Unofficial election results in Iraq

[e1618978]

It look like Shiite 50% Kurd 25% Sunni 25% (based on the articles on kurdistanobserver.com), and 67% is required for voting in costitutional changes. So the Shiites have a veto, but they require the agreement of one of the other groups for any change.

The effect of the Sunni boycot, then, is that they cannot group together with the Kurds to vote in stuff the Shiites don't want. Besides that, everything else will go the same way as if they didn't boycott.

The Shiites seem the most reasonable of the three groups, so this situation seems like the best of all possible election results.

[BRussell]

25% Sunni seems surprising, given that their % in the population is pretty close to that, and they supposedly didn't vote. And Shiites are 60% of the population, and supposedly voted like crazy, so 50% doesn't make sense.

I don't think you can assume that the shiites will be the most reasonable group. Remember, Iran is a charter member of the axis of evil. Are we going to get another Iran? And many of the shiites follow Moqtada al-Sadr, who has been very outspoken in his anti-US approach, among other anti-US shiites.

Perhaps they only seem reasonable because they participated in the election that made Bush look good. But why did they participate? Is it possible they did so not because they're pro-US, but because they would undoubtedly win?

[hardeeharhar]

Basically if the Kurds want nothing to happen they can play their hand to do such.

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
25% Sunni seems surprising, given that their % in the population is pretty close to that, and they supposedly didn't vote. And Shiites are 60% of the population, and supposedly voted like crazy, so 50% doesn't make sense.

I don't think you can assume that the shiites will be the most reasonable group. Remember, Iran is a charter member of the axis of evil. Are we going to get another Iran? And many of the shiites follow Moqtada al-Sadr, who has been very outspoken in his anti-US approach, among other anti-US shiites.

Perhaps they only seem reasonable because they participated in the election that made Bush look good. But why did they participate? Is it possible they did so not because they're pro-US, but because they would undoubtedly win?

The definition of 'reasonable' is not 'pro-US'.

[e1618978]

Moqtada al-Sadr

Yeah - I forgot about that guy - he is a fool and a right bastard. Maybe somebody can put some PCBs in his soup or something.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by segovius
The definition of 'reasonable' is not 'pro-US'. Oh yeah.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
Yeah - I forgot about that guy - he is a fool and a right bastard. Maybe somebody can put some PCBs in his soup or something.


A fool that made the US 'forget' about his 'crimes' and just let him go on with his life as if nothing had happened.

A fool indeed.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
A fool that made the US 'forget' about his 'crimes' and just let him go on with his life as if nothing had happened.

A fool indeed.

There were no crimes. Bush was the fool for trying to stop free speech by shutting down a newspaper while gibbering about freedom.

He just didn't expect someone to take him at his word and stand up for real freedom.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by segovius
There were no crimes.

Notice the ' ... ' around the word crime.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
A fool that made the US 'forget' about his 'crimes' and just let him go on with his life as if nothing had happened.

A fool indeed.

He was a fool because, as a Shiite he stood to gain quite a bit through representitive elections, but he still started to fight the US and incite violence. The reason that he is not dead is because of his boss, it has nothing to do with him not being a fool.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
He was a fool because, as a Shiite he stood to gain quite a bit through representitive elections, but he still started to fight the US and incite violence. The reason that he is not dead is because of his boss, it has nothing to do with him not being a fool.

The reason he is not dead is because he has a functioning brain which he utilizes and through that manages to survive both physically and as an important actor in Iraq.

His boss being the leader of a lot of people would not hold as an associate or even student, someone that is deemed to be a fool by others, let alone someone deemed to be a fool by you.

And he became famous for his resistance; not for his political skills. We knew his name because we heard he kicked some ass around in Iraq, not because he was on the list for elections. Notice his absence on the election lists? He could run; but he didn't. That should tell you something about his goal(s).

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
He was a fool because, as a Shiite he stood to gain quite a bit through representitive elections, but he still started to fight the US and incite violence. The reason that he is not dead is because of his boss, it has nothing to do with him not being a fool.

I have a question - you seem more confused than the Sunni clerics and I need you to clear something up:

How is it that you can praise the Shi'i as 'reasonable' (while despising as-Sadr - you do know who he is in the Shi'i world don't you ?) and the elections as a 'success' because the Shi'i got in whilst calling for the removal of the same Shi'i in Iran ?

You're not making sense.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by segovius
I have a question - you seem more confused than the Sunni clerics and I need you to clear something up:

How is it that you can praise the Shi'i as 'reasonable' (while despising as-Sadr - you do know who he is in the Shi'i world don't you ?) and the elections as a 'success' because the Shi'i got in whilst calling for the removal of the same Shi'i in Iran ?

You're not making sense.

Those two groups of people are distinct. The Shi'i I think should be removed from the Iranian government are absolute rulers, while the ones I support in Iraq are participants in a democracy that has give and take with the other groups.

The secular government in Iran are also Shi'i, remember.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
Those two groups of people are distinct. The Shi'i I think should be removed from the Iranian government are absolute rulers, while the ones I support in Iraq are participants in a democracy that has give and take with the other groups.

The secular government in Iran are also Shi'i, remember.

Sistani is Iranian. Shi'ism is an Iranian movement. The Shi'i in Iran are 'absolute rulers' as you misguidedly and erroneously put it because the Shi'i believe in theocracy - it is what they believe.

As it happens I am (theologically speaking) greatly in sympathy with Shi'i beliefs myself and I guarantee you, you are not - you just don't know what those beliefs are......yet.

One more thing: sooner or later someone is going to have to come out with the horrible truth - this crusade of Bush's is just that - a crusade. A war against Islam.

Even if it is not formulated that way at the upper echelons of US power (and I believe it is) then that's what it boils down to.

Islam has other methods of government and rule than democracy. Some of these have become corrupt, like the Saudis (permanently exempt from regime change) and others like Saddam and Syria (branded as 'Muslim world') were never Islamic and never claimed to be.

To enforce democracy in the western sense is to ask Muslims and secular people in the ME to reject Islam. Some are obviously happy to do this and these will be the natural support base, most will object and oppose you, some will fight you to the death.

The people of Iraq voted for one reason and one reason only: to end the occupation. The people you saw voting are the ones who oppose the US who don't believe in violent resistance - particularly the Shi'ia who have been instructed to abstain from violence by Sistani on the grounds that the elections are the only way to end the US presence.

Not because he believes in democracy but because he is a statesman and a pragmatist who can see that violence against the US to prevent the 'democratic project' will not achieve their goals.

But if the occupation does not end soon you will see different developments....

[e1618978]

As it happens I am (theologically speaking) greatly in sympathy with Shi'i beliefs myself and I guarantee you, you are not - you just don't know what those beliefs are......yet.

One more thing: sooner or later someone is going to have to come out with the horrible truth - this crusade of Bush's is just that - a crusade. A war against Islam.

Well, then I guess that the US is going to have to committ genocide in order to be safe. If Iran is your model, and most arabs want this model to be propagated, then we have to kill them all before they get too many Nuclear weapons.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
Well, then I guess that the US is going to have to committ genocide in order to be safe. If Iran is your model, and most arabs want this model to be propagated, then we have to kill them all before they get too many Nuclear weapons.

And so the true agenda behind all the mealy mouthed obfuscation finally shows through, as it always does - just another ignorant neanderthal wanabee Rambo.

Here's your parachute and an M16 - can't afford to give you body armour but it probably won't matter in your case. Go get 'em Tiger.....

Send us a postcard from Teheran......and don't forget the "I heart Salman Rushdie" T-shirt I sent you :D

[e1618978]

Originally posted by segovius
And so the true agenda behind all the mealy mouthed obfuscation finally shows through, as it always does - just another ignorant neanderthal wanabee Rambo.

Here's your parachute and an M16 - can't afford to give you body armour but it probably won't matter in your case. Go get 'em Tiger.....

Send us a postcard from Teheran......and don't forget the "I heart Salman Rushdie" T-shirt I sent you :D

No, I just have zero tolerence for Theocracies with Nuclear weapons. In any case, I don't think that you are correct about the bulk of arabs wanting Theocracies. There have been plenty of demonstrations in Iran where the people asked for the secular government to have more power.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
There have been plenty of demonstrations in Iran where the people asked for the secular government to have more power.

Care to name some ?

[segovius]

Originally posted by segovius
Care to name some ?

Obviously not.

Imagine my shock.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by segovius
Care to name some ?

Just one example:

http://www.iranian-fedaii.de/Etlaeya-english/N-16%20azar%201381-english.html


The key parts of democracy for me are:

- Limitation on government power
- Transparency of society and government actions
(facilitated by freedom of the press)
- It makes extremists less powerful, and ensures that
the bulk of government represents normal people.

Which is why I don't trust non-democracies.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by segovius
Obviously not.

Imagine my shock.

You only gave me 20 minutes, Imagine my shock.
I'm not glued to the board 24/7.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978

There have been plenty of demonstrations in Iran where the people asked for the secular government to have more power.

Originally posted by e1618978

The key parts of democracy for me are:

- Limitation on government power

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
Just one example:

http://www.iranian-fedaii.de/Etlaeya-english/N-16%20azar%201381-english.html


You do know who the Fedayeen Guerillas are, what they want, what ideology they represent as well as how they go about things don't you?

Do you want me to tell you ?

I cannot believe you really understand what you just posted.

[e1618978]

Yes - democracy limits government power.
Just think how horrible the USA would be if it was a Theocracic dictatorship.

Here is another link:

http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4331.shtml

I generally distrust extremists of all religions, because I feel that they are insane.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by segovius
Care to name some ?

Just Google "Iranian student protest", and you get 104,000 hits - but no, you are so sure in your world view that you know there are none.

[giant]

This is probably OT (I've read none of this thread), but someone posted this to Farber's IP listserv:
>> "United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of
>> turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong
>> terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from
>> Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their
>> ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the
>> Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in
>> President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional
>> processes in South Vietnam."
>> - Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled, 'U.S.Encouraged
>> by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
Just Google "Iranian student protest", and you get 104,000 hits - but no, you are so sure in your world view that you know there are none.

No, I know there are many.

I also know that there are none yhou would agree with or who would agree with you - not surprising really as you're views seem to centre around them dying at the hands of big thrusting weapons that are somehow 'yours'. Come in Dr Freud.

Meanwhile your credibility in this thread is plummeting faster than a Bush budget deficit - first you unequivocally extol the virtues of the Shi'i, then you have to execute a rapid volte face when someone mentions Sadr who you seem to have forgotten, then to cap it all you cite as evidence of an urge for 'democracy™' some protests by the Iranian Communist party affiliate the Marxist neo-terrorist Fedayeen Guerillas.

I'd say quit when you're ahead but you're not. You've got to do something about that cold for all our sakes.

:no:

[e1618978]

google results for "pro-democracy iranian" 34,000 hits.

[e1618978]

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9907/16/iran.protests.01/