Iraq at civil war!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Do you understand how democracy works? Obviously not. Do yourself a favor and try and wrap you pea-sized brain around the concept of an illiberal democracy, as that is what has developed in Iraq. The people voted, but did not have a comprehension of WTF they were doing. They voted for who their imam told them to vote for. People voted multiple times. There were more voting irregularities than a Florida election. If that does not tell you that this "vote" was invalid, and that the people were not aware of how the voting process functioned, or what responsibility that vote had, then the whole democratic principle is lost on you. No, it IS lost on you. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Well Lanny obviously my understanding of Democracy is far different than yours. Democracy is when people exercise their rights to vote for their rulers. Period. Democracy does NOT hinge on whether or not people know what they are doing. People vote for the NDP in this country.

But then who are you to say they DIDN'T know what they were doing?

For being valid I think your opinion differs with various experts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10884827/from/RL.1/
Iraq’s electoral commission ruled Monday that more than 99 percent of the ballots from the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections are valid, opening the way for a new government to start coming together.
Final election results have been delayed by fraud complaints mainly lodged by the Sunni Arab minority, and groups looking for a political edge in dealing with the #####e Muslim majority could still make further protests and hold up the naming of new leaders for two or three months.
Iraq’s electoral commission announced it was throwing out votes from 227 ballot boxes because of fraud, a tiny percentage — less than 1 percent — of the total vote that shouldn’t affect the overall results.
\

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...de9c045c7.html
The IMIE stopped short, however, of calling for a rerun of the parliamentary elections in affected areas of the country. The report did express concern over the IECI's decision to cancel the 227 ballot boxes, saying the decision also led to the annulment of legitimate ballots. "Canceling ballot boxes without a new election being called in the affected area is particularly regrettable in an electoral system of list proportional representation where the number of votes required to win or lose a seat may vary from governorate to governorate as well as from a given seat to another seat."

The report called for future legislation to explicitly authorize and specify "the conditions under which revoting should be used...for particular polling centers in which fraud, irregularities or other circumstances have been determined to have significantly distorted the election results."

The final report praised voter turnout on election day, and commended the IECI for its "cooperation, transparency, and responsiveness."


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
On Thursday, a report by international monitors ruled that the election was fair despite voting irregularities.
Election officials on Friday said votes from 296 ballot boxes throughout the country were excluded from the total due to irregularities.
Many Sunni Arabs complained of fraud and intimidation after the election, spurring the review by the International Mission for Iraqi Elections, a Canadian-based group.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That works out to 9 trillion dollars* so that ain't right. It's been an expensive adventure to be sure, but not even close to that number.


*I think. All those zeroes tend to fog the brain of a non-math-good person.

Sorry, my bad! That's the whole debit load that Bush just talked congress into agreeing to approve expansion of. I think that number needs the decimal shifted left one space. Nice catch!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Well Lanny obviously my understanding of Democracy is far different than yours. Democracy is when people exercise their rights to vote for their rulers. Period. Democracy does NOT hinge on whether or not people know what they are doing. People vote for the NDP in this country.

Yes, and people in this country voted for Bush... TWICE.

It is obvious that your understanding of democracy is on the elementary level. Casting a vote is but a small part of democracy. Democracy requires that a voter understand the ramifications of their vote and assume the responsibility for that vote. Saying otherwise is just plain stupid. Seriously, one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I'm talking signature file dumb. How can a democracy work if the people do not understand the function, do not comprehend the issues and do not have the ability to provide oversight? How can it work if these are no checks and balances? It can't. Without the understanding of the system the people cannot form the structures to support their actions.

Jesus, do you honestly think that one day someone decided that they needed a new form of government and looked at his compatriots and said "let's vote", and that worked? Sorry bonehead, but before people cast that vote they had to know what they were voting for. They had to know what the division or responsibility was, what the oversight was, and what mechanisms of accountablity there were for those assuming power. THAT is human nature, and you can't fight that. The fact is that Iraqis never had a chance to define these structures. They were rushed to the polls to vote for people they had no information about. That just doesn't work.

BTW... I didn't think you were in Canada. A lot of NDP voters in Japan?

But then who are you to say they DIDN'T know what they were doing?

Common sense. A country that was subject to endless propaganda about the evils of a system are likely not going to be schooled in the functions of that system. Americans all believe that Communism was evil, yet they know nothing of how the system worked, and this is a country that the citiznry are supposedly highly educated and open to ideas (not even close to being true). Iraqis were not going to understand the concepts of democracy and how it functions just because they all of a sudden get to vote. Plus, the country was just coming off the heels of being bombed back to the stone age (in effect) and many of the regions did not have the infrastructure for daily life. You don't think that situation is going to make getting the word out on the issues a little next to impossible? The people are locked in aurvival mode, a political campaign is not going to be front and center. Iraqis are only going to do what they have been doing for generations, and do what they're told.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10884827/from/RL.1/
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...de9c045c7.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Nice links, but not a single one of them said a damn thing about Iraqi's know what they were voting on. Every one of these links speaks about voting irrgularities and how they were dismissed (which conflicts greatly with other reports as posted). There has been nothing to indicate that Iraqis had a clue what they were doing when they went to the polls. All the talk has been focused on nothing but sectarian issues that have been amplified by the vote itself. The people voted for who their imam told them to vote for and they did their duty. Iraq went from a secular country where religion played little role in the governance of the country to one where religion will prevent an effective government from being formed. THAT'S democracy to you?

Again, do yourself a favor and learn the meaning of the word illiberal and how it applies to democracy. Everything you have described as great success is a shining example of an illiberal democracy, and as history has shown, illiberal democracies are not democracies at all, and always lead to strife.

[oldschoolcalgary]

you gotta love this - Bush isn't even gonna support the newly, democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq

The ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the head of the main #####e political bloc at a meeting on Saturday to pass on a "personal message from President Bush" to the interim prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, said Redha Jowad Taki, a #####e member of Parliament who was at the meeting.
Mr. Khalilzad said Mr. Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari as the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the #####e bloc. It was the first "clear and direct message" from the Americans on a specific candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/in...rtner=homepage

should be interesting to see how this turns out - Hugo Chavez anyone?

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

you gotta love this - Bush isn't even gonna support the newly, democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/in...rtner=homepage

should be interesting to see how this turns out - Hugo Chavez anyone?

You forgot to add this little quote as well:

The Americans have harshly criticized the Jaafari government in recent months for supporting #####e militias that have been fomenting sectarian violence and pushing Iraq closer to full-scale civil war.

That kind of changes the context a little, don't you think?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by arsenal

That kind of changes the context a little, don't you think?

Yeah, that changes context substantially. Something that is also missing in that the Americans will NOT be supportive of any government that is lead by a #####e leader, as this could potentially lead to an immediate alignment with Iran from an ideology stand point (Iran is predominantly Shia and the sect transends the Western enforced border).

This is one of those dynamics of the Middle East that makes democracy extremely difficult to implement. Theology is the ruling factor in the lives of the people, not political ideology. It is impossible to institute a secular political system in a region where secular ideologies are not considered acceptable by the vast majority of the people. Without the division between church and state, you're only looking to create a theological college rather than a functioning parliment. I know, I know, why bring the people's belief structures into this? They voted! Its a democracy!!!

[Hakan]

Man does the Centre for the New American Century and all the other Neo-Cons look like a bunch of idiots after this debacle. Mind you they've always looked like idiots but now that we've actually implemented one of their foreign policies for the first time since the end of the Cold War we can really ascertain just how idiotic they really are.

The U.S. should focus on their OWN democracy before trying to force one down the throats of an unwilling foreign society. It is a truely remarkable crime that the so called vibrant democracy of the land of the free has allowed and is still allowing this travesty to occur. Nero will be playing his violin soon enough when the new American Empire is burning. A population that acquiescent and moronic suitably deserves nothing more.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by arsenal

You forgot to add this little quote as well:



That kind of changes the context a little, don't you think?

Sure, it does change things a little...but not that much.

Maybe the reason why al-Jaafari is supporting #####e militia is because he's a #####e? Should that really be any surprise? I can only assume that a Sunni PM would support the Sunni militia too...i guess the question is why the #####e militias are running around in the first place? Perhaps a lack of any security in the region, where you now have to have these groups each protecting their own little piece of territory.

With all the rah-rah talk of democracy and how it is working, the context of the initial post does not change - it merely pointed out that the administration is not in support of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq.

Imagine if they decide to democratically elect a religious theocracy in Iraq?

[Hakan]

The irony is just delicious.

50 years ago the U.S. and Britain overthrew the democratically elected Moussadegh government in Iran fearing it would be unstable and ultimately against American interests. They replaced it with a secular totalitarian government. This move eventually lead to the Iranian theocracy in power today. In Iraq, they replaced the secular totalitarian government of Saddam Hussein in favour of a democratic system which looks likely to be taken over by religious sentiment instilling another powerful theocracy.

Wow. Good job G.W. but if I was you, I'd stick to Risk.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Hakan

The irony is just delicious.

50 years ago the U.S. and Britain overthrew the democratically elected Moussadegh government in Iran fearing it would be unstable and ultimately against American interests. They replaced it with a secular totalitarian government. This move eventually lead to the Iranian theocracy in power today. In Iraq, they replaced the secular totalitarian government of Saddam Hussein in favour of a democratic system which looks likely to be taken over by religious sentiment instilling another powerful theocracy.

Wow. Good job G.W. but if I was you, I'd stick to Risk.

not the first or last time - that's the idea of "blowback" in a nutshell...and a very important lesson about learning from past errors...

I forgot to add this qoute for arsenal - also from the NYTimes article...from Jaafari himself...

"There was a stand from both the American government and President Bush to promote a democratic policy and protect its interests," he said, sipping from a cup of boiled water mixed with saffron. "But now there's concern among the Iraqi people that the democratic process is being threatened."


"The source of this is that some American figures have made statements that interfere with the results of the democratic process," he added. "These reservations began when the biggest bloc in Parliament chose its candidate for prime minister."

[White Doors]

Uuhh.. Communism IS still evil isn't it?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Uuhh.. Communism IS still evil isn't it?

Ideologies are not evil, only those who administer them or use them to achieve power are evil.

[White Doors]

Ok, yes Communism as a thought is nice, but it's implementation has been a abysmal failure. So Communism in practice is evil. I can live with that.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Sure, it does change things a little...but not that much.

Maybe the reason why al-Jaafari is supporting #####e militia is because he's a #####e? Should that really be any surprise? I can only assume that a Sunni PM would support the Sunni militia too...i guess the question is why the #####e militias are running around in the first place? Perhaps a lack of any security in the region, where you now have to have these groups each protecting their own little piece of territory.

With all the rah-rah talk of democracy and how it is working, the context of the initial post does not change - it merely pointed out that the administration is not in support of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq.

Imagine if they decide to democratically elect a religious theocracy in Iraq?

My point being that as PM, Jaafari should looking out for the country, not his own secular ideals, or agenda. By supporting the Militia, which has been reportedly behind a few of the bombings lately, he is not supporting the democratic process. He should supporting the Iraqi Security Forces, asking his Militia to join them, instead of fighting for his own interests.
It is up to Jaafari to work with both internal and external forces to make his country safe, for everyone, not just the #####e's.

Maybe this is why the US administration is not supporting him?

Same thing with Palestine. Both US and Canadian governments do not reconize the democratically elected Hamas group. Is that to say they do not support democracy? No, they are just saying that they will not support a group that they feel is detrimental to the peace process.

[CalgaryCowboy]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Ok, yes Communism as a thought is nice, but it's implementation has been a abysmal failure. So Communism in practice is evil. I can live with that.

Well Communism is more an economic system. You could theoritical have a democratic communist state.

[White Doors]

Would that be the NDP?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by arsenal

My point being that as PM, Jaafari should looking out for the country, not his own secular ideals, or agenda.

You're thinking like a Westerner, not like a Mulsim. Arabs/Islamists have been doing this for hundreds of years. This is the way things are done. You trust the people you know, and the people that know you trust you.

By supporting the Militia, which has been reportedly behind a few of the bombings lately, he is not supporting the democratic process.

Now someone is starting to catch on. The culture and the lack of education on how democracy is supposed to work is why democracy itself will fail. You don't introduce a new concept and have people turn their back on hundreds of years of tradition just because an invading country says so.

He should supporting the Iraqi Security Forces, asking his Militia to join them, instead of fighting for his own interests.

Sure, if he thought like a Westerner. But he's an arab. He's a #####e. He's not going to think like a Westerner. Westerners cannot be trusted because of their political systems.

It is up to Jaafari to work with both internal and external forces to make his country safe, for everyone, not just the #####e's.

We see it that way, but I'm sure he doesn't. I'm sure he sees this as an opportunity to crush the Ba'athists and Sunnis the way the #####es were for decades under Saddam. This is his opportunity for payback! Arabs will get their revenge, even if it takes generations to do so.

Maybe this is why the US administration is not supporting him?

No, the US Administration is not supporting him because they are scare ****less that the #####es will align with Iran (other #####es). The US Administration wants a good little lap dog, like Saddam was before he got drunk with power.

Same thing with Palestine. Both US and Canadian governments do not reconize the democratically elected Hamas group. Is that to say they do not support democracy? No, they are just saying that they will not support a group that they feel is detrimental to the peace process.

No, they do not recognize them because they do not further their agenda. Hamas has great potential to unite all the warring arab factions under one banner, meaning Israel is in deep ****. If Hamas can do that, they will take the political seat of power in the region away from the Israelis IMO. They will have the most mojo. Since the US licks the dog crap off of Israel's sandals I highly doubt that they will recognize a government that could have such power. Harper doesn't recognize them because he doesn't want to **** off his newest bestest buddy, Dubya!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CalgaryCowboy

Well Communism is more an economic system. You could theoritical have a democratic communist state.

Pure Communism is dead. Hard core socialism is a live and very well, and being embraced in many countries through "democratic elections". In fact, the US has got to hate the way "democratic elections" have gone in the past few years as more and more countries elect governments not aligned with the United States view of things. Consider the comments from this piece...

http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=16866

Since 2000, the U.S. supported free-market reforms and globalization, that most developing countries describe as unfavorable to the poor, and the foreign policy initiatives of the Bush administration have become a catalyst for the left movement to emerge in democratically elected South American governments, led by Venezuela’s populist president Hugo Chavez, and subsequently sweeping most of America’s back yard.

Now, with Hamas winning the Palestinian elections this week with an absolute majority, and previously Hezbollah in Lebanon and Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, have posed a dilemma for the United States and its allies.

The Islamic fundamentalists who oppose U.S. interests in the Middle East have greatly benefited from the Bush administration’s policy promoting democracy, making significant gains in these democratically held and internationally supervised elections.

In recent Iraqi elections, the U.S.-backed coalition miserably failed to make an impact giving electoral victories to Islamic fundamentalists.

Chile, in January, elected the country’s first female president Michelle Bachelet, a broad leftist, who was the daughter of a former general in the socialist regime of President Salvadore Allende who was toppled in 1973 by a U.S. supported military coup led by General Pinochet.

With Brazil and Uruguay forming democratically elected leftist governments, Bolivia early this month, and Peru most likely in its April election, the populist wave in Latin America has become a headache for the Bush administration, which was widely criticized in the region for ignoring Latin America.

Brazil and Argentina have already elected left leaning presidents, and the later recently turned more leftward by dismissing its finance minister who was promoting a market-oriented economy.

And finally...

With Hamas winning an overall majority in this week’s elections in the Palestinian territory, and Bush administration vowing not to have any dealings with an imminent Hamas-led ‘democratic’ government, the recently unfolded events in both Latin America and the Middle East show that the Bush foreign policy of ‘promoting democracy’ is fast creating democratic regimes that are hostile to U.S. dominance in global affairs and its foreign policy.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Ok, yes Communism as a thought is nice, but it's implementation has been a abysmal failure. So Communism in practice is evil. I can live with that.

The term Communism is an extension of the word commune.This word seems to come from communicate or share. So sharing in practise is evil?
There are many types of communes and some are very succesful. From what I understand the Hutterites live in communes and seem succestul. Are they evil?

The Commuism you are referring to got taken over by men out for personal power. This can also happen under capitalism.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by arsenal

My point being that as PM, Jaafari should looking out for the country, not his own secular ideals, or agenda. By supporting the Militia, which has been reportedly behind a few of the bombings lately, he is not supporting the democratic process. He should supporting the Iraqi Security Forces, asking his Militia to join them, instead of fighting for his own interests.

But, if he was elected by the majority of voters, who we are assuming to be informed voters, then why would you say he isn't supporting the democratic process? The militia exists BECAUSE of the lack of security in the country. The Militias on all sides are a fact of life for the time being - Jaafari has already said he would encourage them to gradually meld in with the other security forces.

You are assuming that Jaafari is in control of these militia rather than having extremists within their ranks acting out of the command structure. As we all know, we cannot attribute the follies of individual soldiers to the command structure can we?

Originally Posted by arsenal

It is up to Jaafari to work with both internal and external forces to make his country safe, for everyone, not just the #####e's.

I think he is trying to, but the situation is constantly in flux....Is he over relying on the #####e militia? Probably, but what other vehicle does this new Iraq government have to enforce law and order? Sunnis, #####es and Kurds - they have a long complicated history that westerners simply cannot grasp....can it be overcome? Sure, but not through Western governments dictating how they should...

Originally Posted by arsenal

Same thing with Palestine. Both US and Canadian governments do not reconize the democratically elected Hamas group. Is that to say they do not support democracy? No, they are just saying that they will not support a group that they feel is detrimental to the peace process.

I haven't seen any credible evidence of al-Jaafari's government acting like a terrorist organization such as Hamas. As far a I know, Jaafari has never ordered a bombing, nor has taken credit for mass killings...or called for the destruction of Israel...

Additionally, the Jaafari qoute, for what its worth, is speaking about more than the US not supporting the democratically elected government. Rather, it talks of interference of the democratic process itself. That is a pretty strong statement...