Iraqi Election Results Thread (multiple threads merged)

[NSlander]

How about "Kelleresque"?


I just like the fact that, judging from the alphabetical order of his listed words, he had to actually go to Dictionary.com to find synonyms for "stupid".

[obie]

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!!First of all, calm the hell down.

Second of all, the idea that "all groups have to compromise" is not true. Only two groups have to compromise: the UIA and the Kurdistan Alliance. That's it. While it's true that the Kurds do not want the theocracy that the UIA would implement if it had unilateral power, the simple compromise is this: The UIA implements a government in central and southern Iraq generally based on Islamic law, but Islamic law does not apply to the Kurdish provinces.

I find it highly ironic that the only publication that is still pushing the idea that Allawi's slate will have to be part of the new Iraqi government is your personal scourge, The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/14/international/middleeast/14assess.html?hp&ex=1108443600&en=7434d4e2dbe003df&ei=5094&partner=homepage). 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."And others"? Again, the UIA + the Kurdistan Alliance = the two-thirds majority necessary to leave everyone else out in the cold. Now, it's possible that Sistani decides to form a pro-western, secular government out of the goodness of his own heart, but why the hell would he want a broad power-share that defies his own desires when a narrow one with a single-minded Kurdish minority will do? And for the Kurds, if they can extract a pledge of autonomy (or, better for them & worse for us, a timetable for eventual sovereignty) out of the UIA, why would they ever go elsewhere? They're never going to have a majority and they're never going to have a better opportunity to meet their goals than they do now, while the Sunnis stay out of the process.

Until you can answer that yourself, you're just screaming at nobody for nothing here.

[Iranian Monitor]

http://www.juancole.com/2005/02/shiites-take-absolute-majority-in.html

Monday, February 14, 2005
Shiites Take Absolute Majority in Parliament
Iran Scores Victory in the Iraqi Elections

Lebanese Broadcasting Co.'s satellite television news is reporting that the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), comprising Shiite religious parties, has won an absolute majority (141 seats) after adjustments were made in accordance with electoral procedure. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the list leader, expressed his pleasure at this 51 percent outcome for his coalition. The UIA still needs a 2/3s majority, and therefore a coalition partner or partners, to form a government (which involves electing a president and two vice-presidents, who will appoint a prime minister). But it can now win votes on procedure and legislation without needing any other partner.



Robin Wright of the Washington Post points out that an electoral victory of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Dawa Party, both of them close to Tehran, is not what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Neoconservatives had been going for with this Iraq adventure. The United Iraqi Alliance is led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a Shiite cleric who lived over 2 decades in exile in Iran. I point out that the likely coalition partner of the United Iraqi Alliance is the Kurdistan Alliance, led by Jalal Talabani, who is himself very close to Tehran. So there are likely to be warm Baghdad-Tehran relations.

[Barbara]

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

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


What kind of, um, shortcoming are you trying to compensate for with this kind of crap? It's totally unnecessary and frankly you're getting to be a massive bore.

[Revolt]

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?

But what if the winnebagos of death story was really true? If it were true, BushCo could claim they were right. So why not just claim they were right no matter the truth? BushCo = Right = Karl = Right Always.

[Claymore]

Found a movie for Karl:

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0182769/

[Attacking Minded]

Many Sunnis protested that the election was flawed and unfair, but in the wake of Sunday's results, which confirmed the marginalisation of what was Iraq's ruling class, their political parties want to lobby for a share of power.

"Our view is that this election was a step towards democracy and ending the occupation," said Ayad al-Samaray, the assistant general secretary of the Iraqi Islamic party. He said unnamed Sunni leaders blundered in depicting the election as a deepening of the occupation.

The insurgency ravaging Iraq is based in Sunni areas, and there were fears that the violence would escalate if the once-dominant minority was further alienated. A call by clerics for a boycott, and threats by insurgents meant very few Sunnis voted in the January 30 poll.

Having endured the brunt of US attacks in towns such as Falluja and Ramadi, many derided the ballot as an attempt to legitimise a foreign occupation. The consequent landslide for the Shias and Kurds means that they will drive the new government and the drafting of a constitution.
Secular Sunni leaders yesterday accepted the victors' invitation to participate, potentially draining support from the insurgency.

"We can't say it was wise or logical to not participate; it was an emotional decision," said Mr Samaray. "Now the Sunni community faces the fact that it made a big mistake and that it would have been far better to participate."

His party, the main Sunni group since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, was in talks with Kurds and Shias. He added: "The Sunni community will accept to share this country with others. They do not need to dominate."

Adnan Pachachi, a Sunni elder statesman, also predicted Sunnis would join the political process.

"They missed an opportunity to participate and want to make up for it," he said. Mr Pachachi's was one of two Sunni parties that did stand in the election. It won 0.1%; the other got 2%.



Yesterday in al-Mansure, a Sunni district of Baghdad, people had no regrets about boycotting the election.

"It was not legitimate," said Faizal Muhammad, 38, a tea shop owner. "We are living as strangers in our own country."

Destroyed in the Gulf war, the structure was rebuilt in 1994 and named Saddam Tower.

"It was a symbol of Iraq. Now it is a symbol of occupation," said Mr Muhammad.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1414688,00.html


Maybe we'll be going home soon. I hope so.

[verybdog]

Maybe we'll be going home soon. I hope so.

After 1,500 dead soldiers and 100,000 dead Iraqis? Helping them establish a democracy is not the real reason why Bush invaded Iraq. He couldn't be that nice.

[obie]

Again, the UIA + the Kurdistan Alliance = the two-thirds majority necessary to leave everyone else out in the cold.Karl fears reasoned debate.

[Chicago1871]

Karl fears reasoned debate.
Karl wouldn't know reasoned debate if it was crapping on his lawn.

[Alan S]

Meanwhile, the leading candidate for Prime Minister of Iraq's transitional govt is Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050216/wl_nm/iraq_dc&cid=574&ncid=1480



Given the current election results it might be interesting to see

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3290154#post3290154

that al-Jaafari was one of the most respected politicians according to a survey take back in the summer time.

[stopper4]

A 'What's News' blurb on him in today's WSJ:

'Jaafari, a moderate Shiite doctor and former exile, said U.S. troops would stay as long as needed.'

[Claymore]

A 'What's News' blurb on him in today's WSJ:

'Jaafari, a moderate Shiite doctor and former exile, said U.S. troops would stay as long as needed.'

Well duh - Iraqi police are being killed quicker than we can train them.

[stopper4]

Well duh - Iraqi police are being killed quicker than we can train them.

Well, yes, and no. The police have been ineffective. Which had the unforseen consequence of:

'pseudo-independent' anti-insurgent militia organizations are apparently popping up all over the country.

Some of these units are as large 15,000 men. A couple are being led by ex Iraqi Army officers with '1st world' military backgrounds. (one even went to Sandhurst).

[Iranian Monitor]

A 'What's News' blurb on him in today's WSJ:

'Jaafari, a moderate Shiite doctor and former exile, said U.S. troops would stay as long as needed.'

I want to discuss this from the angle that I believe pervades the real issue behind Iraq. Not whether Iraq will become an outright theorcracy (it won't), but how close the new Iraqi government would be to Iran? In giving this story, I refer to what I have read in the past and I hope my memory is not failing me.

If Jaafari is confirmed as the new Iraqi prime minister, IMO it would be a "neutral" outcome from Iran's perspective, or even a (minor) defeat of sorts. I am pretty sure Iran would have much preferred SCIRI to pick the new Iraqi prime minister, even if Hakim was never going to be a "realistic choice" given US oppositon to him. (Hakim, realizing the dynamics and with Iranian backing in that decision, had pulled himself out of the running for the premiership even before the elections).

Jaafari, on the other hand, is by no means an Iranian surrogate. He spent some time in Iran in exile, but then moved to London and established the headquarters of Dawa there. As I recall, Iran then sponsored a competing Dawa faction headquartered in Tehran, but that project didn't get too far even though that faction did win a few seats in the new Iraqi Assembly as well.

Basically, Jaafari is friendly towards Iran and wants good relations between Iran and Iraq. I think that is where the clear majority of Iraqi's stand. However, despite his Islamist background, politically he is not someone who can be counted on by Iran necessarily. I guess that is also appropriate for a democratic, Iraqi, choice, as I don't think the Iraqis want to become Iranian surrogates either.

Most of them want good relations with Iran and, for now, that is probably good enough from Iran's perspective.

[Attacking Minded]

Basically, Jaafari is friendly towards Iran and wants good relations between Iran and Iraq. I think that is where the clear majority of Iraqi's stand. However, despite his Islamist background, politically he is not someone who can be counted on by Iran necessarily. I guess that is also appropriate for a democratic, Iraqi, choice, as I don't think the Iraqis want to become Iranian surrogates either.
It's almost as if they are their own independent country being considerate of Iran's opinion but not accountable to it.

Most of them want good relations with Iran and, for now, that is probably good enough from Iran's perspective.

Oddly enough that's what America wants too. Good relations with Iran, that is.

[Iranian Monitor]

Oddly enough that's what America wants too. Good relations with Iran, that is.

Good relations with Iran, but on America's terms.

What are America's terms: accept us as the rulers of the world, because we promise we will use our power for just ends. Nevermind that already, on many occasions, we haven't done so. Just accept it. Or else we will sanction you, isolate you, and maybe we will even blow you away.

We could be living in a very different world. A world where the US used its considerable powers to ends that were really consistent with its own principles and were just. A world were the US led a real reform of international institutions to help strengthem them as the true standard bearers of international law. Where state-versus-state disputes were really decided according to the law, by the International Court of Justice, and where all its decisions were they applied and enforced equally. A world where international terrorists, regardless of nationality or cause, would be subject to prosecution by the International Criminal Court. A world where security decisions were made, not unilaterally by any state, but collectively by an organization like the UN, even if its composition and structure were changed. Even if its members were required to have some form of a representative government before they enjoyed the full rights of its membership.

We could live in a much better world, for eveyone, but not until the root of the problem -- the imbalance of power that prevades international relations -- is first addressed properly. Only then can the best ideals that informed the founding of the American Republic, as well as those which informed the founding of the United Nations and so many other organizations which the US helped create, would one day have a chance of being realized.

I would consider what I outlined an "American victory", even if right now the United States is the biggest obstacle on its path.

[obie]

Chalabi dropped out of the running today after a secret ballot among the UIA, so al-Jaafari will be the next PM.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Politics.html?hp

The next step would be for the alliance to form a coalition, and the Kurds are likely partners. Kurdish parties, who won 26 percent, have indicated in the past they would support the Shiite candidate for prime minister in return for support for their candidate for the largely ceremonial presidency.

[Soccernova78]

This is kind of old news but I haven't seen it posted here.

War Helps Recruit Terrorists (http://207.44.245.159/article8094.htm)

The insurgency in Iraq continues to baffle the U.S. military and intelligence communities, and the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, top U.S. national security officials told Congress yesterday.

"Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists," CIA Director Porter J. Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

"These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism," he said. "They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."

On a day when the top half-dozen U.S. national security and intelligence officials went to Capitol Hill to talk about the continued determination of terrorists to strike the United States, their statements underscored the unintended consequences of the war in Iraq.

"The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists," Goss said in his first public testimony since taking over the CIA. Goss said Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist who has joined al Qaeda since the U.S. invasion, "hopes to establish a safe haven in Iraq" from which he could operate against Western nations and moderate Muslim governments.

"Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment," Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate panel. "Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world."

Jacoby said the Iraq insurgency has grown "in size and complexity over the past year" and is now mounting an average of 60 attacks per day, up from 25 last year. Attacks on Iraq's election day last month reached 300, he said, double the previous one-day high of 150, even though transportation was virtually locked down.