Iraqi Elections

Sand

Actually if the constitution is rejected in any 3 of the 18 provinces it is invalid and will have to re-negotiated, so the Shia majority cant have it all their own way and will have to engage with the Sunnis and address their concerns, as well as the concerns of the Kurds. As such, its good news to hear that even some Sunni political groups are looking to participate.

All the insurgency has to offer Sunnis is death, intimidation and chaos. The fact they had to threaten to murder anyone and everyone who voted shows just how much support they feel they can count on. The insurgency will continue for quite some time, but it has nothing to offer and whatever support it enjoys comes from a fear of Shia veangence and nationalist ire against the Coalition forces. The constitutional proccess will address the former, and the continued drive to train the Iraqi security forces up to fight the insurgency instead of Coalition soldiers will address the latter.

Meanwhile the surrender will continue to be advocated by defeatists, much as it was advocated in the face of Nazism. That Fisk chap on the Late,Late last night pretty much advocated surrendering Iraqs to the Insurgency, a perfect recipe for a second Saddam. It always irks that people see themselves as defending the interests of unfree people when advocating tolerating or even encouraging violent, oppressive regimes ruling them instead of fighting for something better. It's like they're saying democracy was worth fighting for in 1939 to protect my rights and the rights of my fellow Europeans, but its not worth fighting for the rights of Iraqis - they want a dictator, they need a dictator, a lie as shown by the courage of voters to defy even the threat of death to embrace the chance to vote. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

AmenToThat

Sand wrote:

Actually if the constitution is rejected in any 3 of the 18 provinces it is invalid and will have to re-negotiated, so the Shia majority cant have it all their own way and will have to engage with the Sunnis and address their concerns, as well as the concerns of the Kurds. As such, its good news to hear that even some Sunni political groups are looking to participate.

Or the Shia may decide that the fact that they have been given the mandate by their people will allow them to simply overule everyone else.
Comments comming out of Najaf tonight from the Marja suggest that the Shia Clerics including the previously moderate Grand Ayatollah Sistani will now settle for nothing less than a state run under the guidance of Sharia law
Let us not forget that Sadr is still very popular in Iraq and the only reason that the whole Shia community didnt rise up with him was that Sistani knew he could get the same results for the Shia majority through elections

Sand wrote:

All the insurgency has to offer Sunnis is death, intimidation and chaos. The fact they had to threaten to murder anyone and everyone who voted shows just how much support they feel they can count on. The insurgency will continue for quite some time, but it has nothing to offer and whatever support it enjoys comes from a fear of Shia veangence and nationalist ire against the Coalition forces. The constitutional proccess will address the former, and the continued drive to train the Iraqi security forces up to fight the insurgency instead of Coalition soldiers will address the latter.

I think you will find that even the American generals are now starting to admit that they cannot build up the army because of the numbers being either murdered permanantly injured and indeed deserting. As for the constitution the fact that the Clerics (Shia) are now taking centre stage will drive the the Kurds ans Sunni's further away.
As for death and intimidation I think you will find that the 'liberators' are giving the insurgents a run for their money in those stakes

Sand wrote:

That Fisk chap on the Late,Late last night pretty much advocated surrendering Iraqs to the Insurgency, a perfect recipe for a second Saddam. It always irks that people see themselves as defending the interests of unfree people when advocating tolerating or even encouraging violent, oppressive regimes ruling them instead of fighting for something better. It's like they're saying democracy was worth fighting for in 1939 to protect my rights and the rights of my fellow Europeans, but its not worth fighting for the rights of Iraqis - they want a dictator, they need a dictator, a lie as shown by the courage of voters to defy even the threat of death to embrace the chance to vote. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Only one city has been layed to waste during this war....................Fallujah,
And guess what? it wasnt the insurgents who layed waste to it or its people.
The polls (partial) are showing that Allawi's coalition is only getting around 18% of the vote among the Shia population despite the fact that a massive media offensive was run on his behalf.
Yet he had the right to order the closing of newspapers and tv networks he deemed (without evidence)to be helping the insurgency, btw what constitutes helping the insurgency?
He had the right to order a city destroyed (Fallujah) and its population dispersed across the country?
We have already had one mini dictator since the invasion and he was installed by the Americans and British, sure hell Saddam himself was backed by the Americans for years so it cuts little ice with me you comming on here and lecturing to me about surrenders to dictators Im afraid .

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Actually if the constitution is rejected in any 3 of the 18 provinces it is invalid and will have to re-negotiated

I'll probably need to wander around Bremners orders again, but I am pretty sure there was something in there to stop something like this happening.