Iraqi Election Results Thread (multiple threads merged)

[Revolt]

Ask me how proud I am to be a member of the country that "liberated" Iraqi women.

We're bringing theocracy to Iraq.

[argentine soccer fan]

We're bringing theocracy to Iraq.

What makes you so sure? I think that people are giving the Iraqi Shiites a raw deal, including the NY Times. The Shiites may have stronger religious beliefs than many of us, but that is not a reason why we should assume that they will establish a theocracy. Their leader, Sistani, has said time and time again that he wants to work in the context of a democracy. And so far the Shiites have been remarkable wise and restrained in their behavior, especially for a people which has been oppressed for so long.

Lets review the behavior of the Iraqi Shiites so far. They did not react strongly in revenge towards the sunnis and former Baathists. They did not, for the most part, respond to the provocations of thugs like Zarqawi who are doing all they can to start a civil war. They did not for the most part turn against the coalition forces, (except for the followers of Al Sadr, and even they for the most part gave it up at the bequest of the higher Shiite leaders.) They enthusiastically took part in the elections, even their women. They have been, by all accounts, reaching out to the Sunnis and Kurds in an effort to form a government representative of Iraq. Sustani, who is considered their top leader, has been conciliatory, and so have most of their leaders. Even that much maligned (by some peple here) shiite,Allawi, has made an effort to work with all representative ethnic groups.

So, why is everybody so pesimistic about the way the Shiites will conduct themselves in the future? Why is everybody saying it is inevitable that they will establish a theocracy?

Does it have to do with the actions of the Iranian Shiites over 20 years ago? But I think that their actions were, to some extent, a reaction to the US support of the Shah. And besides, many Shiites in Iran are now themselves opposed to their own theocracy, and are looking for democratic reforms.

Or does it, perhaps, have to do with people here wanting to believe the worst assesments they could possibly find of potential results of the policies of the Bush administration?

Either way, I think it is unfair to the Shiites. There is nothing shocking here, The fact that the religion faction won the elections is not a shock to anybody who's been following the issue, as some in this thread want to make it sound. The result was predictable, and it doesn't necesarily lead to the conclusion which some of you seem to have already established.

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with the Shiites wanting a closer relation with their brothers in Iran. They will, and that is inevitable. But why do we have to keep saying that they will establish a theocracy when their own top religious leaders are saying that they are not seeking to do that?

I think that we owe the Shiites of Iraq the benefit of the doubt, based on their actions so far.

[Iranian Monitor]

We're bringing theocracy to Iraq.

As a Democrat, I will tell you this: that Democrats make a mistake rising the spector of an Iranian style theocracy as the new bogeyman. The same they made a mistake putting so much emphasis on undermining the viability of elections in a nation where 80% of the population was behind the endeavor.

The truth on this issue lies somewhere in between your version and that offered by argentine soccer fan. Iraq is not going to be an Iranian style theocracy. That is neither feasible, nor is that project really supported by even Iran. It is not the model Sistani has in mind either.

On the other hand, nor is Iraq going to be a secular state following the US model of separation of church and state. Unless manipulated by the US to become something other than what its majority have voted for, Iraq is going to be an "Islamic Republic" with some requirement built in the constitution that the laws enacted by their legislative branch be consistent with Islamic precepts. The mullahs, however, won't be running the show directly.

At the end of the day, incidentally, the "new Afghanistan" is not that different than the old one, minus the Taleban repression. Officially, Afghanistan is an "Islamic Republic". And in Afghanistan, women are still required to be vieled. A society cannot be forced into something it is not! Not if it going to be in any sense of the word democratic as well.

Ulimately, behind the politicized rhetoric, these things often reflect the evolution of the society and how advanced or backward it remains. For that reason, I assure you that among the countries in the Islamic world, except for a small minority of westernized women in these countries, there isn't a country in the region were women as a whole enjoy more rights than in Iran. Not necessarily even in forcibly secularized Turkey, where a (large) minority fit the profile of westernized women elsewhere, while the rest live their lives by traditional rules.

Iran, this demonized Islamic theocracy, is a country were 60% of its very large (several million) university students are women. There is nothing that advances women's rights as much as a country turning millions of women who graduate with university degrees!

Similarly, Iran is a country were women are active in all the professions, regretably including the oldest and proudly including ones at the forefront of science, medicine, technology, law and every other field including politics. In large cities, they comprise nearly 40% of the workforce already. They are not some "token" figures brandied around to appease some Westernized notion of how to advance women's rights.

Even the reports criticising the treatment of women in Iran, like the one issued a couple of days ago by the UN rapporteur (ironically, a Turkish women), are often indeed factually "biased", partly because of the huge influence of women rights activists in Iran!

For instance, a real celebrated case that is criticized by the UN report involved a women who killed a police chief in an Iranian city (Kish), with the women cutting the guy's private part and putting it on the fellow's chest! On trial, the women alleged that she had been raped by this fellow and that was why she killed him. There was no clear corroboration of her claim that she had been raped, and consequently she was sentenced to death. Women rights activists, human rights groups opposed to capital punishment, and the panapoly of groups looking to use dirt against the regime, went into action. The death sentence was eventually reversed on appeal, but curiously the fact that make it in all these reports omits the parts that are indisputable (she not only killed a police chief but cut his penis and put it on his chest), while the parts that are uncorroborated (her allegation of rape, versus evidence of an affair that went sour) are presented as facts.

Now, personally, I am against capital punishment, but so much of these reports are tainted that I find myself not knowing how to react? Much like the "reports" about some women about to be stoned to death, that everyone here jumped at me for questioning, and which are now shown clearly to have been unfounded! Incidentally, there is a mention of that issue this article as well, but not to substantiate the claims that were being made by AI and the like!

Anyway, here is the report by the UN rapporteur issued a couple of days ago criticizing abuse of women's rights in Iran. Much of it has some truth in it, but much of it also doesn't correspond to the full picture on the ground.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3180062a12,00.html

P.S.

As you read that report, there is also this picture from a women's car racing event from today's "Women's" journal (zanan). This is certainly not a picture you will find in the "new Afghanistan", nor is it a picture that you will find in Saudi Arabia or across much of the Arab world. Nothwithstanding the fact that "Queen Noor" dresses in Westernized attire and (as an American specially) looks so familiar, while the black-vieled women in stereotypes about Iran look so foreign and different! The real picture is so much more complicated than that!

http://www.zanan.co.ir/social/11603.jpg

[Revolt]

As a Democrat, I will tell you this: that Democrats make a mistake rising the spector of an Iranian style theocracy as the new bogeyman. The same they made a mistake putting so much emphasis on undermining the viability of elections in a nation where 80% of the population was behind the endeavor.

The truth on this issue lies somewhere in between your version and that offered by argentine soccer fan. Iraq is not going to be an Iranian style theocracy. That is neither feasible, nor is that project really supported by even Iran. It is not the model Sistani has in mind either.



Okay, IM, I'll defer to you on this. I'm curious, though, where the 80% support figure comes from. I know the votes are still coming in, but the best I've heard is that there were some 14 million Iraqis potentially eligible to vote and the actual number of voters will likely be less than 8 million.

The comments on women are most interesting because I had assumed that women have been consigned to bee-keeper suits, can't get an eduction and can't drive. I've understood this to be the reality in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (before the US booted the Iraqis outs) and in many other places throughout the Muslim world. I had definately thought this to be the case in Iran. If I'm wrong, I'm happily so.

[Iranian Monitor]

Okay, IM, I'll defer to you on this. I'm curious, though, where the 80% support figure comes from. I know the votes are still coming in, but the best I've heard is that there were some 14 million Iraqis potentially eligible to vote and the actual number of voters will likely be less than 8 million.

I didn't mean that 80% voted in the Iraqi elections. Rather, I was referring to the shias and the Kurds, who combine to make roughly 80% of Iraq's population, being supportive of the enterprise while the sunnis were opposed to it. Now, obviously, not everyone who fails to vote, specially in a chaotic and dangerous place like Iraq, is casting a protest vote by not voting. Similarly, not everyone who did vote, was voting in favor of what the Bush administration has done and is doing in Iraq. In fact, the majority were voting against Bush!

There will be really difficult issues for the US ahead. Besides the really thorny ones about the US "occupation" and relations with Iran, some of the other issues will indeed involve "women's rights". Sistani actually belongs to a tradionalist school in shia jurisprudence. While he doesn't favor direct rule by mullahs, the clerics in Najaf and Karbala are somewhat more conservative than many of their counterparts in Iran when it comes to social issues.


The comments on women are most interesting because I had assumed that women have been consigned to bee-keeper suits, can't get an eduction and can't drive. I've understood this to be the reality in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (before the US booted the Iraqis outs) and in many other places throughout the Muslim world. I had definately thought this to be the case in Iran. If I'm wrong, I'm happily so.

That is definitely not the picture from Iran! As I said, the majority of Iranian university students are women. There are real discriminatory features in Iranian law, but most of the rough edges are smoothed over in practice because Iranian society is too advanced to try to literally enforce some of these archiac notions. The most important discriminatory practices involve issues having to do with divorce laws (although there has been a lot of progress), inheritance laws, as well as the requirement that women cover their hair. (Today, as millions do across the country specially in Tehran, that requirement is quite liberally interpreted and women appear with a scarf that covers only the back of their hair and has actually been modified to make quite distinctive fashion statements!)

[argentine soccer fan]

The truth on this issue lies somewhere in between your version and that offered by argentine soccer fan. Iraq is not going to be an Iranian style theocracy. That is neither feasible, nor is that project really supported by even Iran. It is not the model Sistani has in mind either.

On the other hand, nor is Iraq going to be a secular state following the US model of separation of church and state. Unless manipulated by the US to become something other than what its majority have voted for, Iraq is going to be an "Islamic Republic" with some requirement built in the constitution that the laws enacted by their legislative branch be consistent with Islamic precepts. The mullahs, however, won't be running the show directly.



I am not sure what you mean by 'my version'. My version is that I tend to agree with what you just posted. I would be very pleased to see an Islamic democracy which reflects the will of the people of Iraq, and I do think that in that context we will see, in due time, (not forced before the people are ready for it), an evolution in the role of women. I don't expect Iraq to follow a model similar to that of the USA, and I also don't think the US is going to be able to manipulate them into it. Even if at the beggining that was the desire of some of the Neocons, I think the country has lost the will to do so and the president now understands this.

I think it is about time that we trust what the majority of the people of Iraq want to do as they take charge of their future. I hope and trust that the US will not try to force its own mode. On the other hand, I do think that the US has the responsibility to stay and help Iraq with security for the time being, as long as the legitimate Iraqi authorities request it. After all, America got them into this mess, first by supporting Saddam, then by not removing him after the first gulf war, and last by the many tactical errors which were made in the process, when he finally and belatedly was removed from power.

[Iranian Monitor]

On the other hand, I do think that the US has the responsibility to stay and help Iraq with security for the time being, as long as the legitimate Iraqi authorities request it. After all, America got them into this mess, first by supporting Saddam, then by not removing him after the first gulf war, and last by the many tactical errors which were made in the process, when he finally and belatedly was removed from power.

I guess this is where we disagree!! Not in the way you have framed it, but in the reality on the ground.

All polls show the majority of Iraqis, including a majority of the shias, want the US troops to leave the country. The platform of the UIA included the same thing, although it was watered down a few days before the elections under US pressure. Hakim has been the most explicit on the subject: he has said he wants US troops out, and replaced by a regional force comprised of Iraq's neighbors. Including Iran. That is mostly why Hakim, although the top name and the leader of the largest shia faction in UIA, is not a name that can even be considered as Iraq's next prime minister! He is not acceptable to the US, because of his ties to Iran. Ties that didn't hurt him in the elections, the same way Sistani's "Iranian citizenship" didn't take away his influence over the Iraqi shias. The same way that charlatan, Chalabi, saw his political fortunes among the Iraqis rise only when the US declared him an Iranian agent!

The fact of the matter is that the system is rigged already. Besides the influence of behind the scene threats, money, and pressure, there is also the fact that Iraq's government (uniquely) cannot be formed without having two third support of the deputies in their newly elected assembly. While supermajoritarian requirements are fine in some areas protecting individual rights, they are a back door method of giving some people (e.g. Alawi) with a minority of votes, people who essentially lost the election, nonetheless a veto and a say in the government that is formed. Enough of say that Alawi is still one of the leading candidates to become prime minister!

This is not democracy; not even representative government. It is merely a facade. And it won't work.

[argentine soccer fan]

This is not democracy; not even representative government. It is merely a facade. And it won't work.

My understanding is that this was a compromise agreement between the majority shiites and the minority groups. But I can see from your post how it can also open the door for the US to have influence and manipulative power. Nevertheless, I see this as more of an interim step than a facade. I undertand why you say it wouldn't work in the long term, but it is an attempt to include all Iraqi groups and give them all some influence in the framing of the decisions about their future. I think the next election will be more significant, as people would be actually voting for specific candidates for specific posts.

As far as the departure of the US troops, I understand in principle that people don't want American troops there, but do you not think that from a practical standpoint it would be a huge risk to remove them all right now, before there is an alternative, such as a well trained Iraqi force? I do hope that the US troops can leave soon, but I am worried that a rush to depart might undermine what good is coming out of this whole thing.

I think you can appreciate the reasons why America would not trust a force consisting of Iraq's neighbors such as Iran and Syria, but would the Iraqis themselves trust them? Is removing foreign troops for other foreign troops a legitimate answer? Perhaps it will be part of the solution, and perhaps it is a way to hasten the departure of US troops, but I am not convinced.

Still, you are more in tune with the Iraqi point of view than I am, so I am not going to press the point. I do think I learn a lot more about these issues from your posts than I do from the opinion of most people here and in the US media, as they do seem to reflect a legitimate and sensible point of view from that part of the world.

[Attacking Minded]

I think it is about time that we trust what the majority of the people of Iraq want to do as they take charge of their future.
I think that's what some of us who support the neocon vision always wanted. The only thing I would like to see of their government is that if the Iraqi people don't like it, they can peacfully change it.

[Attacking Minded]

I guess this is where we disagree!! Not in the way you have framed it, but in the reality on the ground.

All polls show the majority of Iraqis, including a majority of the shias, want the US troops to leave the country.
They just don't want us to leave right now. Our problem is that we would like to leave sooner than they would like us to leave. They complain about the US but they dread the alternative.

[Iranian Monitor]

As far as the departure of the US troops, I understand in principle that people don't want American troops there, but do you not think that from a practical standpoint it would be a huge risk to remove them all right now, before there is an alternative, such as a well trained Iraqi force?

An Iraqi force that is trained and financed by the US -- a country which in the meantime will keep troops in the country and have its own officers lead that force -- is not really an Iraqi force. It is an instrument of indirect US rule over the Iraqis. That is indeed one of the bones of contention between the UIA and the US. The Iraqis don't want the Americans to be creating and leading that force.

I think you can appreciate the reasons why America would not trust a force consisting of Iraq's neighbors such as Iran and Syria, but would the Iraqis themselves trust them? Is removing foreign troops for other foreign troops a legitimate answer? Perhaps it will be part of the solution, and perhaps it is a way to hasten the departure of US troops, but I am not convinced.

There are obviously concerns with this from the US perspective, but no evidence those concerns are shared by the majority of Iraqis. In fact, given the speeches and slogans of those who ran and won the elections, I would say quite the reverse.

Besides, the idea is quite sensible, even if it doesn't fit larger US objectives. It doesn't even have to include the total departure of all US troops. A much smaller American force can remain in the Kurdish areas. The Syrians, the Jordanians, the Saudis, along with the Pakistanis and the Turks, can contribute peace keeping forces in Arab sunni triangle all the way to the frontiers with Jordan. The Iranian-backed milita, called the Badr brigade (SCIRI's armed wing), can be expanded, openly supplied by Iran, augmented by some Iranian troops if necessary, until it reaches a sufficient size. The force would protect the shia regions as well as be part of the peacekeeping forces in the capital, Baghdad, with the peacekeeping forces in Baghdad itself being multi-national in composition (including a European contingent). All these forces, except the American ones in the Kurdish region given American attitudes about taking orders from a foreign government, would then be put under the genuine command of a democratically formed Iraqi government.

In the meantime, it would be the business of Iraq's government to raise, train, and finance the "new Iraqi army" and not the US! As that force is formed, the foreign contingent will then be asked to leave by a government that is not facing US tanks as it makes its decisions!

[Iranian Monitor]

They just don't want us to leave right now. Our problem is that we would like to leave sooner than they would like us to leave. They complain about the US but they dread the alternative.

That is bull. Fed by FOX news and the Bush administration!

Yes. Alawi and his cohorts don't want the US to leave, even though even Alawi had to make some comments against the occupation in the election campaign so he would be able to gain more votes. (Of course, left unstated in the Bush administration's victory announcements over the Iraqi election, is that their man lost even in Baghdad. Even among Iraqi expats!)

The UIA, on the other hand, and its largest group (SCIRI), wants the US troops out as soon as possible. As soon as it is allowed to ilicit help from regional states to fill the vacuum.

The Americans don't want to allow the Iraqis to fill the vacuum any other way, except what they have in mind. That way, they figure, they can tell the Iraqis that if we leave, the insurgents will kill you. But free the Iraqis to decide themselves how to handle the issue, and you will their answers quite different than what has been spoon fed to the American public.

[england66]

The UIA, on the other hand, and its largest group (SCIRI), wants the US troops out as soon as possible. As soon as it is allowed to ilicit help from regional states to fill the vacuum.

The Americans don't want to allow the Iraqis to fill the vacuum any other way, except what they have in mind. That way, they figure, they can tell the Iraqis that if we leave, the insurgents will kill you. But free the Iraqis to decide themselves how to handle the issue, and you will their answers quite different than what has been spoon fed to the American public.

and you my friend, while enjoying the priveliges of an uncensored www are living in an islamic dream world....time to leave the 14th century behind and embrace the inevitable....and yes I have travelled extensively throughout iran....

[NSlander]

Originally Posted by argentine soccer fan
I think it is about time that we trust what the majority of the people of Iraq want to do as they take charge of their future.

[Originally Posted by Attacking Minded]
I think that's what some of us who support the neocon vision always wanted.



:rolleyes:

[Iranian Monitor]

and you my friend, while enjoying the priveliges of an uncensored www are living in an islamic dream world....time to leave the 14th century behind and embrace the inevitable....and yes I have travelled extensively throughout iran....

I guess besides knowing what I support, your "extensive travels" to Iran make you an expert on the subject!

If you have travelled extensively thoughout Iran, you might be qualified to write a decent travel guide. If you get around writing one, please share it with me. I always like to read foreign perspectives about Iran, even if they manage to get things wrong quite regularly!

[england66]

I guess besides knowing what I support, your "extensive travels" to Iran make you an expert on the subject!

If you have travelled extensively thoughout Iran, you might be qualified to write a decent travel guide. If you get around writing one, please share it with me. I always like to read foreign perspectives about Iran, even if they manage to get things wrong quite regularly!

PM me and I'll send you a copy....hardly a travell guide though, more a memoir of my time in lebanon, iran and pakistan...I've seen it, lived it and you can have it...I however will stay in the West...

[england66]

PM me and I'll send you a copy....hardly a travell guide though, more a memoir of my time in lebanon, iran and pakistan...I've seen it, lived it and you can have it...I however will stay in the West...


forgot to mention saudi arabia....been there...done that...no friend of the west...then or now...

the sooner the West comes up with a viable alternative to oil the better for all...then we will see if the arabs can make a living selling sand in large quantities...I believe they will find it not quite the licence to print money that selling oil is....and they can go back to living in the 14th century...free of western entanglements

[argentine soccer fan]

the sooner the West comes up with a viable alternative to oil the better for all...then we will see if the arabs can make a living selling sand in large quantities...

Well, I have good news and bad news for the West.

The good news is that I have just invented a new engine which runs on a viable alternative to oil. The bad news is that it runs on sand. Lots of sand.

:D

I know. It is late. Sorry.

[england66]

Well, I have good news and bad news for the West.

The good news is that I have just invented a new engine which runs on a viable alternative to oil. The bad news is that it runs on sand. Lots of sand.

:D

I know. It is late. Sorry.

tons and tons of sand in the west too.....

[Iranian Monitor]

PM me and I'll send you a copy....hardly a travell guide though, more a memoir of my time in lebanon, iran and pakistan...I've seen it, lived it and you can have it...I however will stay in the West...

When did you travel to Iran? Where did you visit?

Iran has undergone enormous changes in recent years, and is changing still. Regardless, somehow your comments don't appear to me well informed as you are the only one who claims to have travelled to Iran, coming away with a notion that Iranians want to live in the 14th century!

Here is Tehran right now, under heavy snow (not sand!), and quite different than the picture you seem to be attached to. I mean: what is there to compare between Iran and Saudi Arabia? Or Pakistan?

http://www.tehran24.com/one05.jpg

http://img158.exs.cx/img158/1015/pffht4ca.jpg

http://img158.exs.cx/img158/632/tanwwwwrfgo4ed.jpg

http://img158.exs.cx/img158/1883/tanwwqgo6ah.jpg

http://img144.exs.cx/img144/5414/tango3ao.jpg

http://img158.exs.cx/img158/4939/hhhpht1jf.jpg

You can get a lot more photos of Tehran today, at this site, with the thousands of pictures updated every day.

http://www.tehran24.com/

Or, better yet, for a slide show to perhaps refresh your memory:

http://community.webshots.com/slideshow?ID=100294238&key=tZKINu