Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gandolfi · 02-04-2005, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Quote:
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.

So is Iraq heading towards theocracy and/or civil war?

Is there somehow a suggestion here that Allawi would have been good for Iraq and brought peace ? Strange notion.

Bush will never allow the Iraqis to establish their own government. The type of "democracy and free-DOM" that Bush believes in, is being hatched by Negroponte in the American Embassy in Baghdad.

Happy Wonderer · 02-04-2005, 09:17 AM

Democracy?

Quote:

Meanwhile, election officials said strict security measures may have deprived many Iraqis in the Mosul area and surrounding Ninevah province of their right to vote. The admission is likely to fuel complaints by Iraq's minority Sunni Arabs, who make up the heart of the insurgency, that they were not represented in the vote.

Quote:

Kurdish political leader Jalal Talabani said he would seek the office of either president or prime minister when the National Assembly convenes.

"We as Kurds want one of those two posts and we will not give it up," Talabani, head of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said at a news conference alongside the other main Kurdish leader, Massoud Barzani.

hw

gandolfi · 02-04-2005, 09:56 AM

Anyone who agrees to let Bush stay, even if its Ayatollah Daffy Duck, will end up leading the country. It will have nothing to do with the election or the Iraqi people. Its "dee-mocracy Bush-style".

Mr. Superbad · 02-04-2005, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alkech

I personally expected the US to intervene and control the outcome, I really didn't think they were stupid enough to potentially have two Irans right next to each other.

ditto

Rob0t X · 02-04-2005, 11:53 AM

maybe we were all wrong. maybe bush really is bringing democracy to iraq wich is why the US "allowed" this to happen.

i mean if we just get out of the country now then the US's actions could be considered legitimate.

rlogan · 02-04-2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winston_Smith

i mean if we just get out of the country now then the US's actions could be considered legitimate.

Of course, that won't happen. And absolutely nothing changes the illegitimacy of:

1) The invasion in the first place, based on WMD's

2) The "right" of the U.S. to depose governments and supplant them with anything whatsoever.

It is all about controlling the debate. Now the neocons have everyone's eyes fixated on "election". Just keep repeating after me, johnny: "election...election...election" Your eyes are getting droopy, you are falling asleeeep...

Who is debating the right of the U.S. to have invaded, even if "democracy" had been the excuse?

It is the Iraqis that bear the responsibilty of governing themselves.

I can't predict what the pack of clowns in the white house will do next. Nor can I predict what the Kurds, Shia or Sunni will do. It is a chaotic situation.

The neocons were wrong about Iraq in too many ways to count. They've discredited themselves as far as trusting anything they say.

One thing I am curious about is the Kurds in the north. They basically have their own country already. How this will play out, especially with Turkey, is important.

Space_Monkey #9 · 02-04-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Clarke

You should re-read the OP. He's not criticizing the US for 'allowing' Sistani to win (the US didn't even want elections, until Sistani forced them into it), he's enjoying the irony that Bush's much trumpeted election in Iraq is going to bring into power a government that want Bush removed from Iraq as soon as possible.

Thank you for this.

I find the whole thing quite funny (more the haha, I think I'm going to retch funny). As in Iran, American meddling is causing them major problems in the long run. They thought they could control Iraq like Iran when they put the Shah back into power, and like Iran they are getting almost the complete opposite in return.

Furthermore, the main "winners" as it appears are SCIRI and DAWA, both parties which recieved aid and comfort by Iran during Hussein's rule. It would be even funnier if it were these groups who were refused U.S aid in a failed Sh'ia coup (too strong a word I don't think it got off the ground) in, I believe, early '92.

As to al-Sistani winning, well technically he didn't as he wasn't on the ballot. I say he won because he pretty much handpicked the Sh'ia who would run in the elections. I also say he "won" because this is the third time he's beaten the U.S, first by demanding elections and second by ending the standoff in Najaf. When it comes to Iraq this administration has the Merde touch.

As for the Kurds, they are already speaking about independence.

Space_Monkey #9 · 02-04-2005, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

I don't think a theocracy is inevitable, or even especially likely: the Shias would probably rather be a majority in the whole of Iraq rather than ruling over just their part of a fragmented nation. They have pledged to support democracy: that was Sistani's platform, after all.

But, yes, the Americans should be preparing to leave soon.

That may be true, in regards to the theocracy, and I hope it is. It's just when I read this I became a bit pessimistic. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGMUB49GN1.DTL

Quote:

The clerics of Najaf who orchestrated the Shiite coalition say they expect a constitutional debate between hard-line Islamists, who want Quranic law to be the constitution's primary source, and moderate Muslims who want a milder form of religious law. This debate, they say, will dwarf any challenge from secular parties.

Again it depnds on Sistani. If he's a "quietist" and doesn't want clerical rule, as he's alluded to in the past. Or if turns into Khomeni (sp) and starts liking the power he wields and craves more. In that case a thoecracy.

Ravon · 02-04-2005, 08:54 PM

It will be an interesting next year as the 3 main groups jockey for position. It will be too funny is Iraq ends up ruled from an Islamic fundamentalist perspective given that it was a fundamentalist christian who made it possible. It is to laugh from here - it is to weep from over there.

Happy Wonderer · 02-04-2005, 09:02 PM

It is pretty hilarious that the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq appears to be the big winner (pretty much as expected.) I bet you don't see Bush trumpeting that one. All we need now is to get the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Saudi Arabia into power and we will be royally (and well-deservedly) hosed.

I keep wondering where those photos of Osama were really taken. How much does Crawford look like the Afghan desert?

hw

02-04-2005, 08:54 PM	#19
Ravon Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 1,098	Interesting It will be an interesting next year as the 3 main groups jockey for position. It will be too funny is Iraq ends up ruled from an Islamic fundamentalist perspective given that it was a fundamentalist christian who made it possible. It is to laugh from here - it is to weep from over there.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2005, 09:56 AM	#13
gandolfi Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: maryland, USA Posts: 63	Anyone who agrees to let Bush stay, even if its Ayatollah Daffy Duck, will end up leading the country. It will have nothing to do with the election or the Iraqi people. Its "dee-mocracy Bush-style".

02-04-2005, 11:53 AM	#15
Rob0t X Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 816	maybe we were all wrong. maybe bush really is bringing democracy to iraq wich is why the US "allowed" this to happen. i mean if we just get out of the country now then the US's actions could be considered legitimate.

02-04-2005, 09:02 PM	#20
Happy Wonderer Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Washington, the least religious state Posts: 5,334	It is pretty hilarious that the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq appears to be the big winner (pretty much as expected.) I bet you don't see Bush trumpeting that one. All we need now is to get the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Saudi Arabia into power and we will be royally (and well-deservedly) hosed. I keep wondering where those photos of Osama were really taken. How much does Crawford look like the Afghan desert? hw

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.