Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Iraqi Elections: Reasons to be cheerful

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Poker_Peter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Poker_Peter


    the Sunni who live there just arent buying into this new Iraq.

    That's because they are unwilling to accepting an Iraq in which their community has control, like it had for the last 1000 years before the US invasion, and also because of death threats from within their community from those involved in the insurgency.

    However, 20% of the population cannot have a veto. They disenfranchised themselves. Tough.


  • Options
    #33
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    SkepticOne wrote:
    Why do you think that? Why do they have to resort to violence and intimidation against the Iraqi people if they have the support of them?

    .. you mean like the Americans do when they collectively punish whole towns for "allowing" a strike on their forces? Why would they need to do that if the people didn't support them?


  • Options
    #34
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    sovtek wrote:
    .. you mean like the Americans do when they collectively punish whole towns for "allowing" a strike on their forces? Why would they need to do that if the people didn't support them?
    No I don't. What I wanted to know was why you believed that the insurgents who were disrupting the elections "obviously have a large degree of support from the average Iraq". The evidence would seem to go against this. I am not asking you what the Americans believe.


  • Options
    #35
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    SkepticOne wrote:
    No I don't. What I wanted to know was why you believed that the insurgents who were disrupting the elections "obviously have a large degree of support from the average Iraq". The evidence would seem to go against this. I am not asking you what the Americans believe.

    What evidence? Other than Bush saying "they are trying to disrupt elections"?
    To answer your question, I believe they have support from the average Iraqi because they wouldn't be able to operate so widely and so effectively without it.
    Why is the American intelligence on them so poor if Iraqi's really saw them (the insurgents or resistance...or whatever) as "terrorists".
    Why would the Americans be resorting to Israeli tactics of collective punishment on towns and villages?


  • Options
    #36
    AmenToThat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 382 ✭✭AmenToThat


    SkepticOne wrote:
    No I don't. What I wanted to know was why you believed that the insurgents who were disrupting the elections "obviously have a large degree of support from the average Iraq". The evidence would seem to go against this. I am not asking you what the Americans believe.

    Well they do within the Sunni community and as events in Northern Ireland have proved that once there is support within a community its practically impossible to end resistance.
    Even when they bulldozed Fallujah they simply switched the problem to Mosul.

    Further to this the main Shia block want the Americans out as well, it was one of their main electionering stands. Sistani refused to meet anyone from the America administration and polls conducted before the elections showed that 60% are against the Americans being in Iraq and now see them as occupiers (as far as I know those polls included the Kurdish provinces). The only reason the Shai in the main have so far stayed on board is they believe/believed that elections would bring them the power.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Hobbes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    I see there is a rumour* on the ground that the CIA are actually arming the opposition to stop the possible take of from the clerics. Which will probably spark off a civil war (as if they are not already in one).

    * I point out rumour. True or not I don't know but it is being reported (example).


  • Options
    #38
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    I think it's a mistake to equate wanting the Americans out to blanket support for the insurgents. The insurgents have local support in certain areas but there is no evidence to suggest they have widespread support. The examples given by Sovtek only suggest that the Americans believe that a particular town is harbouring insurgents. Furthermore, what the Americans believe can be incorrect. We have seen examples of this before.

    If the insurgents had anywhere near widespread support there would not have been such a large turnout in the elections despite the murder of election workers and suicide bombs. The Iraqis as a whole may want not the Americans in the country, but there is no evidence whatsoever that they want the sort of country that would exist if the insurgents got their way.


  • Options
    #39
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    SkepticOne wrote:
    I think it's a mistake to equate wanting the Americans out to blanket support for the insurgents.

    Who said anything about blanket support.
    The insurgents have local support in certain areas but there is no evidence to suggest they have widespread support.

    About as local as the attacks...which are widespread.
    The examples given by Sovtek only suggest that the Americans believe that a particular town is harbouring insurgents.

    Which particular town? Mosul? Falluja? Baghdad? Add it up and it's alot of people to hide amongst a population that supposedly thinks they are "terrorists".

    "Furthermore, what the Americans believe can be incorrect. We have seen examples of this before."

    Too many actually...and it's why they are the root of the problem and why the insurgents aren't going to go away until they do.
    I'm sure it isn't lost on the average Iraqi either.
    If the insurgents had anywhere near widespread support there would not have been such a large turnout in the elections despite the murder of election workers and suicide bombs.

    Why must a voter be vehemently anti-resistance?
    The Iraqis as a whole may want not the Americans in the country, but there is no evidence whatsoever that they want the sort of country that would exist if the insurgents got their way.

    What any number of factions want is quite a bit hazy...that sounds like a page from the Bush rhetoric...ie " they all hate our freedom".
    Actually what evidence there is from the insurgents points towards a common goal....to get American troops out.


  • Options
    #40
    AmenToThat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 382 ✭✭AmenToThat


    SkepticOne wrote:
    The Iraqis as a whole may want not the Americans in the country, but there is no evidence whatsoever that they want the sort of country that would exist if the insurgents got their way.

    I think theres plenty of evidence to support this!

    The final results were confirmed today.
    The Shia block supported by Sistani (ie the block with links to Tehran) have won a majority of the seats.
    Only a small (but growing)portion of those fighting within Sunni areas are fighting on purely religious grounds with the vast majority being former bathist/arab tribes fighting out of nationalistic pride, so I think to equate them as all being extremists in nature and the Shia as being secular and 'western looking' is a gross over simplification. The Shia have just choosen as different path for now because they believe they have the numbers.

    Its a fact that traditionally (generally speaking) that the Bathists have tended to be more secular in nature than the Shia south and its only since the insurgency started that the Sunni community have started to take a pro taliban like stance on the use of islam within Iraqi society.

    I think only after a few years of Shia/Kurd rule are we going to have any idea how Iraq thinks and indeed if there still is an Iraq anything we say here (myself included) is wildly speculative in nature.

    BTW Iran and Syria yesterday announced a strategic alliance in the face of mounting pressure from America with both countries boardering Iraq these two countries may yet play a pivotal role on future developments.........


  • Options
    #41
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    sovtek wrote:
    Who said anything about blanket support.
    OK, so at least you admit that not all Iraqis are in favour of kidnapping and murder of aid workers and Iraqis, disruptions of elections and the rebuilding of infrastructure.
    About as local as the attacks...which are widespread.
    What are you on about?
    Which particular town? Mosul? Falluja? Baghdad? Add it up and it's alot of people to hide amongst a population that supposedly thinks they are "terrorists".
    The one you used as an example in an attempt to argue that the insurgents had widespread support.
    Too many actually...and it's why they are the root of the problem and why the insurgents aren't going to go away until they do.
    I'm sure it isn't lost on the average Iraqi either.
    You believe the insurgents are going to go away voluntarily. Even after the Americans have gone it will still be down to the government of Iraq to flush them out.
    Why must a voter be vehemently anti-resistance?
    Because they defied the insurgents in their attempt to cause the elections to fail using intimidation and violence. The average Iraqi showed their contempt for the insurgents by voting anyway.
    What any number of factions want is quite a bit hazy...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    AmenToThat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 382 ✭✭AmenToThat


    SkepticOne wrote:
    The average Iraqi showed their contempt for the insurgents by voting anyway.

    Dont you mean the average Kurd and Shia?
    Practically no Sunni voted and as I said ealier whos to say that this trend wont be reversed if the Shia south doesnt get the kind of state it wants?
    For every secular Shia there is a Shia who adheres completely to the Koran and Sharia law.


  • Options
    #43
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,580 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Dont you mean the average Kurd and Shia?
    Practically no Sunni voted and as I said ealier whos to say that this trend wont be reversed if the Shia south doesnt get the kind of state it wants?
    For every secular Shia there is a Shia who adheres completely to the Koran and Sharia law.

    The Sunni Clerics told Sunnis not to vote, the main Sunni parties withdrew and told Sunnis not to vote, and the Sunni insurgency told them theyd be murdered if they voted. The amazing thing is that *any* of them voted at all when you consider the apathetic voter turnouts in places like Ireland where those challenges arent faced.

    Since then the Shia and Kurds have reached out to the Sunnis asking them to participate, and the Sunni leaders have accepted they made a mistake in not participating and have said they want to join. The desperate desire for the worst possible outcome to Iraq may not be satisfied, sadly for some.

    And the insurgency have the same support as the PIRA do. Enough to wage a campaign of terrorism, not enough to win an election. Now if Sovtek wants to say that because the PIRA have enough support to operate with impunity that they clearly represent the views of Irish people hed certainly find a lot of agreement with the people who painted all Irish people as terrorists or potential terrorists.


  • Options
    #44
    AmenToThat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 382 ✭✭AmenToThat


    Sand wrote:
    The Sunni Clerics told Sunnis not to vote, the main Sunni parties withdrew and told Sunnis not to vote, and the Sunni insurgency told them theyd be murdered if they voted. The amazing thing is that *any* of them voted at all when you consider the apathetic voter turnouts in places like Ireland where those challenges arent faced.


    In anbar province the turn out was 2%.......of that 2% the only ones that voted did so for Kurdish and Shia parties. So your amazment that 'any' of them voted is misplaced because they simply didnt! Well not the Sunni anyways
    Sand wrote:
    Since then the Shia and Kurds have reached out to the Sunnis asking them to participate, and the Sunni leaders have accepted they made a mistake in not participating and have said they want to join. The desperate desire for the worst possible outcome to Iraq may not be satisfied, sadly for some.


    The Sunni political class have been involved with the politics of occupation from day one! The president of the provisional authority was a Sunni tribal leader and it made not one blind bit of difference to the insurgency. This idea being put forward that only now have the Sunni elite decided to enter into the political arena is false
    Sand wrote:
    And the insurgency have the same support as the PIRA do.

    How do you know this?


  • Options
    #45
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    AmenToThat wrote:
    Dont you mean the average Kurd and Shia?
    Practically no Sunni voted and as I said ealier whos to say that this trend wont be reversed if the Shia south doesnt get the kind of state it wants?
    Like I was saying earlier, it takes time for a tradition of democracy to be established. People need to get used to the idea that compromises need to be made. The Sunnis need to get used to the idea that they will no longer be the favoured group under a dictatorship. Overall, however, the Iraqis seem to be in favour of elections rather than mob-rule.


  • Options
    #46
    AmenToThat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 382 ✭✭AmenToThat


    SkepticOne wrote:
    The Sunnis need to get used to the idea that they will no longer be the favoured group under a dictatorship.

    Isnt it more a case of the Americans and British getting used to the idea that they cant treat a people like second class citizens and bulldoze cities when the people wont accept them being there?
    SkepticOne wrote:
    Overall, however, the Iraqis seem to be in favour of elections rather than mob-rule.

    Its worth noting that Sistani stated (with billboards of him glaring at you on every wall to remind you incase your memory was slipping) that it was the religious duty of every person who was physically able to vote.

    We have had one election, lets all hold judgement for a year or two untill the Iraqi's realize that their natural assests have been stripped and sold off cheaply to western corporations and that they still havnt got a proper electricity service or security and we will see what the Iraqi's and indeed Sistani and the for now quiet Sadr favours................


  • Options
    #47
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    AmenToThat wrote:
    We have had one election, lets all hold judgement for a year or two untill the Iraqi's realize that their natural assests have been stripped and sold off cheaply to western corporations and that they still havnt got a proper electricity service or security and we will see what the Iraqi's and indeed Sistani and the for now quiet Sadr favours................
    Well yes. Regardless of what the Americans have done, any first elections will likely have problems with boycots and intimidation given Iraqs background.


Advertisement