Iraqi Election Results Thread (multiple threads merged)

[england66]

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

Lets see....I travelled first to Teheran then to Resht then on to Shiraz and Shari....been there done that...glad I did...wouldn't go back if you paid for the trip...

[Iranian Monitor]

Lets see....I travelled first to Teheran then to Resht then on to Shiraz and Shari....been there done that...glad I did...wouldn't go back if you paid for the trip...

Maybe you picked a strange itinerary? I don't know too many people who would go north from Tehran to the caspian region (but not its tourist areas, but instead its landlocked capital), then south (at least you claim you visited Shiraz; hope you got to see nearby Persepolis?), then up north again (to visit a nondescript small town, SAri?), and miss in the meantime the most important tourist city in Iran, Isfahan (dubbed "half the world" by the Persians). Why exactly would you choose that bizzare itinerary in the first place?

I am also curious when you supposedly travelled to Iran?

Somehow, there is something very unusual and unique about your trip and impressions. I have read a few negative accounts, amidst many more glowing and positive ones, from people who have visited Iran. Your's, however, doesn't have the flavor of someone who has actually travelled to the country. In fact, if you had not misspelled the names of some of these places, I would have sworn you just picked some towns from a map of Iran and claimed to have visited the country! Right now, I am just thoroughly confused.

I am not going to oversell visiting Iran, but it is a large country with enough of for all sorts of tastes. Most people who have travelled to Iran have found it a very eye opening experience. In fact, its incredible diversity is one of its many charms.

That diversity tends to make it hard to describe Iran, although there are two reactions that are dominant and repeated by practically everyone who has written about their travels to Iran: (1) That the Iranians are among the most hospitable people (perhaps because they have been isolated from the rest of the world, causing them to be extra nice to foreigners?); 2) That Iran is a very clean country, with a young, educated, and restive population, most of them yearning to join the rest of the world (but hopefully as full partners and equals). Besides these, most who do travel to Iran have very positive comments about the many places they have visited, but of course that is ultimately a matter of taste and I have read a few negative accounts as well.

Anyway, this discussion has made me decide to start a thread about travelling to Iran. I might want to first learn how to actually post pictures, but once I learn how to do that, I believe I can show Iran (in all of its amazing diversity) to people here. The Iran I would show would include the very modern, as well as the still traditional; it would show the historic cities and monuments in Iran (Isfahan and its numerous sites, Persepolis, Yazd, etc), as well as scenic villages such as Massouleh and many others like it; it would contrast the lush, subtropical, Caspain sea region, with the deserts in the east and south; it would contrast the climate of Azarbaijan, Tehran, and other places in the north with that of the south. It would also try to show the great varity of people who ultimately all call themselves Iranian despite their obvious differences.

[england66]

Maybe you picked a strange itinerary? I don't know too many people who would go north from Tehran to the caspian region (but not its tourist areas, but instead its landlocked capital), then south (at least you claim you visited Shiraz; hope you got to see nearby Persepolis?), then up north again (to visit a nondescript small town, SAri?), and miss in the meantime the most important tourist city in Iran, Isfahan (dubbed "half the world" by the Persians). Why exactly would you choose that bizzare itinerary in the first place?

I am also curious when you supposedly travelled to Iran?

Somehow, there is something very unusual and unique about your trip and impressions. I have read a few negative accounts, amidst many more glowing and positive ones, from people who have visited Iran. Your's, however, doesn't have the flavor of someone who has actually travelled to the country. In fact, if you had not misspelled the names of some of these places, I would have sworn you just picked some towns from a map of Iran and claimed to have visited the country! Right now, I am just thoroughly confused.

I am not going to oversell visiting Iran, but it is a large country with enough of for all sorts of tastes. Most people who have travelled to Iran have found it a very eye opening experience. In fact, its incredible diversity is one of its many charms.

That diversity tends to make it hard to describe Iran, although there are two reactions that are dominant and repeated by practically everyone who has written about their travels to Iran: (1) That the Iranians are among the most hospitable people (perhaps because they have been isolated from the rest of the world, causing them to be extra nice to foreigners?); 2)


Best tell that to the embassy hostages....they must have missed that bit...


That Iran is a very clean country, with a young, educated, and restive population, most of them yearning to join the rest of the world (but hopefully as full partners and equals). Besides these, most who do travel to Iran have very positive comments about the many places they have visited, but of course that is ultimately a matter of taste and I have read a few negative accounts as well.

Anyway, this discussion has made me decide to start a thread about travelling to Iran. I might want to first learn how to actually post pictures, but once I learn how to do that, I believe I can show Iran (in all of its amazing diversity) to people here. The Iran I would show would include the very modern, as well as the still traditional; it would show the historic cities and monuments in Iran (Isfahan and its numerous sites, Persepolis, Yazd, etc), as well as scenic villages such as Massouleh and many others like it; it would contrast the lush, subtropical, Caspain sea region, with the deserts in the east and south; it would contrast the climate of Azarbaijan, Tehran, and other places in the north with that of the south. It would also try to show the great varity of people who ultimately all call themselves Iranian despite their obvious differences.


one wonders then why on earth you left this heaven ?

Admittedly it was a few years ago...actually late 1967 so the shah was still running the show....I didn't make up the itinery, I was part of a football team (The Dallas Tornado) travelling the country playing games against the national team and a couple of regional selections....played 5 games in the previously mentioned cities (towns ?)...I have travelled to 50 countries on 5 continents....and thank allah every day that I live in a great western democracy....
Ever wonder why most iranians tell Americans, when asked "where are you from" are told "Persia"....because like it or not Iran has a very negative conotation in the minds of MOST Americans....

[Iranian Monitor]

one wonders then why on earth you left this heaven ?

I didn't support the revolution, as the dynamics of revolutions ultimately don't favor -- specially in their immediate aftermath -- the kind of society that I would like to see developed in Iran. The early years of Iran's revolution, much like the French revolution and many others, were indeed marked by a excesses that drove many Iranians away from their homes. My family was one of them. Later, the Iran-Iraq war, as well as the political repression that ensued when some groups tried to use that war to further their own agendas, made Iran even less tolerable. Many Iranians left as a result during that period.

The story in recent years, specially since the advent of the reform movement, has been different. While it is difficult for people who have already established roots in a country to uproot themselves again and go back to Iran, many Iranians indeed have returned home. The country is by no means a heaven, and there are still valid reasons keeping many Iranians away from it.

But despite its flaws, Iran is nothing like the country you have learned to hate through the pervasive propaganda that colors Western attitudes about the country. That propaganda is simply par for course; it reflects an undeclared war between Iran and the United States, waged for now more than 25 years.

Admittedly it was a few years ago...actually late 1967 so the shah was still running the show....

Although, even in 1967, Iran would not fit the stereotype that exists about the country in the US and elsewhere, I think a lot has happened in the intervening 38 years!! You are due another trip; you will be pleasantly surprised.

Ever wonder why most iranians tell Americans, when asked "where are you from" are told "Persia"....because like it or not Iran has a very negative conotation in the minds of MOST Americans....

I lived in Dallas Texas for a while. Have a lot of family there. During the hostage crisis, it would have been an invitation to start a fist fight just to say you are "Iranian". And, yes, while the passions have subsided, the image of Iran has not much improved in the minds of MOST Americans since then.

At the same time, lets be clear: if someone says I am from "Persia", they are either intentionally trying to hide that they are from Iran. Or, alternatively, they have this romantic, but false, notion of the name that best represents the country. The fact of the matter is that Iran (which translated literally to "Land of the Aryans") has been the name used by Iranians to refer to their country for millenia; "Persia" was the name of a province where the Achaemenid emperors came from and became the name given to the country by the Greeks.

That said, while the notion that someone is from "Persia" is not a proper usage, it is entirely fine for someone to say "I am Persian". Not all Iranians are Persians, but all those who speak Persian (aka Farsi) as their first language, are properly known as Persians.

[Attacking Minded]

While it is difficult for people who have already established roots in a country to uproot themselves again and go back to Iran, many Iranians indeed have returned home.

Unfortunatly IM you are now an American. You couldn't fit in there if you tried your hardest. You would always stick out in Iranian society.

Ever hear the phrase "you can't go home again"? It's more true than you may know.

[england66]

I didn't support the revolution, as the dynamics of revolutions ultimately don't favor -- specially in their immediate aftermath -- the kind of society that I would like to see developed in Iran. The early years of Iran's revolution, much like the French revolution and many others, were indeed marked by a excesses that drove many Iranians away from their homes. My family was one of them. Later, the Iran-Iraq war, as well as the political repression that ensued when some groups tried to use that war to further their own agendas, made Iran even less tolerable. Many Iranians left as a result during that period.

The story in recent years, specially since the advent of the reform movement, has been different. While it is difficult for people who have already established roots in a country to uproot themselves again and go back to Iran, many Iranians indeed have returned home. The country is by no means a heaven, and there are still valid reasons keeping many Iranians away from it.

But despite its flaws, Iran is nothing like the country you have learned to hate through the pervasive propaganda that colors Western attitudes about the country. That propaganda is simply par for course; it reflects an undeclared war between Iran and the United States, waged for now more than 25 years.



Although, even in 1967, Iran would not fit the stereotype that exists about the country in the US and elsewhere, I think a lot has happened in the intervening 38 years!! You are due another trip; you will be pleasantly surprised.



I lived in Dallas Texas for a while. Have a lot of family there. During the hostage crisis, it would have been an invitation to start a fist fight just to say you are "Iranian". And, yes, while the passions have subsided, the image of Iran has not much improved in the minds of MOST Americans since then.



Where to start...here goes...

1) I do believe the USA feels it has a "score to settle" with Iran regarding the hostage crisis..

2) Regardless of your so called "reform movement" the fact is the mad mullahs still run Iran..and they are the idiots living in the 14th century..

3) Personally I do not "hate" Iran, and while I have no desire ever to return, I do in fact have three Iranian friends in Dallas ( one of them, Ali, is VERY involved in the movement over here that among other things beams telecasts extolling freedom to Iran...I'm sure you know who they are...

4) the "undeclared war" you mention, is, in the eyes of a lot of Americans a real "declared" war and it was declared when the hostages were taken and the television images of them being paraded, blindfolded, while 10,s of 1000,s of Iranians chanted "death to America" in the streets of Teheran still rankles...and that my friend has nothing to do with "propaganda"...it very much has a lot to do with point No. 1 above and trust me...America will, in your life time settle that score...

[Revolt]

And on the Iraq election front:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9950-2005Feb9.html

No new partial results have been released since Monday for the voting for the 275-member National Assembly, 18 provincial councils and a regional parliament for the Kurdish self-governing region in the north.
Partial results released Monday showed a coalition of Kurdish parties in second place -- raising the possibility that Shiites and Kurds might share power and even open the way for a Kurdish president. Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani already has announced his candidacy for president.

The ticket of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite, is in third place among the 111 candidate lists. A Shiite-dominated ticket endorsed by Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, led with about half the votes, followed by the coalition of Kurdish parties.

If that reflects the final lineup it appears unlikely that Allawi, who favors strong ties to the United States and a tough stand against the insurgents, could emerge as a compromise choice for prime minister when the new assembly convenes by early March.

[Revolt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/09/international/middleeast/09iraq.html


Early election returns indicating that the Kurds could well be the power brokers in forming a new government have emboldened their leaders to press an ambitious agenda that could define the political battlegrounds in the new Iraq.
If current election returns hold, the relatively secular Kurds may prove a necessary coalition partner, putting them in a position to limit any attempts by religious Shiites to install an Islamic government. Kurdish leaders said Tuesday that they were pushing for a Kurd to be president of Iraq. They are also seeking guarantees that they can maintain an autonomous region in the north, which could in turn heighten tensions with neighboring countries that are suspicious of any moves toward Kurdish independence.

...


About 4.6 million of an estimated 8 million votes have been counted.

...

[Attacking Minded]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/09/international/middleeast/09iraq.html


Early election returns indicating that the Kurds could well be the power brokers in forming a new government have emboldened their leaders to press an ambitious agenda that could define the political battlegrounds in the new Iraq.
If current election returns hold, the relatively secular Kurds may prove a necessary coalition partner, putting them in a position to limit any attempts by religious Shiites to install an Islamic government. Kurdish leaders said Tuesday that they were pushing for a Kurd to be president of Iraq. They are also seeking guarantees that they can maintain an autonomous region in the north, which could in turn heighten tensions with neighboring countries that are suspicious of any moves toward Kurdish independence.

...


About 4.6 million of an estimated 8 million votes have been counted.

...
That's the way I suspect it will fall out. There will be two shia factions, one secular and one religious, one Kurd faction and one shiite faction. (I think I got my shiite/shia difference right. SOmeone please correct me if not.) No one faction will have a majority and a negociated arrangement will have to result. I love how democracy forces people to cooperate. :)

[Revolt]

That's the way I suspect it will fall out. There will be two shia factions, one secular and one religious, one Kurd faction and one shiite faction. (I think I got my shiite/shia difference right. SOmeone please correct me if not.) No one faction will have a majority and a negociated arrangement will have to result. I love how democracy forces people to cooperate. :)

I think you meant Shia (or Shiite) - Sunni.

[england66]

Where to start...here goes...

1) I do believe the USA feels it has a "score to settle" with Iran regarding the hostage crisis..

2) Regardless of your so called "reform movement" the fact is the mad mullahs still run Iran..and they are the idiots living in the 14th century..

3) Personally I do not "hate" Iran, and while I have no desire ever to return, I do in fact have three Iranian friends in Dallas ( one of them, Ali, is VERY involved in the movement over here that among other things beams telecasts extolling freedom to Iran...I'm sure you know who they are...

4) the "undeclared war" you mention, is, in the eyes of a lot of Americans a real "declared" war and it was declared when the hostages were taken and the television images of them being paraded, blindfolded, while 10,s of 1000,s of Iranians chanted "death to America" in the streets of Teheran still rankles...and that my friend has nothing to do with "propaganda"...it very much has a lot to do with point No. 1 above and trust me...America will, in your life time settle that score...

Hello...McFly...anyone home...? where the f--k is "iranian monitor" when you need him ?? answer the points....

[Alan S]

3 Major parties

United Iraqi Alliance - 48.2% - 140 seats
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's coalition of Shiite groups and some secular parties. Got majority in 12 of 18 provinces and in the overseas vote. More that 90% of votes from southeastern provinces.

Kurdistan Alliance - 25.7% - 75 seats
Alliance of two main Kurdish parties. 90% of votes from three northern provinces were turnout was high.

Iraqi List - 13.8% - 40 seats
List of secular candidates lead by interim prime minister Ayad Allawi. Got fewer votes than expected. Earned votes in all provinces, but only won in Anbar provinces which had the lowest turnout.



9 Minor parties got 5% of vote. Here is the list.

Iraqis Party - 1.8% - 5 seats
Led by Sheik Ghazi al-Yawar, the interm president. 40% of votes from Nineveh provence, where he was born.

Turkman Iraqi Front - 1.1% - 3 seats
Coalition of 26 Turkman groups with strong support in Kirkuk.

National Independet Leaders - 0.8% - 3 seats
Supports of Moktada al-Sadr. Base is Baghdad's Sadr City.

Popular Union - 0.8% - 2 seats
The communist party led by Hamid Majeed Moussa, a Shiite. 31% of votes from Baghdad and 17% from overseas.

Kurdistan Islamic Group - 0.7% - 2 seats
ed by Alaa Hamoud Salih, an independent branch of religious Shiite party. Some people in the main party are on Ayatollah Sistani's list.

National Democratic Alliance - 0.4% - 1 seat
Led by Abed Faisal Ahmaid

Rafidani National List - 0.4% - 1 seat
Led by Unadem Kanna, Orthodox and Catholic Christians. Most votes from overseas in Australia.

Liberation and Reconciliation Gathering - 0.4 - 1 seat
Led by Mishan Al-Jibouri, the American-appointed governor of Nineva province, but 54% of votes from Salahaddin province.

[Alan S]

This election ends the Interim Government, and starts the Transitional goverment. Above is the composition of the National Assembly. It will next elect a Presidency Council which then selects the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.

It is then going to draft the constitution around Aug. 15. A national election on this constitution will then take place around Oct. 15.

If the constitution is accepted then a 3rd election will take place later to elect the first Constitutional Government of Iraq.

If the draft constitution fails the national vote, then an other vote occurs to elect a second transitional government which will write another constitution and then try again to get voter approval.

[Karl K]

Power Check: Verdict Is Split in Iraqi Election

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/14/international/middleeast/14assess.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1108357593-BSA5iOVvooUGOOULY/5QrA

The verdict handed down by Iraqi voters in the Jan. 30 election appeared to be a divided one, with the Shiite political alliance, backed by the clerical leadership in Najaf, opposed in nearly equal measure by an array of mostly secular minority parties.

According to Iraqi leaders here, the fractured mandate almost certainly heralds a long round of negotiating, in which the Shiite alliance will have to strike deals with parties run by the Kurds and others, most of which are secular and broadly opposed to an enhanced role for Islam or an overbearing Shiite government.

From The Federalist Papers, #10

http://www.whitworth.edu/academic/Department/Core/Classes/CO250/Readings/madison.htm

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it swill be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object obtainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such co-existent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

... In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a great option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to center in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established character.

...

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.

Emphases mine.

That Madison...he was one smart cookie....

Oh, and to our Iraqi brothers, I say, "Welcome to Federalism!! Glad you could join us!!"

[biggyv]

So 2/3rds of the vote is needed to elect a PM. Does that apply to the ratification of the constitution as well?

[Iranian Monitor]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050214/ts_washpost/a21679_2005feb13

Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision
By Robin Wright, Washington Post Staff Writer

When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran's theocracy -- potentially even a foil to Tehran's regional ambitions.

But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say.
...
Yesterday, the White House heralded the election and credited the U.S. role....

Yet the top two winning parties -- which together won more than 70 percent of the vote and are expected to name Iraq's new prime minister and president -- are Iran's closest allies in Iraq.Conversely, the Iraqi secular democrats backed most strongly by the Bush administration lost big.
...
"The big losers in this election are the liberals," said Stanford University's Larry Diamond, who was an adviser to the U.S. occupation government. "The fact that three-quarters of the national assembly seats have gone to just two [out of 111] slates is a worrisome trend. Unless the ruling coalition reaches out to broaden itself to include all groups, the insurgency will continue -- and may gain ground."
...

[BenReilly]

Considering the good relations between the US and Iraqi Kurds, I'm dissapointed that Robin Wright would deliberately mislead her readers, especially considering her general point has a great deal of merit.

[Bob Morocco]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050214/ts_washpost/a21679_2005feb13


From the same article
U.S. and regional analysts agree that Iraq is not likely to become an Iranian surrogate. Iraq's Arabs and Iran's Persians have a long and rocky history. During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Iraq's Shiite troops did not defect to Iran.

"There's the assumption that the new government will be close to Iran or influenced by Iran. That's a strong and reasonable assumption," Khouri said. "But I don't think anyone knows -- including Grand Ayatollah [Ali] Sistani -- where the fault line is between Shiite religious identity and Iraqi national identity."



Iranian-born Sistani is now Iraq's top cleric -- and the leader who pressed for elections when Washington favored a caucus system to pick a government. His aides have also rejected Iran's theocracy as a model, although the Shiite slate is expected to press for Islamic law to be incorporated in the new constitution.

The results I've seen so far.

Shia 48%
Kurd 26%
Allawi 14%
Sunni 2%

The WaPo writer feels that the Kurds and the Shia will join together and be pro-Iran. I'm not so sure unless they get some big concessions.

[ThreeApples]

So 2/3rds of the vote is needed to elect a PM. Does that apply to the ratification of the constitution as well?The constitution must be approved by a national election. I think it needs some kind of supermajority.

[Iranian Monitor]

Considering the good relations between the US and Iraqi Kurds, I'm dissapointed that Robin Wright would deliberately mislead her readers, especially considering her general point has a great deal of merit.

The PUK leader, Jalal Talebani, has close relations with Iran.

http://www.payvand.com/news/01/may/1113.html

PUK leader refers to Iran as only supporter of Iraqi Kurds

Leader of Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) Jalal Talebani in the city of Suleymaniyeh Friday night referred to the Islamic Republic of Iran as the only supporter of the Iraqi Kurds during their hard times.
Addressing a group of Iranian industrialists, he said, "The Islamic Republic have helped Iraqi Kurds over the past few years when those countries, which today call themselves as our friends, were supporting the crimes committed by the Baathist regime."