Iraq: democracy is fake

[segovius]

Despite the propaganda and the crowing the elections are a cruel fraud perpetrated on the Iraqi people.

There are two aspects to this and a lot of smoke and mirrors obscuring them. really it's quite simple:

1) Iraq is a US outpost in the ME. That's the plan, it always was the plan. The US are not going anywhere and do not intend to.

There are three angles to this: control of the oil reserves, a buffer state to bolster Israel and a launching pad for further wars.

The $1.5 billion 'Embassy' (costing more than the replacement of the NYC towers) will be the nerve centre for this and is, in effect, not an embassy at all.

2) 'Democracy' is the 'cover story' for this. In was not the intention, is not the practice and, imo, is actually the last thing the US administration has in mind.

For now, let's focus on supporting these contentions outlined in point 2.

Evidence of a lack of democratic intent on the US's part has already emerged. This should be massive - of course you will not hear of it and that in itself should set alarm bells ringing.

From Eschaton's blog: (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_01_30_atrios_archive.html#110719020644895080)

Last night's little quote from The Queen of All Iraq wasn't just about the usual Miller-bashing, it was actually a bombshell revelation. Here we have a New York Times reporter going on the record saying that according to a source, the Bush administration was in talks with Chalabi about a position in the new Iraqi government. So, in one neat little package we learn that the Bush administration backs Chalabi and has significant influence over appointments in the new government, once it exists.

Isn't this important?

Repeat, Judith Miller on Hardball:

We now are told, according to my sources, that the administration has been reaching out to Mr. Chalabi, to offer him expressions of cooperation and support and according to one report he was even offered a chance to be an interior minister in the new government.

So, before the votes are even counted we have the US deciding that a known criminal currently on the run (the same man Bush initially wanted in power whilst he [Bush] opposed democratic elections) should have a position of power in the yet unknown government.

Then there is the media spin and lies versus the reality:

Here is a breakdown (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=9325) of the varying claims for voter turnout.

You will see that it starts at 72% (hitting 90 in some claims). This sets the tone: in stone. 72% repeated till it sinks in.

However, the figure is soon downgraded to 60 (not much coverage), then 50 (even less), finally this (unreported) gem:

Now the word is that a 30 per cent overall turnout would be satisfactory (New Statesman, 31 Jan )

Some more interesting facts:

1. In five out of 18 governates, according to a Russian parliamentary observer, the elections were either cancelled due to the lack of security or were marked by a very low turnout. (Novosti, 30 Jan). This statement contradicts the figures presented by the IECI at the Press Conference, which indicate voter turnout of 50 per cent or more in all the governates. (including Sunni regions where there was a boycott, as confirmed by several press reports). (See Table 1 below)

2. According to Xinhua (5 hours before the close of polling stations): "The turnout was very low during the past few hours in Tikrit, Dujail, Balad and Tuz, much lower than expected," a source in the electoral body told Xinhua. "In addition, no voters showed up in Baiji, Samarra and Dour," said the source, who declined to be identified. The cities of Dujail and Balad have mixed population of Shiites and Sunnis, while Tuz has a mosaic of Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen. In Tikrit, some 170 km north of Baghdad, 75 percent of the voting stations have not been visited till now. (Xinhua, 30 Jan 2005, 9 AM GMT)

3. Several cities in Iraq did not receive electoral materials, "In the city of Mosul, the deputy governor said that four towns did not receive the election process materials. How do you justify this? These towns are Bashqa, Bartillah, Al-Hamdaniyah and Jihan. They did not receive the material for the election process." (Iraqi Al-Sharqiyah TV, 30 Jan)

Then there are the voting irregularities:

Raed Jarrar (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/) details the numerous and widespread cases of people threatened with removal of food rations if they did not vote.

Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) notes that the Sunnis did indeed boycott (thus making the elections unrepresentative) and that they still are opposed by Ash-Sharq al-Awsat: The Association of Muslims Scholars.

He also outlines further irregularities:

Az-Zaman reports that 150,000 angry Iraqi Christians in Ninevah Province came out to protest on Monday. The ballot boxes arrived in their areas too late on Sunday, and they say they were promised that they could vote until 10 am Monday to give them time to cast the ballots. In the end, however, the Electoral Commission declined to make an exception for them, and they just won't get to vote. Iraqi Christians have been the victims of terrorist attacks, many have emigrated, and many fear Kurdish control over their regions.

Turkmen and other groups in Mosul also bitterly complained that often ballot boxes did not arrive in time, or at all, depriving thousands of the franchise.

Wingers like to compare the 'new Iraq' to Iraq under Saddam but they forget one thing: under Saddam there were elections too. They were rigged without a doubt (he always got 99%).

People came out to vote in their tens of thousands then too.

[segovius]

Updates:

It seems that the pictures relayed to Western TV were part of an elaborate set-up too.

No mention was made of the fact that (as Robert Fisk noted) that the world media was limited to exactly 5 polling stations that were secured by legions of troops and armored vehicles in predominantly Shiite areas to give the impression of widespread participation.

The streets were swept-clean, the cement barricades were hidden from view, and the rolls of razor-wire were scrupulously kept off camera. All signs of city under siege were effectively concealed. It was a solid effort on the part of the White House producers who slapped this comedy together. Particularly admirable were the scenes of enraptured Iraqis waving flags and gyrating with abandon on the streets of Baghdad. What American could watch such a heartwarming demonstration of elation and not feel choked-up by the great gift Bush has bestowed on these simple people.

Alas, it was all a hoax as well. As Robert Fisk opines in his latest article in the UK Independent, he stumbled on "three truckloads of youths, all brandishing Iraqi flags-like the unemployed who have been sticking posters to Baghdad's walls-paid by the government to 'advertise' the election. And there was a cameraman from state television."

Why not just tell the truth if the truth is so great ? People only lie when there is something to lie about - and governments are no exception.

Article (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=19718)

[Common Man]

Anything the Iraqi people get out of this is a bi-product of the plan, agreed. The purpose of this war was to secure a potentially dangerous country in an economically and strategically important region. The basis for this will be questioned for decades.

This goal is not mutually exclusive with something good for the Iraqis in the long run. In fact, it gives them a lot of opportunity they would not have had otherwise.

Seg, how many times do you need to make this point?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Common Man
Anything the Iraqi people get out of this is a bi-product of the plan, agreed. The purpose of this war was secure a potentially dangerous country in an economically and srategically important region. The basis for this will be qustioned for decades.

This goal is not mutually exclusive with something good for the Iraqis in the long run. In fact, it gives them a lot of opportunity they would not have had otherwise.

Seg, how many times do you need to make this point?

Ok, I'll concede that and stop making it now.

I shall from now on only address your other point:

nothing good will come of this for the Iraqi people from their own pov although, I agree, it will from the pov of the US.

Exhibit A: Iraqis cannot use their own seeds (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KHA501A.html)

As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds, which include seeds the Iraqis themselves have developed over hundreds of years. Instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from US corporations. That is because in recent years, transnational corporations have patented and now own many seed varieties originated or developed by indigenous peoples. In a short time, Iraq will be living under the new American credo: Pay Monsanto, or starve ."

"The American Administrator of the Iraqi CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) government, Paul Bremer, updated Iraq's intellectual property law to 'meet current internationally-recognized standards of protection'. The updated law makes saving seeds for next year's harvest, practiced by 97% of Iraqi farmers in 2002, and is the standard farming practice for thousands of years across human civilizations, to be now illegal.. Instead, farmers will have to obtain a yearly license for genetically modified (GM) seeds from American corporations. These GM seeds have typically been modified from seeds developed over thousands of generations by indigenous farmers like the Iraqis, and shared freely like agricultural 'open source.'

Apart from the obvious immorality and anti-freedom un-democratic nature of this obscenity (which I will not be addressing anymore), this is clearly bad for the everyone.

I don't expect you to be anti-GM (as I am) or anti-US corporate fascism (ditto) but I will explain another reason why this is bad.

In Islam there are strict laws regarding food and what is permissable (halal) or prohibited (haram). GM is regarded as haram by many theologians and there will undoubtedly be fatwas against its cultivation and consumption in this context.

This will lead to a form of rebellion against the law (which may already exist as a resentment of the US interference) and this will lead to violence and protest.

Btw - when the Strausscons are organising the show - the things you mention ARE mutually exclusive.

[groverat]

Segovius:

I would really appreciate it if you could focus this discussion on election-related matters.

Obviously you have a lot of information, but if you mix it all in together like this you risk losing any hope of discussion.

Thanks.

[talksense101]

Was there any doubt that this would be a fiasco to start with? The election is a setup to give legitamacy to the US occupation with a puppet administration.

[DanMacMan]

[b]nothing good will come of this for the Iraqi people from their own pov although, I agree, it will from the pov of the US.

So from the Iraqi point of view, living under a tyrranical dictator who murdered his own subjects was good for them, and better than things are now?

Please read this blog (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/) written by a couple of Iraqis. Tell them that nothing good will come of this election and the democracy that is to follow.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
[b]nothing good will come of this for the Iraqi people from their own pov although, I agree, it will from the pov of the US.

So from the Iraqi point of view, living under a tyrranical dictator who murdered his own subjects was good for them, and better than things are now?

Please read this blog (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/) written by a couple of Iraqis. Tell them that nothing good will come of this election and the democracy that is to follow.

He thinks that the CIA runs this blog - any unsubstantiated thing that supports his point is run up the flagpole, and unsubstantiated things that run counter to his point are CIA propaganda.

If we kick as much butt as he thinks we do, I don't think we will have any problems taking over the world 8-)

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
He thinks that the CIA runs this blog - any unsubstantiated thing that supports his point is run up the flagpole, and unsubstantiated things that run counter to his point are CIA propaganda.

If we kick as much butt as he thinks we do, I don't think we will have any problems taking over the world 8-)

The debate over whether the Fadhil brothers' Iraq the Model blog has covert US backing continues, with Ali Fadhil finally responding to questions posed four days earlier at the Martini Republic:

Question: Are the brothers now or have they ever been in any kind of American pay (beyond the largesse of their rightwing PayPal contributors)?

Answer: Yes and no. Yes we were promised by "Spirit of America" to pay for the costs of our NGO "Friends of Democracy" and its projects to help build democracy in Iraq, and they said they have sent some money but we haven't got it yet...

OK, let's have a look at the "Spirit Of America" group (SoA). Who are these people? Well, basically they are a fund-raising and PR arm of Paul Wolfowitz's neo-conservative coterie, in league with Bush's buddies in the US oil and gas industry, masquerading as peace-loving fans of US-style "democracy".

Linky (http://bushout.blogspot.com/2004/12/exposing-iraq-model-debate-over.html)

[segovius]

The Martini Republic (http://martinirepublic.com/item/iraqi-bloggers-u-s-visit-raise-questions-regarding-propaganda-driven-blog-trolling#cmt724) article mentioned in the quote above is a fascinating read also - and the ensuing discussion in the comments section with details of cursory bannings and abuse from wingers on ITM is also enlightening.

[e1618978]

They have been publishing this blog for a long time, and their tone has not changed. Now they are promised money, which has not yet even arrived yet, and you are saying that it retroactively comprimises everything that they have ever said.

[pfflam]

I CAN"T BELIEVE this about the DAMN SEEDS!!!!

That is unfuucking believable!!!!!!

The Iraqis are being forced to buy US seeds . . . probably GMO and probably Monsanto!!

Monsanto, BTW, is probably the number one reason that the Perfromance Artist, Steven Kurtz, or Critical Art Ensemble was busted for supposedly 'terrorist' activities . . .

Monsanto is deeply evil . . . they'll force them to give up ancient cultivated seeds, rare and probably quite wonderful, natural and adapted to the region over millenia, for some McSeed that was hatched in a lab and is the blend of what, coackroaches, squid and Corn?!?!?

Also, I gaurantee you that these seeds will NOT generate seeds on their own and, since the Iraqis will be forced to turn over their seeds this year, they will become dependant on Monsanto . . . like Heroin addicts

Just makes me sick!!! . . . just waiting to see how Agrabiz could get their dirty hands in the pie of Iraq!!!

BTW . . . kiss the ever important biodiversity goodbye for another region . . .
hello future worldwide blight . . .


:mad: :mad:

[e1618978]

The Iraqis are being forced to buy US seeds . . . probably GMO and probably Monsanto!![/B]

Not true - the Iraqis can continue to save and use the seed from their own crops. If they buy seed from Monsanto, then that seed will not propagate to the next year.

The only issue is where cross-germination occurs, and then farmers are sued because their crops get contaminated with copyrighted dna. That is also an issue in the USA, and will be righted via the US legal system.

[groverat]

copyrighted dna

Satan is a man and he wears a nice, pressed suit.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by e1618978
Not true - the Iraqis can continue to save and use the seed from their own crops. If they buy seed from Monsanto, then that seed will not propagate to the next year.

The only issue is where cross-germination occurs, and then farmers are sued because their crops get contaminated with copyrighted dna. That is also an issue in the USA, and will be righted via the US legal system. Pay Monsanto or Starve!!!! (http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/iraq_seeds.htm)

They will have become our agricultural serfs . . . in other words, slaves.

[Common Man]

If this seed issue is true, it is very disturbing. I am not sure that I understand the issue, however. How can there be patents on seeds that have been only in family hands? I need to read more about this. I know that seed companies have searched plant populations in developing countries in search of insect, drought and disease resistance genes and this practice has been very controversial. In these cases they are in effect robbing traits bred into the stocks by the local folks and then profiting from it. As I said, I need to read more.

This is an interesting issue.

[e1618978]

Monsanto is a pain - but the solution is the creation of open source seed varieties:

http://science.slashdot.org/science/04/06/22/1748247.shtml?tid=134&tid=155&tid=191&tid=99

[e1618978]

http://www.biotech-info.net/basmati_patent.html

Perhaps this will comfort you - in the end the reasonable argument wins.

[shetline]

We can always hope that efforts to make farmers give up their own seeds will prove to be virtually unenforceable. Many of the neocons' other pet projects in Iraq have failed miserably because of the amazing level of naivete that oddly has often gone along hand-in-hand with some of their other Machiavellian schemes.

[addabox]

Originally posted by e1618978
http://www.biotech-info.net/basmati_patent.html

Perhaps this will comfort you - in the end the reasonable argument wins.

Not really seeing how the linked article is evidence of how "the reasonable argument wins".

It says India is challenging the patenting of Basmati rice by a Texan (sigh) firm called "RiceTec".

It ends on this not very reassuring note:

It is currently not possible to patent staple foods and crops in Europe or developing countries but a European directive is about to change that in the EU. At World Trade Organisation talks which start tomorrow, rich nations are expected to put pressure on developing nations to allow the patenting of crops in their own countries. Tripathi said: 'If rich countries abuse their power to get their way in the World Trade Organisation, developing countries like India will lose the right to challenge patents on crops.'

[sammi jo]

Here's Mikhail Gorbachev's take on the elections. Nice to see a little pragmatism for a change, as opposed to BushCorps' cloud cuckoo land fantasizings and hallucinations:

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/01/31/gorbacheviraq.shtml

extracted:
Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev called the Iraqi parliamentary elections a profanation.

In an interview with the Interfax news agency, he said the elections are “very far from what true elections are. And even though I am a supporter of elections and of the transfer of power to the people of Iraq, these elections were fake.”

“I don’t think these elections will be of any use. They may even have a negative impact on the country. Democracy cannot be imposed or strengthened with guns and tanks,” the agency quoted Gorbachev as saying.

[Anders]

The most positive a remotely sane person can say about Monsanto is than it is a regrettable tumor like side effect of capitalism but no system can be 100% good.

May their stocks create a life long itch on the hands of anyone who touches them.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Here's Mikhail Gorbachev's take on the elections. Nice to see a little pragmatism for a change, as opposed to BushCorps' cloud cuckoo land fantasizings and hallucinations:

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/01/31/gorbacheviraq.shtml

extracted:

The article did not list the reasons why he said that - what was his reasoning?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Anders
The most positive a remotely sane person can say about Monsanto is than it is a regrettable tumor like side effect of capitalism but no system can be 100% good.

May their stocks create a life long itch on the hands of anyone who touches them.

No, this has nothing to do with capitalism, it has to do with bad copyright laws. Even Communism could have this problem, if the state owns all the discoveries of its people, then it could be just as aweful to other countries.

[pierr_alex]

Well, this is just another Colonisation war after all.
Like Europe did it a few hundred years ago. Most of north Africa was France property until the middle of the (past) century, as India, Iraq and other countries belonged to the UK, Libya to Italy, etc...

Nothing new here except that we all thought this had ended, and most of all: No one could imagine that the US would be the one to revive that horrible thing.

By the way, this Monsanto story is really terrific !
I see a king of logic in all this...

• a War = The destruction of a country's infrastructure = Need for reconstruction.
• This war happens in a rich potentially rich country. Because of Oil. They can pay.
• Low Dollar = Easier exportation.
• Destruction + Low Dollar + (Monsanto x Halliburton x Probably many others) + Oil = Big profits !
• Big Profits = Low unemployment = Quiet population on what's really happening in the invaded country. (Torture, Pseudo-elections, etc…)
• This can last for years, as long as no serious Media can report on the situation (because of insecurity).

That's perfect ! 'Bravo' Mr Bush ! You did it !

[e1618978]

Originally posted by e1618978
No, this has nothing to do with capitalism, it has to do with bad copyright laws. Even Communism could have this problem, if the state owns all the discoveries of its people, then it could be just as aweful to other countries.

Also, I'd like to make another point for the Bush-Bashers (e.g. S.)

Monsanto did not spring fully-formed from the loins of capitalism the day that Bush got elected. Democrats are also to blame for the problem, possibly more than Republicans (look at the copyright problems caused by that bastard Sonny Bono - see my other thread).

I would be willing to bet a weeks pay that Bush and company did not mention Monsanto once during the planning of the invasion. The problems with Monsanto are just a side effect of the closer contact between the USA and Iraq.

[jamac]

Here is what the Muslims think aboput democracy:
MEMRI (http://www.memri.org)

The Koran forbids democracy and freedom of religion under penalty of death.
At least some believe so.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Common Man
Anything the Iraqi people get out of this is a bi-product of the plan, agreed. The purpose of this war was to secure a potentially dangerous country in an economically and strategically important region. The basis for this will be questioned for decades.

This goal is not mutually exclusive with something good for the Iraqis in the long run. In fact, it gives them a lot of opportunity they would not have had otherwise.

Seg, how many times do you need to make this point?

The ends never justifies the means.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by jamac
Here is what the Muslims think aboput democracy:
MEMRI (http://www.memri.org)

The Koran forbids democracy and freedom of religion under penalty of death.
At least some believe so. Zarqawi is to Islam what this truck:http://img173.exs.cx/img173/3647/classytruck3ju.th.jpg is to Christianity

(for bigger image see bumper-sticker thread)

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by e1618978
Monsanto is a pain - but the solution is the creation of open source seed varieties
What's wrong with the ones that people have been planting and harvesting for as long as humanity has cultivated crops?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
What's wrong with the ones that people have been planting and harvesting for as long as humanity has cultivated crops? Soooo old fashioned . .

get with the program . . . today its all about hybrid species man
sure we're probably gonna have a global allergic reaction that'll make generations wish for mere thalidomide-like symptoms . . . but whatever . . . its good for business, and that's what counts!!

[segovius]

Originally posted by jamac
Here is what the Muslims think aboput democracy:
MEMRI (http://www.memri.org)

The Koran forbids democracy and freedom of religion under penalty of death.
At least some believe so.

MEMRI is an Israeli 'news' outfit run by ex (?) Israeli intelligence operatives with an self-proclaimed Zionist agenda - I wouldn't call that objective.

They trawl the Arab press looking for examples which show Muslims in a bad light (of which there are many) and never under any circumstances show any examples which would put Muslims in a good light (off which there are also many). When they don't find any bad enough they lie and dissimulate.

There is much very interesting data on this outfit and their role in spreading hate and disinfo but it would require another thread.

If you want to go down this line start one.

[e1618978]

Segovius - do you still think that the election is fake? Your guy is winning.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
Segovius - do you still think that the election is fake? Your guy is winning.

Yes, I'm afraid so.

Nevertheless some good things seem to be happening (none of them intended or designed by the US so put the flag down): Sadr is all washed up, ditto Alawi (a far worse thug), the Shi'i will have to reach a detente with the Kurds which is good.

But I get the feeling you are going to ask me about the 'fakeness'. I can do no better than refer to you Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) who claimed the elections were less democratic than the 1997 Iran elections (I agree):

Goldberg criticizes me for saying that the 1997 presidential election in Iran was more democratic than the Jan. 30, 2005 election in Iraq. His complaint is that the four candidates for president were vetted and approved by Iran's Guardianship Council.

It is certainly the case that although Iran has elections, they are flawed because many candidates are excluded on ideological grounds. To say that, however, is not to say that the popular will can never unexpectedly make itself known in Iran. In the 1997 election the vetting was lax, and a relative liberal, Muhammad Khatami, was allowed to run. He had earlier been fired as minister of culture for being too liberal. He wrote about Habermas and civil society and democratization in Iran (he had lived in Germany several years and read Habermas in German).

The four presidential candidates in Iran were all known by name, unlike the candidates for Iraq's parliament, most of whom remained anonymous to voters in the weeks leading up to the election. I'd say that is a sign of greater transparency in Iran. The Iranian participants were not in danger if they campaigned or ran, one of the criteria of a successful democratic election according to international watchdog groups. In this respect, too, Iran in that year was superior to Iraq in 2005.

Khatami's victory in 1997 was a big surprise. He was put in by the youth vote and the women's vote, against the wishes of the hardline clerics. If a candidate wins who wasn't expected to, that is a sign of lack of manipulation of the results.

Khatami was elected by 69% of the Iranian electorate, and 76 percent of eligible voters voted. The latter number is higher than will be true for Iraq.

[segovius]

One more thing: I realise I have been a bit disingenuous in the post above - the question war in reference to my claim of 'fake' rather than a question of degree of transparency/democratic process and I did not address it. Apologies.

If it ends with Sistani in power and Alawi marginalised AND results in the US leaving or a rapid and real roadmap for that withdrawal, then I will have to admit it was not 'fake' - btw, I use fake in the sense of 'sham' rather than 'rigged'.

It isn't clear that this is the case yet and I personally believe that the US will not leave not are there any plans to, I also know that Sistani has a platform for calling for withdrawal so if he gets in and no withdrawal occurs (as I suspect will happen) then some accomodation will have been reached - and that fits my definition.

[e1618978]

It isn't clear that this is the case yet and I personally believe that the US will not leave not are there any plans to, I also know that Sistani has a platform for calling for withdrawal so if he gets in and no withdrawal occurs (as I suspect will happen) then some accomodation will have been reached - and that fits my definition. [/B]

I don't think that the US will be leaving any time soon, but I also don't think that there is anything sinister about that - it will be Sistani's choice.

There is a big difference between shouting suggestions from the sidelines, and actually being in charge. All of a sudden, Sistani will have the well-being of the whole country on his hands.

He will have to prevent a Sunni backlash, he will have to prevent the Kurds from leaving the union, he will have to hunt down the terrorists, prevent Turkey from meddling, keep the oil flowing, and prepare for the next election.

If he tells the US soliders to go home, and things go badly as a result, it will obviously be his fault (and he can't want that).

[Common Man]

I am more positive about Iraq than I have been in a long time. I think that the political process is working, albeit imperfectly. I think that whatever rational Gov takes power will want the US there for quite awhile to allow that Gov to take root. Maybe it is time to put egos aside and work for the best result for everyone? The events to follow are going to be trying, no doubt. Look for a long, tense political battle. That, however, is how things get done. I think that civil war is pretty unlikely. Be prepared, however, for tragedy TV to predict it at every bump in the road.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by Common Man
Be prepared, however, for tragedy TV to predict it at every bump in the road.

I don't know about TV, but the current Newsweek cover story is subtitled "Who are the Insurgents, and why the election won't stop them.":no::rolleyes:

[hmurchison]

Hell man in the US Democracy is fake. Had a Democracy really worked Bush wouldn't be on his second term. Give'em a chance maybe something good will come of this.

[groverat]

Common Man:

Maybe it is time to put egos aside and work for the best result for everyone?

Who was it that was operating on ego and not working for the best result for everyone in the first place? You seem to be saying that someone needs to change...

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
he will have to prevent the Kurds from leaving the union,

And what 'union' might that be?

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
I don't think that the US will be leaving any time soon, but I also don't think that there is anything sinister about that - it will be Sistani's choice.

People voted to get the US out.

There is a big difference between shouting suggestions from the sidelines, and actually being in charge. All of a sudden, Sistani will have the well-being of the whole country on his hands.

He already does have that - the only reason the US has not been involved in a bloodbath is because Sistani has ordered his followers not to fight them.

So far they have been doing badly against the insurgents - and that's just a minority of the Sunni minority.

He will have to prevent a Sunni backlash, he will have to prevent the Kurds from leaving the union, he will have to hunt down the terrorists, prevent Turkey from meddling, keep the oil flowing, and prepare for the next election.

This is nonsensical. Union ? Terrorists ? Have to ? Turkey ?

The only possible sense I can remotely make of this is that you seem to believe Sistani will 'have to' adopt the exact same world view as you and act in the US interests according to how they (wrongly and deceitfully) portray the world to a clueless western populace.

Ain't going to happen.

If he tells the US soliders to go home, and things go badly as a result, it will obviously be his fault (and he can't want that). [/B]

Go badly :lol: Oh dear.

Let's say they stay the same - Sistani would be even more of a hero than he already is. You really don't understand the Arab mindset, that's ok - why should you ? but you could at least refrain from assuming it is the same as a western one.

Now, on to the electoral process:

The problem is that the US thinks the Iraqi people are stupid, well this is not such a problem actually as they are wrong - but someone like Sistani is actually so far from stupid that he knows this US attitude and plays along with it.

In reality he knows the elections are undemocratic and rigged at base by the rules put in place by Bremer. No matter, he knows nothing will change through violence so he plays along.

Once in power he will change the rules - and rightly so because they are just more Imperialistic bs.

The US should remember that not so long ago the Iraqis experienced first hand British Colonial rule - and they did know how to do things properly in terms of Empire Building, occupation and subjagation of eastern cultures.

They didn't succeed either.

[Common Man]

"Who was it that was operating on ego and not working for the best result for everyone in the first place? You seem to be saying that someone needs to change..." Groverat


That was a ref to everyone involved.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
And what 'union' might that be?

The union of the three main cultures in Iraq - Kurd, Sunni and Shi'a.
Look at kurdistanobserver.com, they talk about seperation every day, and they conducted exit polls about seperation during the election. Its worse than the damn Quebecers in Canada.

[e1618978]

So you are saying that the US troops leaving after the election will not have any negative effects on Iraq? I think that you are a bit optimistic, and I am a serious optimist myself.

[Aurora]

People need to wake up, these Iraqi's are electing Sistani a recluse who is Iranian and a religious fanatic. What do you think is going to come from this? A real democracy? Iraq will do the same thing as Iran did and that is install a theocracy and again it will be rule by the Koran not rule by freedom and choice. Simply put they will be going backward from the start..................meanwhile in Venezuela a country is falling into Tyranny and Dictatorship.....This is more important then Iraq in my view since its closer to home.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Aurora
People need to wake up, these Iraqi's are electing Sistani a recluse who is Iranian and a religious fanatic. What do you think is going to come from this? A real democracy? Iraq will do the same thing as Iran did and that is install a theocracy and again it will be rule by the Koran not rule by freedom and choice. Simply put they will be going backward from the start..................meanwhile in Venezuela a country is falling into Tyranny and Dictatorship.....This is more important then Iraq in my view since its closer to home.

If Sistani tries this, which he insists that he will not ("The Shi'a have been oppressed for very long, I have no desire to oppress others as we have been opressed"), then Iraq will be in Civil war ASAP and millions of Iraqis will die. I don't think that he wants that to happen.

[dmz]

Sergovious, is this the sistani in question?

http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/?lang=eng&view=d&code=165&page=1

[Common Man]

The Bush admin has tried almost everthing short of an invasion in Venezuela with little sucess Aurora.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
Sergovious, is this the sistani in question?

http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/?lang=eng&view=d&code=165&page=1

Yes.

Why do you ask ?

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
Yes.

Why do you ask ?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around what is up with the sunni/Shiat Ali branches -- the 'temporary wives' thing, and the prohibition against mastrubation, not shaking hands with a girlfriend caught me off guard, I thought was not a main stream teaching. I guess the sunnis are not okay with temporary wives, because they do not view the hadith in the same way as the Shiat Ali, who believe that Islam is open to a bit more interpretation of a living cleric. (?) spank me if I've got this wrong.

this brings me back to the insurgents --- setting aside the American invovlment, do you see any mainstream sunni country willingly disrupting this shi'a headed government?

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
I'm just trying to wrap my head around what is up with the sunni/Shiat Ali branches, the 'temporary wives' thing, and the prohibition against mastrubation, not shaking hands with a girlfriend caught me off guard, I thought was not a main stream teaching. I guess the sunnis are not okay with temporary wives, because they do not view the hadith in the same way as the Shiat Ali, who believe that Islam is open to a bit more interpretation of a living cleric. (?) spank me if I've got this wrong.

this brings me back to the insurgents --- setting aside the American invovlment, do you see any mainstream sunni country willingly disrupting this shi'a headed government?

Hehe - I knew a Shi'i in Damascus who every time he went to see a 'woman of ill repute' (of which there are many) would marry her and divorce her half an hour later ! The divorce costs were agreed beforehand to be equal to her charges, he had a lot of temorary marriages ! :lol:

You've got to see Saudi as being in opposition but then again they must have expected it and also discussed it much with the US - anyone else we'll have to see how the power-sharing works out. They'll have to put some Sunnis and Kurds in regardless I think.

I can't see a problem with the administration internally - the US needs to make some noises about withdrawal though to grease the wheels, that's the main issue imo. If that's on the table then the future will start to look brighter and personally i think it's necessary just to draw a line under the Saddam era and put it all away.

Strangely, it is the one thing Bush could do to possibly rebuild support and claim his place as 'liberator' - if the US pull out in the next few months then the nay sayers are undermined categorically and the insurgents left high and dry.

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
Hehe - I knew a Shi'i in Damascus who every time he went to see a 'woman of ill repute' (of which there are many) would marry her and divorce her half an hour later ! The divorce costs were agreed beforehand to be equal to her charges, he had a lot of temorary marriages ! :lol:

You've got to see Saudi as being in opposition but then again they must have expected it and also discussed it much with the US - anyone else we'll have to see how the power-sharing works out. They'll have to put some Sunnis and Kurds in regardless I think.

I can't see a problem with the administration internally - the US needs to make some noises about withdrawal though to grease the wheels, that's the main issue imo. If that's on the table then the future will start to look brighter and personally i think it's necessary just to draw a line under the Saddam era and put it all away.

Strangely, it is the one thing Bush could do to possibly rebuild support and claim his place as 'liberator' - if the US pull out in the next few months then the nay sayers are undermined categorically and the insurgents left high and dry.


That is fasinating.

So, that should mean the insurgents are mostly alQeda/Saddam loyalists? I guess if the Iran was basically going to be pleased with this outcome -- it would have been stupid to assume that they had a hand in this.(?)

(shows how much I've been paying attention)

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
That is fasinating.

So, that should mean the insurgents are mostly alQeda/Saddam loyalists? I guess if the Iran was basically going to be pleased with this outcome -- it would have been stupid to assume that they had a hand in this.(?)

(shows how much I've been paying attention)

The question of Iran having a hand in it is a vexed one. Obviously the hawks would want such a tie-in and personally, having a suspicious mind, I don't rule out the elections and Sistani's 'victory' as being part of some diabolical neocon anti-Iran agenda.

But in reality, his platform is different to the hardline Iranian Mullahs and even the moderates - he wants lay people not clerics to run the administration but along religious lines. This is a fundamental difference which puts him at odds with Iran, although he has much respect there.

Re the insurgents, here is an inventory of the insurgeny groups (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2004/09/az091904.html) from the Federation of American Scientists, not sure how up to date it is but it was from September last.

You are right I guess in that there appear to be no organised Shi'i groupings but one other faction that needs consideration are the criminal gangs that are running amok and (in some cases) posing as insurgents for the 'fear' value.

Some of these are homegrown 'mafia' or the remnants of the criminals Saddam released prior to the war, others I believe are Eastern Europeans moving in and staking claims to drug and other turf for the future. Certainly the drug business/availability is growing there but many of these gangs make money (or attempt to) through kidnapping and demanding the ransoms from western companies/governments. To do this they pose as 'insurgents' to show they are a threat - nothing much is said about this because the authorities want a lid on it so they can stamp it out but it is major business and people are paying big money, people are getting killed because of it too.

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
The question of Iran having a hand in it is a vexed one. Obviously the hawks would want such a tie-in and personally, having a suspicious mind, I don't rule out the elections and Sistani's 'victory' as being part of some diabolical neocon anti-Iran agenda.

But in reality, his platform is different to the hardline Iranian Mullahs and even the moderates - he wants lay people not clerics to run the administration but along religious lines. This is a fundamental difference which puts him at odds with Iran, although he has much respect there.

Re the insurgents, here is an inventory of the insurgeny groups (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2004/09/az091904.html) from the Federation of American Scientists, not sure how up to date it is but it was from September last.

You are right I guess in that there appear to be no organised Shi'i groupings but one other faction that needs consideration are the criminal gangs that are running amok and (in some cases) posing as insurgents for the 'fear' value.

Some of these are homegrown 'mafia' or the remnants of the criminals Saddam released prior to the war, others I believe are Eastern Europeans moving in and staking claims to drug and other turf for the future. Certainly the drug business/availability is growing there but many of these gangs make money (or attempt to) through kidnapping and demanding the ransoms from western companies/governments. To do this they pose as 'insurgents' to show they are a threat - nothing much is said about this because the authorities want a lid on it so they can stamp it out but it is major business and people are paying big money, people are getting killed because of it too.

Very, very interesting. I had forgotten to throw the criminal element in there.

[mailander]

Hi. I was browsing this board (break time from mac troubles) and was stunned to find a link to something I myself wrote about two months ago, on Iraqi bloggers, at our blog "martini republic (http://martinirepublic.com)". I'm certainly very flattered to encounter it. I've been quoted in the New York Times and New York Sun and Houston Chronicle over this same matter, but coming across yourself in a forum you've just signed up for is really a special feeling.

So I guess I should say something, other than about my Powerbook.

The problem of who's really who in Iraq is not as troubling to me as the problem of who's really who in American media. (There's a great post today at alternet on the organization of right wing media).

I expect there to be duplicities and conflations of duplicities in war zones, and I expect strong opinions, but I don't expect so much relentless and shameless propagandizing as we are subjected to by media types right here in the USA--and that was the purpose of my original post, which was targeted at some local media, not really at the Iraqi brothers. I lived through the whole Vietnam War and never remember propaganda being so relentless and pernicious within American media as it is now.

At our blog, we've evolved, generally, from saying we're "anti-War" to saying we're "pro-truth." If the first casualty of war is truth, then the restoration of truth must be the first step towards making a peace. I'm working on something right now, for instance, that is not reassuring from the Left's perspective (where I reside, comfortably), about the blogger Riverbend. She's an anti-war blogger's darling, but ascertaining identity should be a priority among the media (if anyone has any information about her, I hope they'll email me).

The brothers--I haven't publically commented on them since the kerfluffle regarding their trip to the US in December. But I don't mind telling anyone that I still find the right particularly shameless in promoting them. Alterman at MSNBC went after Jeff Jarvis the other day for this, and so did we at Martini Republic.

Not to plug too blatantly, but I hope you'll consider keeping us at Martini Republic on your watchlist. I just arrived at this board and I hope you're all doing well. It looks like Segovius is doing a great job here of driving interaction. Interaction is where everything begins.

All the best,

Joseph Mailander