Iraqi Election Results Thread (multiple threads merged)

[Soccernova78]

An interesting analysis by Robin Wright of the Washington Post here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21679-2005Feb13.html)

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....


.....And the winning Kurdish alliance, whose co-leader Jalal Talabani is the top nominee for president, has roots in a province abutting Iran, which long served as its economic and political lifeline.

"This is a government that will have very good relations with Iran. The Kurdish victory reinforces this conclusion. Talabani is very close to Tehran," said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan expert on Iraq. "In terms of regional geopolitics, this is not the outcome that the United States was hoping for."

Added Rami Khouri, Arab analyst and editor of Beirut's Daily Star: "The idea that the United States would get a quick, stable, prosperous, pro-American and pro-Israel Iraq has not happened. Most of the neoconservative assumptions about what would happen have proven false."

The results have long-term implications. For decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations played Baghdad and Tehran off each other to ensure neither became a regional giant threatening or dominant over U.S. allies, notably Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Gulf sheikdoms.

But now, Cole said, Iraq and Iran are likely to take similar positions on many issues, from oil prices to U.S. policy on Iran. "If the United States had decided three years ago to bomb Iran, it would have produced joy in Baghdad," he added. "Now it might produce strong protests from Baghdad."

Conversely, the Iraqi secular democrats backed most strongly by the Bush administration lost big. During his State of the Union address last year, Bush invited Adnan Pachachi, a longtime Sunni politician and then-president of the Iraqi Governing Council, to sit with first lady Laura Bush. Pachachi's party fared so poorly in the election that it won no seats in the national assembly.

And current Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, backed by the CIA during his years in exile and handpicked by U.S. and U.N. officials to lead the interim government, came in third. He addressed a joint session of Congress in September, a rare honor reserved for heads of state of the closest U.S. allies. But now, U.S. hopes that Allawi will tally enough votes to vie as a compromise candidate and continue his leadership are unrealistic, analysts say.

"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."......


......For now, the United States appears prepared to accept the results -- in large part because it has no choice.

But the results were announced at a time when the United States faces mounting tensions with Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons ambitions, support for extremism and human rights violations. On her first trip abroad this month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran's behavior was "something to be loathed" and charged that the "unelected mullahs" are not good for Iran or the region.

One of the biggest questions, analysts say, is whether Iraq's democratic election will make it easier -- or harder -- to pressure Iran.

[Claymore]

So in the end, Bush will have failed on every front except one - getting Saddam. Thousands of American servicemen and Iraqi civilians will have died, and all BushCo has managed to do is further destabilize the region. Way to go, asshat.

Can we get the troops home now?

[Karl K]

An interesting analysis by Robin Wright of the Washington Post here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21679-2005Feb13.html)

You know, the basic premise of this article -- we didn't get what we wanted -- is pure unadulterated crap.

What we wanted was the following: a democratic system of the federalist/republican (small R) kind, where no one faction has overweening power, and where business is done not by car bombs, or suicide martyrs, or Baathist thuggery, or Fatwa dictates, or Mullah pronouncement, but by discussion, compromise and dealmaking. We wanted as a much as possible a secular non-theocratic state where politics, not theology, makes the wheels go round.

Read the excerpts I quoted from James Madison's Federalist paper #10.

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4159577#post4159577

This notion that democracy won't work in Arab lands? Well, right now, the spirit of James Madison is as alive as ever.

Look, we have a long way to go here, and things may not work out, but the results of this election, I believe, are, in the context of establishing an environment where all the parties need to give and take, as close to perfect as you would want.

[Revolt]

You know, the basic premise of this article -- we didn't get what we wanted -- is pure unadulterated crap.

What we wanted was the following: a democratic system of the federalist/republican (small R) kind, where no one faction has overweening power, and where business is done not by car bombs, or suicide martyrs, or Baathist thuggery, or Fatwa dictates, or Mullah pronouncement, but by discussion, compromise and dealmaking. We wanted as a much as possible a secular non-theocratic state where politics, not theology, makes the wheels go round.

Read the excerpts I quoted from James Madison's Federalist paper #10.

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4159577#post4159577

This notion that democracy won't work in Arab lands? Well, right now, the spirit of James Madison is as alive as ever.

Look, we have a long way to go here, and things may not work out, but the results of this election, I believe, are, in the context of establishing an environment where all the parties need to give and take, as close to perfect as you would want.

Except, of course, for the Sunnis - who apparently comprised only 2% of voters.

[Matt in the Hat]

Except, of course, for the Sunnis - who apparently comprised only 2% of voters.
By choice.
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" - Some Canadian band

[Karl K]

Except, of course, for the Sunnis - who apparently comprised only 2% of voters.

Except, of course, for the fact that those who were elected know they need to bring the Sunnis into the whole constitutional writing process, and need to make sure they are taken into account.

Real politik, sir, real politik.

You know, the stuff they gets disseminated here and in the MainStream Media about this whole process frosts the hell of out me, and is absolutely laughable horsedung.

"Oh, oh, we're losing!! we're losing!! The insurgency is freakin' massive!!"

"Oh, oh, we need to postpone elections..they won't work!!"

"Oh, oh, the elections won't have legitimacy..the poor poor Sunnis will be shut out!"

"Oh, oh, Allawi didn't win, we didn't get what we wanted!!"

Smelly, bacterial-laden cesspool-like detritus from the intellectual giants on BS and certain analysts in the Washington Post/New York Times.

[obie]

Let's try to keep all these together, shall we?

The US demanded the supermajority clause to try to keep Sistani in check, thinking that the UIA would need Allawi's party to break the 2/3 mark. But they don't. The US rolled the dice and, for now, lost.

If BushCo really thought that the end result of this whole war would be an Iraq / Iran alliance with strong Islamic overtones and the possible formation of an independent Kurdistan, we would never have invaded.

[obie]

Except, of course, for the fact that those who were elected know they need to bring the Sunnis into the whole constitutional writing process, and need to make sure they are taken into account.Why? The UIA + the Kurdistan Alliance = 73.9% of the vote. Here, a guy with 51% of the national vote gets to claim a mandate. Why not there?Smelly, bacterial-laden cesspool-like detritus from the intellectual giants on BS and certain analysts in the Washington Post/New York Times.We love you too, Karl.

[Claymore]

Except, of course, for the fact that those who were elected know they need to bring the Sunnis into the whole constitutional writing process, and need to make sure they are taken into account.

Real politik, sir, real politik.

You know, the stuff they gets disseminated here and in the MainStream Media about this whole process frosts the hell of out me, and is absolutely laughable horsedung.

"Oh, oh, we're losing!! we're losing!! The insurgency is freakin' massive!!"

"Oh, oh, we need to postpone elections..they won't work!!"

"Oh, oh, the elections won't have legitimacy..the poor poor Sunnis will be shut out!"

"Oh, oh, Allawi didn't win, we didn't get what we wanted!!"

Smelly, bacterial-laden cesspool-like detritus from the intellectual giants on BS and certain analysts in the Washington Post/New York Times.

What color is the sky on your planet? This whole Iraq endeavor has been characterized by ever-decreasing expectations from BushCo itself. First, it was WMDs, then it was to get rid of Saddam, then it was to bring democracy to Iraq. Other than having Saddam in custody, this has been a failure from day 1.

Saddam was a bad guy, but he was contained, and he hated Iran and its theocracy. There were no WMDs - the UN inspectors tried to tell us that, but BushCo wouldn't listen. So now that we've held elections, we've essentially tunred Iraq over to the very people we didn't want in power to begin with. How is that a success?

[superdave]

You know, the basic premise of this article -- we didn't get what we wanted -- is pure unadulterated crap.
HA HA HA

[Mel Brennan]

...This whole Iraq endeavor has been characterized by ever-decreasing expectations from BushCo itself. First, it was WMDs, then it was to get rid of Saddam, then it was to bring democracy to Iraq. Other than having Saddam in custody, this has been a failure from day 1.

Saddam was a bad guy, but he was contained, and he hated Iran and its theocracy. There were no WMDs - the UN inspectors tried to tell us that, but BushCo wouldn't listen. So now that we've held elections, we've essentially tunred Iraq over to the very people we didn't want in power to begin with. How is that a success?

It is in a post-truth society.

[Chicago1871]

If BushCo really thought that the end result of this whole war would be an Iraq / Iran alliance with strong Islamic overtones and the possible formation of an independent Kurdistan, we would never have invaded.
You're assuming forethought. Big freakin' assumption.

[Soccernova78]

An interesting analysis by Robin Wright of the Washington Post here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21679-2005Feb13.html)

Oops, sorry I didn't see that Iranian Monitor had posted the same article.

[Karl K]

What color is the sky on your planet? This whole Iraq endeavor has been characterized by ever-decreasing expectations from BushCo itself. First, it was WMDs, then it was to get rid of Saddam, then it was to bring democracy to Iraq. Other than having Saddam in custody, this has been a failure from day 1.

Saddam was a bad guy, but he was contained, and he hated Iran and its theocracy. There were no WMDs - the UN inspectors tried to tell us that, but BushCo wouldn't listen. So now that we've held elections, we've essentially tunred Iraq over to the very people we didn't want in power to begin with. How is that a success?

HOW FRIGGIN' IDIOTIC ARE YOU PEOPLE!!!

The Najaf contingent DOES NOT HAVE A MAJORITY!!

The Kurdish contingent WANTS TO MAINTAIN AUTONOMY!!

All groups will HAVE TO COMPROMISE!!

How many words are there for "stupid" in the English Language??

All of you ALL OF YOU are

brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopy, dull, dumb, foolish, futile, goofy, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, irrelevant, irresponsible, laughable, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stupefied, thick, thickheaded, trivial, unintelligent, unthinking, witless

Man, I need more words!!! There's no end to it!!

[John Galt]

HOW FRIGGIN' IDIOTIC ARE YOU PEOPLE!!!

The Najaf contingent DOES NOT HAVE A MAJORITY!!

The Kurdish contingent WANTS TO MAINTAIN AUTONOMY!!

All groups will HAVE TO COMPROMISE!!

How many words are there for "stupid" in the English Language??

All of you ALL OF YOU are

brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopy, dull, dumb, foolish, futile, goofy, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, irrelevant, irresponsible, laughable, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stupefied, thick, thickheaded, trivial, unintelligent, unthinking, witless

Man, I need more words!!! There's no end to it!!

Is anything you post NOT a personal attack?

[Claymore]

HOW FRIGGIN' IDIOTIC ARE YOU PEOPLE!!!

The Najaf contingent DOES NOT HAVE A MAJORITY!!

The Kurdish contingent WANTS TO MAINTAIN AUTONOMY!!

All groups will HAVE TO COMPROMISE!!

How many words are there for "stupid" in the English Language??

All of you ALL OF YOU are

brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopy, dull, dumb, foolish, futile, goofy, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, irrelevant, irresponsible, laughable, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stupefied, thick, thickheaded, trivial, unintelligent, unthinking, witless

Man, I need more words!!! There's no end to it!!


:rolleyes:

The Kurdish contigent not only wants to maintain autonomy, they want a Kurd as President. The "Najaf" contingent (say it with me, Karl - "Shiite") does not have a supermajority, but they do have the largest representation in the UIA. There will be some compromise, of course, but at the end of the day there will be a pro-Iranian government in place.

Face it, Karl, BushCo's little adventure has gone completely to pot. The unintended consequences of the invasion would be laughable if they weren't so tragic.

[Iranian Monitor]

Karl,

The dynamics about compromise, and how they can have a positive effect on the development of consitutional principles, are not found in totally rigging a system to make sure the outcome stands in opposite of what the (overwhelming) majority support. Put simply, while there is a lot to be learned from the example of the American founders, none of those lessons should be about promoting an American protectorate by force, intimidation, and formal rigging of what is supposed to be a democratic process.

I am not going to prejudge the final outcome of this process, as it is a fact that the US is trying behind the scene to make sure it gets a particular outcome that is inopposite of what the Iraqi people want. And the US has a lot of power in Iraq, even though so far the Iraqis have frustrated American plans.

Behind the rhetoric, American policy towards Iraq continuing to this day, has been colored by an obsession to make sure its government is not "pro-Iranian". That is why the US supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war; why Bush Sr. allowed Saddam to mercilessly squash the shia rebellion after Desert Storm; why even the current George Bush has gone on Arab television on a few occasions, trying to basically "remind" the Iraqi people that Iran is their enemy! That is why the US is hell bent on making sure Iraqi security is achieved through American forces, not any regional alliances. Why the US wanted to promote Alawi in these elections, never trusting the shias with popularity in the country. Why the US has been building an "Iraqi" military filled with officers that are vehemently "anti-Iranian", led by a demogague as Defense Minister whose obcession is to make sure there is an everlasting enmity between the Iraqis and the Iranians.

On the formal level, the US not only sought a supermajoritarian process for adoption of the constitution (which is fine), but a supermajoritarian process for the formation of the Iraqi government (which is not fine, and is anti-democratic). However, right now, it doesn't seem the US got what it wanted. There are enough votes for the Iraqi government to show a very friendly face to Iran.

In this regard, the choice of Jalal Talebani (the PUK leader) as opposed to Masoud Barzani (the KDP leader) to lead the Kurdish alliance is interesting as well. Talebani is very close to Iran, and can certainly work with SCIRI and the UIA as he has done in the past. In fact, during his tenure as "President of the Iraqi Governing Council", Talebani often irritated Bremer by lobbying "Iranian causes": for freedom of Iranian journalists detained by US forces; for trade with Iran; as well as more generally lobbying to foster better relations between Iran and the US.

Anyway, we have to wait and see. On the surface, things look okay from an Iranian perspective, and not all that good from an American one. We will know more once the Iraqi "transitional government" is formed. In particular, in who they pick as "Iraq's Defense Minister" and what authority he will enjoy over the "Iraqi military" the US is forming?

[NSlander]

HOW FRIGGIN' IDIOTIC ARE YOU PEOPLE!!!

The Najaf contingent DOES NOT HAVE A MAJORITY!!

The Kurdish contingent WANTS TO MAINTAIN AUTONOMY!!

All groups will HAVE TO COMPROMISE!!

How many words are there for "stupid" in the English Language??

All of you ALL OF YOU are

brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopy, dull, dumb, foolish, futile, goofy, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, irrelevant, irresponsible, laughable, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stupefied, thick, thickheaded, trivial, unintelligent, unthinking, witless

Man, I need more words!!! There's no end to it!!


Karl-

Its not your fault.


Its not your fault.


Its not your fault.


Its not your fault.


Its not your fault.


Its not your fault.

[superdave]

How many words are there for "stupid" in the English Language??

All of you ALL OF YOU are

brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopy, dull, dumb, foolish, futile, goofy, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, irrelevant, irresponsible, laughable, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stupefied, thick, thickheaded, trivial, unintelligent, unthinking, witless

Man, I need more words!!! There's no end to it!!
How about "Kelleresque"?

[BudWiser]

Saddam was a bad guy, but he was contained, and he hated Iran and its theocracy. There were no WMDs......So now that we've held elections, we've essentially tunred Iraq over to the very people we didn't want in power to begin with.

Guys....guys, listen up. I have a question.


Is it too late to put Saddam back in power? We could get him out of jail and prop up his government again. We could give him aid and have him attack Iran. I mean we don't want Muslims running the Middle East with nuclear power, do we.

Oh wait....I f'ed up. But 'least I speak plainly, and I'm from Texas. Signed, George "W" Bush