post election iraq

[Ghaleon]

I, for one, was suprised by the results.  High turn-out and low
body count.  There were tons of attacks, but most of them were
done by single men; lunatics throwing grenades at people after they voted.

Iraq is a mess now, and I'm hesitant to get my hopes up; but it's hard
not to at this point.  It seems like the election should have some
pretty serious psychological connotations with the terrorists, because
now the people they're killing are the martyrs. Every one
of those 25 (right number?) iraqis that were murdered knew that they
were risking their lives when they went to vote, that seems to me like
a pretty clear message.  I hope i'm not being delusional...

[tuma al Zrai]

Terrorists. How I hate the term. Although I agree it's wrong to target civilians, most armed men in Iraq are Iraqi resistance members. They see an occupying power as a ligitimate target. EX- in Fallujah, the old hawk generals kept going on and on about how Fallujah was just teeming with "terrorists", "insurgents", and "al qaida" .(Let me just say one thing about Al Qaida-its pronounced Al (somewhere between an A and an E) Q-guttoral stop followed buy a K sound from the back of your throht, AYDA. The way Georgie boy says it is el kayeedo, it "went from a middle-eastern based terrorist organisation to a Mexican restaraunt", as Dean Obeidallah says.) It means "the foundation" and was ment to drive the Americans out of Saudi Arabia, stop the massive corruption by the stewards of Mecca and Medina, and stop the occupation of Muslim lands. The only problem was that there was no place to actually carry on a battle, so they provoked one on Sept. 11th. It was a double-purpose-to vent serious fury, and, more importantly, to cause an OVER-REACTION by rthe US that would lead to thousands of Muslim deaths, bringing more recruits to Al Qaida and escalating the whole war. That over-reaction was Iraq. There was no ligit reason for occupation, Iraqis have a right to resistance as long as Americans use force and heavy weapons, and continue to employ torture and night-raids. Im not saying its a good idea, but hey, its their country, not Americas'. After all, the fighters in Fallujah weren't a colaition of pro Mujahaddin from around the world, nor were they Al qaida backup from Afghanistan or Packistan. They were Fallujans, born and raised in that city which alot of them gave their lives for. You see, there was resentment from the begining, and not just in Fallujah, or Ramadi, Or Karbullah or whereever. if you were watching anything but FOX or a couple of crappy local chanals, this was obvious. The Shia in Basra, whom the Americans said would throw flowers, threw insults. This was in the first week of the war, when the invasion was still called a "liberation" by Americans. The Americans destroyed the power lines in many places, and dis-abled sewage systems. The museums of Bagdad were looteed by Kurds and Pushmerga, while the generals made up some bullsh*t about it being Iraqis responsibility to protect their own heritage (its the responsibility of the Occupying power). This alone seeds massive discontent. Add to this constant violence, lawless-ness, the smell of raw sewage everywhere, your Moque watched by snipers, your cousins beying tortured, yor house being broken into in the middle of the night by soldiers screaming in a language you don't understand, and breaking all cultural resepects, and you have a resistance. The elections now are viewed as illigitimate byb sunni Arabs, the main weapon-holders and the ones with the most to lose. Shias know they will carry the day, and Kurds, well kurds are kicking Arabs out of Kirkuk, they're all to eager for northern Iaqi oil to be theirs if/when they succeed. Still, 60% of the country is Shia, the turnout was fairly high in the south, and they know they won by a clear marjin. tshe problem is that Sunnis whho had ties to the Baath have nothing now, they are out-numbered and desperate. Just watch, either they have a guarantied number of seets in parlement (like the Maronites have in Lebanon), or the heart of the country will be violent for years. The whole country was 3provinces until the British showed up, carving up the region. It was glued together by iron fists, and now it might well fall apart . It's just too differant, the Kurds want at least autonomy, theyre not Arabs, they dont speak Arabic. The Shia feel largely betrayed by Sunnis, and Iran is hovering over Iraq like a hungry wolf. At least with Nasserism the politics were secular.

[tuma al Zrai]

Wow. Nobody even said a peep yet? Come on, I know there are viewers out there right now with serious opinions about the Iraqi fiasco, the elections, the occupation, whatever they may be. Don't keep them pent up, say something. The middle-east has never been boring, you shouldn't have to think of it as that. Don't be intimidated by a long answer, it's not that brainy, I assure you. I will welcome right-wingers, its always nice to have a serious discussion with someone with a differant oppinion, its humbling.

[Ghaleon]

what't we're the exact numbers of the turnout? I'm hesitant to say much
of anything until they're in...i've heard everything from 48%-78%.
 

you make a pretty convincing argument...many iraqi lives were destroyed
by America's occupation.  But many were certainly saved as
well...  what about all of the iraqi soccer team? They
were tortured when they didn't play well and their families were kept
hostage when they played abroad so that they wouldn't run away.

random fact, I know.  but my point is that it's not black and
white.  I think that it's just as likely that we saved more lives
than we ruined than the other way around.  Or maybe it didn't
matter to most of the people. After all, whether you're in a
dictatorship or a democracy, you're still going to fall in love and
make friends...these things are really hard to judge...that's why i've
been so anxiously awaiting some solid numbers...  we'll only
whether or not we did any good for the people when speak up for
themselves.

[NERV]

i cant really have any strong opinions about the election because i
have too many mixed feelings about the whole situation. not many would
consider saddam a good man, but he kept the order, the whole country
may even be torn apart by the fall of saddam, if the 3 groups hate
eachother as much as tuma says, than it seems that no matter what the
result of the election, the 2 losing groups will try to break off and
claim territory for their own countries, naturally the US wont allow it
so they will stop it, and the result will be a country still rules with
an iron fist, but from across an ocean, the new elected leader will
make descisions sure enough, but if something is said the US doesnt
like, theyll tighten their grip again. and who is to say that democracy
is the ideal government anyway? the fact that bush is this country's
president is a shining example, even to the people who support bush,
there isnt anyone in the country who could honestly argue that there
arent hundreds of other citizens more qualified to run a country, but
in the political world actual intelligence and qualification dont
matter, its who you know and how much money you have, thats how bush
got nominated in the first place, but this situation is basicly
unavoidable, there is no way that everyone will know everyone and pick
the best of us, so the people with the fame and fortune are the ones
who are turned to.

back to iraq, i think that they werent ready for a democracy just yet,
but the fact that it has been forced on them, might accelerate
prosperity in the future, one thing that america has done well is shown
that when people of different groups are forced to cohabitate, they
tend to develop some mutual understandings and at the minimum, peaceful
coexistence can be attained. was the war started for the wrong reasons?
absolutely. was the result a good thing? who can tell? cant change it
back now, just have to work at it.

[Ghaleon]

Good call an reserving judgment, Nerv. You made a lot of good points.

Who is to say that democracy is some absolute good?  With human
nature taken into account, it looks best on paper to me.  But
other systems have worked for other cultures in the past... 
furthermore, democracy is a system so unspeakably foreign to the middle
east that you just can't know if it's going to work out. not to say
that it wont, it's just hard to tell.

Another great point was that though Bush's intentions for the war might
have been bad, it may still have been the right thing to do.  IE,
in the long run it dosen't matter if I save a drowning child because I
want to do the right thing or because I want the parents to pay me off
for it,  so long as I do the right thing; namely, safe the
child. 

If bush was just in this war for the oil, it still might be the right
thing to do; that is, it's the right thing to do if we truly end up
freeing an oppressed people and making the world a safer place.

But will we do either of those?  Hard to tell.  Have we done
either of those?  I think we just have to wait and see what
happens...

[tuma al Zrai]

Ok, a couple of things. Firstly, the major groups in Iraq don't HATE each other, there just a lot of suspicion and a few fanatics, on both side armed to the teeth. This isn't just in the "sunni triangle" ether, the Kurdish Peshmerga Militia is one of the ( if not the most) most heavily armed groupsm ni the region. But any way, Democracy itself is a good thing, but most Iraqi feel that either A.-it's rigged, the Americans will stage a coup and put some general in charge like in so many other places, B. it's good, but only if it's dirrect, C-You can't force "democracy" on me, it's hypocracy, D- I don't care about politics, my house was just blown up and I don't know where my brother is or if my family is dead. E Why should I vote, I have a right to resist, and I have a score to settle.
Second- democracy is not new to the middle-east. The region saw dozens of democratic revolutions in the 10's, 20's, 30's and 40's. Unfortunately, almost all of them were under colonial occupation. The imperialists prevented the seeds of democracy from sprouting. Only Lebanon emerged unscathed. Besides, the whole institution of "kings" and "emirs" was largely out of conviniance. These people would rule with force, keep a lid on dissent, and provide a good business enviorment (Iran, Lybia, Iraq, etc). If you wan't to let the region really emerge democratically, you can't do it by force. That's an oxymoron.
The turnout varied higely from area to area. It was highest in Basra, lowest north-west of Bagdad, high in all Kurd and Shi'ia areas. For figures try english.aljazeera.com.