans to agree to national elections, holding out the threat of a fatwa against the occupiers, who would then face a united Shi'ite-Sunni insurgency.........

As Bremer realized from the beginning, "democracy" in Iraq can only lead to theocracy. To impose the "caucus" system, however, was never a real option: it would have meant a full-scale Shi'ite rebellion, and not just the Mahdi army of Moqtada al-Sadr, but the Ayatollah Sistani's followers and the main Shi'ite parties, along with their militias, would have joined the insurgency, or mounted their own.

So much for the "global democratic revolution" in Iraq.

So you say potato and I say potatoe. In the end, it will be the reality that counts. There is very little room for fantasy?