iraqi election relevance

[rikilabellevie]

do you think the success of the election is as relevant as tthe collapse of the berlin wall ?

just asking coz i've read a lot in that sense

imo the outcome of this election is yet to be consolidated

kurdistan in the future ? who can deny them a real country ( i know turkey iran syria ..... )

[Donald]

Just by the very fact that you are asking that question from your Belgian hometown, gives this event credence, as the entire world looked on with amazement that this election was held in Iraq...yes it truely was an HISTORIC DAY IN IRAQ! Maybe not to the same impact as bringing down that wall, but to the Arab World, it was more than bringing down a physical wall.

And much to the dismay of the mainstream media voters did turn out in Iraq in record numbers with minimal violence to make Iraq's first election in 50 years a smashing success. Here are the final statistics, with results expected in 7 to 10 days:

a. 8 million Iraqis voted in the election
b. Unofficial estimates put the turnout at between 60 and 70%, higher than our most recent presidential election
c. 44 people were killed in attacks on election day.

Did you see those Iraqis dancing in the streets? Did you see the incredibly long lines? Hours! They waited for hours. On crutches, in wheelchairs .. they waited hours for the chance to cast their vote in Iraq's first democratic elections in over 50 years. Islamic terrorists had told them that they would be killed if they voted ... but there they were, waiting in line nonetheless. After they left the polling places they joined celebrations in the streets ... holding their ink-stained fingers aloft as a badge of honor and a symbol of freedom...as their wall of abuse and terror was one step closer to being torn down and their freedom wall being erected

[Richard Haut]

Just received this from London:

from the Guardian:

The Vietnam turnout was good as well

No amount of spin can conceal Iraqis' hostility to US occupation

Sami Ramadani
Tuesday February 1, 2005
The Guardian

On September 4 1967 the New York Times published an upbeat story on presidential elections held by the South Vietnamese puppet regime at the height of the Vietnam war. Under the heading "US encouraged by Vietnam vote: Officials cite 83% turnout despite Vietcong terror", the paper reported that the Americans had been "surprised and heartened" by the size of the turnout "despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting". A successful election, it went on, "has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam". The echoes of this weekend's propaganda about Iraq's elections are so close as to be uncanny.

With the past few days' avalanche of spin, you could be forgiven for thinking that on January 30 2005 the US-led occupation of Iraq ended and the people won their freedom and democratic rights. This has been a multi-layered campaign, reminiscent of the pre-war WMD frenzy and fantasies about the flowers Iraqis were collecting to throw at the invasion forces. How you could square the words democracy, free and fair with the brutal reality of occupation, martial law, a US-appointed election commission and secret candidates has rarely been allowed to get in the way of the hype.

If truth is the first casualty of war, reliable numbers must be the first casualty of an occupation-controlled election. The second layer of spin has been designed to convince us that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis participated. The initial claim of 72% having voted was quickly downgraded to 57% of those registered to vote. So what percentage of the adult population is registered to vote? The Iraqi ambassador in London was unable to enlighten me. In fact, as UN sources confirm, there has been no registration or published list of electors - all we are told is that about 14 million people were entitled to vote.


As for Iraqis abroad, the up to 4 million strong exiled community (with perhaps a little over 2 million entitled to vote) produced a 280,000 registration figure. Of those, 265,000 actually voted.

The Iraqi south, more religious than Baghdad, responded positively to Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani's position: to call the bluff of the US and vote for a list that was proclaimed to be hostile to the occupation. Sistani's supporters declared that voting on Sunday was the first step to kicking out the occupiers. The months ahead will put these declarations to a severe test. Meanwhile Moqtada al-Sadr's popular movement, which rejected the elections as a sham, is likely to make a comeback in its open resistance to the occupation.

The big vote in Kurdistan primarily reflects the Kurdish people's demand for national self-determination. The US administration has hitherto clamped down on these pressures. Henry Kissinger's recent proposal to divide Iraq into three states reflects a major shift among influential figures in the US who, led by Kissinger as secretary of state, ditched the Kurds in the 70s and brokered a deal between Saddam and the Shah of Iran.

George Bush and Tony Blair made heroic speeches on Sunday implying that Iraqis had voted to approve the occupation. Those who insist that the US is desperate for an exit strategy are misreading its intentions. The facts on the ground, including the construction of massive military bases in Iraq, indicate that the US is digging in to install and back a long-term puppet regime. For this reason, the US-led presence will continue, with all that entails in terms of bloodshed and destruction.

In the run-up to the poll, much of the western media presented it as a high-noon shootout between the terrorist Zarqawi and the Iraqi people, with the occupation forces doing their best to enable the people to defeat the fiendish, one-legged Jordanian murderer. In reality, Zarqawi-style sectarian violence is not only condemned by Iraqis across the political spectrum, including supporters of the resistance, but is widely seen as having had a blind eye turned to it by the occupation authorities. Such attitudes are dismissed by outsiders, but the record of John Negroponte, the US ambassador in Baghdad, of backing terror gangs in central America in the 80s has fuelled these fears, as has Seymour Hirsh's reports on the Pentagon's assassination squads and enthusiasm for the "Salvador option".

An honest analysis of the social and political map of Iraq reveals that Iraqis are increasingly united in their determination to end the occupation. Whether they participated in or boycotted Sunday's exercise, this political bond will soon reassert itself - just as it did in Vietnam - despite tactical differences, and despite the US-led occupation's attempts to dominate Iraqis by inflaming sectarian and ethnic divisions.

· Sami Ramadani was a political refugee from Saddam Hussein's regime and is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University

[Richard Haut]

Just received this from London:

from the Guardian:

The Vietnam turnout was good as well

No amount of spin can conceal Iraqis' hostility to US occupation

Sami Ramadani
Tuesday February 1, 2005
The Guardian

On September 4 1967 the New York Times published an upbeat story on presidential elections held by the South Vietnamese puppet regime at the height of the Vietnam war. Under the heading "US encouraged by Vietnam vote: Officials cite 83% turnout despite Vietcong terror", the paper reported that the Americans had been "surprised and heartened" by the size of the turnout "despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting". A successful election, it went on, "has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam". The echoes of this weekend's propaganda about Iraq's elections are so close as to be uncanny.

With the past few days' avalanche of spin, you could be forgiven for thinking that on January 30 2005 the US-led occupation of Iraq ended and the people won their freedom and democratic rights. This has been a multi-layered campaign, reminiscent of the pre-war WMD frenzy and fantasies about the flowers Iraqis were collecting to throw at the invasion forces. How you could square the words democracy, free and fair with the brutal reality of occupation, martial law, a US-appointed election commission and secret candidates has rarely been allowed to get in the way of the hype.

If truth is the first casualty of war, reliable numbers must be the first casualty of an occupation-controlled election. The second layer of spin has been designed to convince us that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis participated. The initial claim of 72% having voted was quickly downgraded to 57% of those registered to vote. So what percentage of the adult population is registered to vote? The Iraqi ambassador in London was unable to enlighten me. In fact, as UN sources confirm, there has been no registration or published list of electors - all we are told is that about 14 million people were entitled to vote.


As for Iraqis abroad, the up to 4 million strong exiled community (with perhaps a little over 2 million entitled to vote) produced a 280,000 registration figure. Of those, 265,000 actually voted.

The Iraqi south, more religious than Baghdad, responded positively to Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani's position: to call the bluff of the US and vote for a list that was proclaimed to be hostile to the occupation. Sistani's supporters declared that voting on Sunday was the first step to kicking out the occupiers. The months ahead will put these declarations to a severe test. Meanwhile Moqtada al-Sadr's popular movement, which rejected the elections as a sham, is likely to make a comeback in its open resistance to the occupation.

The big vote in Kurdistan primarily reflects the Kurdish people's demand for national self-determination. The US administration has hitherto clamped down on these pressures. Henry Kissinger's recent proposal to divide Iraq into three states reflects a major shift among influential figures in the US who, led by Kissinger as secretary of state, ditched the Kurds in the 70s and brokered a deal between Saddam and the Shah of Iran.

George Bush and Tony Blair made heroic speeches on Sunday implying that Iraqis had voted to approve the occupation. Those who insist that the US is desperate for an exit strategy are misreading its intentions. The facts on the ground, including the construction of massive military bases in Iraq, indicate that the US is digging in to install and back a long-term puppet regime. For this reason, the US-led presence will continue, with all that entails in terms of bloodshed and destruction.

In the run-up to the poll, much of the western media presented it as a high-noon shootout between the terrorist Zarqawi and the Iraqi people, with the occupation forces doing their best to enable the people to defeat the fiendish, one-legged Jordanian murderer. In reality, Zarqawi-style sectarian violence is not only condemned by Iraqis across the political spectrum, including supporters of the resistance, but is widely seen as having had a blind eye turned to it by the occupation authorities. Such attitudes are dismissed by outsiders, but the record of John Negroponte, the US ambassador in Baghdad, of backing terror gangs in central America in the 80s has fuelled these fears, as has Seymour Hirsh's reports on the Pentagon's assassination squads and enthusiasm for the "Salvador option".

An honest analysis of the social and political map of Iraq reveals that Iraqis are increasingly united in their determination to end the occupation. Whether they participated in or boycotted Sunday's exercise, this political bond will soon reassert itself - just as it did in Vietnam - despite tactical differences, and despite the US-led occupation's attempts to dominate Iraqis by inflaming sectarian and ethnic divisions.

· Sami Ramadani was a political refugee from Saddam Hussein's regime and is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University

[Donald]

Its a credibility thing I guess.... as I prefer to read from the source and not some cut and paste (for your edification) rag from a "Times" gone sour over the past years...and takes up less space on the thread too, especially when posted twice!.....hint KM.

Read these bits from Iraq .. statements from Iraqis who had just voted for the first time in their lives....it may shed some light on the importance of this election that was a world moving event... Warning: May cause discomfort for RH, the insurgents and Democrats:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006232

[Donald]

and of course there will be those disenfranchised in Iraq stories coming out...

As the vote counting continues in Iraq, it seems it won't be long before we know the result. Once the election is certified, a 275-member national assembly will begin to draw up a permanent national Constitution in Iraq. As you've seen and read, the elections in Iraq were a smash hit. A huge success!

But wait...here come the whiners. The Associated Press (who else, right?) is reporting that our old friend, "disenfranchisement" has reared its ugly head. Since there aren't too many black neighborhoods and since there weren't any butterfly ballots with swinging chads, what could they be talking about?

Apparently some polling stations weren't open. Some ran out of ballots. One person's name was inadvertently left off the ballot. There have been more than 100 complaints of irregularities. Sounds like a lot, right? Well, not really. Out of something like 8 million votes cast, there were 100 complaints. Let's see....that seems to equate to an insignificant amount, way less than 1/100th of 1 percent.

The elections were fine. All of this is nothing more than an attempt on the part of the Bush-bashing, pro-insurgent media to question the legitimacy of the election. After all, the media isn't rooting for success in Iraq. Never have been

[Donald]

The results are in, and (drum roll please) Iraq's long-repressed Shiite majority has won the January 30th elections. There were 275 seats up for grabs in the general assembly that will write Iraq's new Constitution. The Islamic Shiites won 140 seats, the Kurds 75 seats, a secular Shiite group 40 seats, and nine parties picked up the other 20. In all, 58 percent of the registered voters turned out...almost as good as the 60.7 percent that turned out here in this country for our last presidential election. And we didn't have Islamic terrorists roaming the street threatening to shoot people for voting (not yet, anyway.)

So who are these Shiite characters that won the plurality of the votes? (that means the most votes, but not a majority, for those of you educated in government schools.) It's called the United Iraqi Alliance, and is lead by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistanti. Supposedly Sistani has ties with Iran. This is already being used by the Bush-haters to somehow imply that an Iranian-style mullah is being installed in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Sistani is a hermit that lives in Najaf. He is considered the most influential Islamic cleric in Iraq. He supports the election, has no interest in holding political office, and supports women in government. He has also stated that Islamic clerics have no place in government. Hardly an extremist.

By the way .. another sign of success for Bush. Sunni Muslims are starting to bemoan the fact that they didn't participate more heavily in this election, and are pledging to work with the system and vote in the next elections in the fall. Bad news for insurgents and Democrats. Isn't it odd that so often news that is bad for insurgents in Iraq is also bad for Democrats in the U.S.?

The successes continue in Iraq. Pretty soon the left will have to admit the entire operation was a success.

[rikilabellevie]

it' a good thing no doubt

but sistani is no angel

the breaking of iraq is not yet out of the way

you could imagine the kurds and the shiite saying to the sunni :
" we'll take our oil and you deal with jordan and syria nice leaving with you ! see ya "
don't think it'll happen tough

i would like tostress the difference between arabs and persians

they're like oil and water that's an understatemnt

chiites of iran and iraq are really different the resentment of persians towards arabs ( gov , religious leaders ,thinkers and military is huge ,
none of my exile iranians friends (second generation) has been able to explain it to me very convincigly (?) yet it's deep rooted

fondamentalist sunni ( in saudi arabia ( what a wonderful election by the way )consider chiites as worst than pigs !!!

if you like cartoon
http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/graphicnovels/persepolis.html

http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/iran/satrapim.htm


iém sure you can find it

[Donald]

The Shiites in Iraq have picked their first prime minister. First priority: rubbing out the insurgency. Something tells me they won't be as nice about it as we've been. Good.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050216-123424-2183r.htm