U.S. 'in for a shock' (Shiite cleric trouncing Allawi in early results)

[wicket]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/04/MNGSMB5MDT1.DTL

Partial results from Sunday's election suggest that U.S.-backed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's coalition is being roundly defeated by a list with the backing of Iraq's senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, diminishing Allawi's chances of retaining his post in the next government.

Sharif Ali bin Hussein, head of the Constitutional Monarchy Party, likened the vote outcome to a "Sistani tsunami" that would shake the nation.

"Americans are in for a shock," he said, adding that one day they would realize, "We've got 150,000 troops here protecting a country that's extremely friendly to Iran, and training their troops."

The partial totals so far show the Iraqi List headed by Allawi, a secular Shiite and onetime CIA protege, trailed far behind with only 18 percent of the votes, despite an aggressive television ad campaign waged with U.S. aid. A lopsided majority of votes, 72 percent, went to the United Iraqi Alliance list, topped by a Shiite cleric who lived in Iran for many years and whose Sciri party has close ties to Iran's clerical regime. More than a third of the alliance's vote came from Baghdad, the cosmopolitan capital where Allawi had been expected to fare well.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. hee

How's THAT for democracy?

[cthrumatrix]

44. only 10% (aprox) of vote counted.... who knows what will happen

or so said the WSJ this morning

[Sparky McGruff]

136. The votes haven't been processed yet

They need to be run through the Diebold vote tallying machine. They'll come out the way they're supposed to.

[devinsgram]

208. I hope not.

These people will not go silently into the night. They will pick up guns and there will be more bloodshed then we could deem possible.

[leesa]

183. The Shiite leadership ordered their followers to vote...only reason for the

turn out. Bush is taking credit but it was the Shiite leadership

[muse]

222. You are exactly right

and this is why no one in the country should be surprised about a "sistani tsunami."

This doesn't surprise me at all.

[hector459]

148. If the Bush admin pulls the same shit they pulled in FL (2000) & OH 2005

they won't get the same kind of mild protests they had here in the US. You can count on it.

[LiberalFighter]

154. Every time we interfere we get bit in the ass... and never learn

Democracy will not work when there is serious divisiveness between groups.

The best example would be the strife that existed in Ireland between the Catholics and the Protestants.

[Fleshdancer]

2. Wha????

:wow:

This is going to get interesting.

[xchrom]

3. i could only laugh.

black humour -- for sure.
but still...

[Cocoa]

17. also some verbal humor

"Sistani tsunami" made me giggle.

[shaolinmonkey]

28. Is this guy related to Don King in any way?

Sounds like boxing promoter lingo to me.

[CottonBear]

35. LOL! n/t

[jdj]

74. Sistani tsunami! LOL, he's probably gleeful at actually being allowed

to report some real news.

Or am I too naive and the CIA behind this too?

This pisses me off... Daa-aad, why do they get ta have a fair election if I don't get ta have one??

[Zynx]

120. Because they have a lot of heavy weapons, son. *

*

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

212. really, why do they fake the elections here yet allow fair ones there?

I thought for sure they'd use their useful swap the votes techniques.
It doesn't piss me off that they get a real say-so about their govt. in Iraq---It pisses me off that WE don't get a real election here--the place that needs it the most.


Them majority people of this country do not want to take over the world, likely voted out this mor-an, yet thanks to Deibold, these tyrants have successfully overridden the
"will of the people".

It's more important here than anywhere else.
WE are the ones with the WEAPONS of WORLD DESTRUCTION.
NOW,(and the time is NOW), somehow, the aware portion of the population, absolutely need to take charge over our country's destiny before permanent damage is done via the draft and future invasions.

Condo Lizard (and her reptilian bad self) has literally confirmed that Iran is to be invaded soon.
When over half of the U.S. population feels the invading "pre-emptive" policy is immoral yet we have a chump hell bent on invasion, we have a civil war here at home right now.
Pre-emptive invasions and occupations are damaging to our reputation, and even more damaging to the innocent people caught in the middle who have nothing to do with any of this and just want to maintain their "RIGHTS" to live their lives on this earth.

More power to the New Iraq,
and hopefully Iran has nuclear deterants to prevent an invasion.
If they do have nukes, and Mor-an & Sons Inc.
don't know this, and they invade thinking it's gonna be a cakewalk like Iraq,
we could all soon unwillingly understand what the word "DISASTER" really means.

[RafterMan]

4. I hope it's not that much of a shock

since it's what everybody expected to happen.

[enough]

12. Yes, including Chomsky in this speech given a few days before the election

snip>

Well there's going to be a Shiite majority, so they'll have some significant influence over policy. The first thing they'll do is reestablish relations with Iran. Now they don't particularly like Iran, but they don't want to go to war with them so they'll move toward what was happening already even under Saddam, that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with Iran.

That's the last thing the United States wants. It has worked very hard to try to isolate Iran. The next thing that might happen is that a Shiite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happen to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare--a Shiite region which controls most of the world's oil and is independent. Furthermore, it is very likely that an independent, sovereign Iraq would try to take its natural place as a leading state in the Arab world, maybe the leading state. And you know that's something that goes back to biblical times.

What does that mean? Well it means rearming, first of all. They have to confront the regional enemy. Now the regional enemy, overpowering enemy, is Israel. They're going to have to rearm to confront Israel--which means probably developing weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. So here's the picture of what they must be dreaming about in Washington--and probably 10 Downing street in London--that here you might get a substantial Shiite majority rearming, developing weapons of mass destruction, to try to get rid of the U.S. outposts that are there to try to make sure that the U.S. controls most of the oil reserves of the world. Is Washington going to sit there and allow that? That's kind of next to inconceivable.

What I've just read from the business press the last couple of days probably reflects the thinking in Washington and London: "Uh, well, okay, we'll let them have a government, but we're not going to pay any attention to what they say." In fact the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we're keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow.

snip>

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky02022005.html

[Cocoa]

19. no wonder we never see Chomsky on TV

he makes too much sense. Much better to have an endless parade of neocons on, no matter how wrong they've been proven, to spout their preposterous ideas.

[icymist]

39. All that's needed is another 'reason' to keep a huge military

presence there.

[jdj]

81. It sounds like an eviljailankill formula for starting armageddon.

Which of course is exactly what th fucking lunatic fundies want. So if this is what Bush, who is at least pretending to be xtian want's, well, it' looks like he'll be a smashing success.

[starroute]

112. Iran would expect to be the dominant partner

I follow the archaeological news pretty closely, and there have been a lot of stories coming out of Iran which say things like this:

http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=153324

The Jiroft region was one of the first places where civilization and urbanization were established about 5000 years ago.

Many Iranian and foreign experts see the findings in Jiroft as signs of a civilization as great as Sumer. Iranian archaeologist Yusef Majidzadeh believes that Jiroft is the ancient city of Aratta, which was described as a great civilization in an ancient Sumerian clay inscription.

In other words, the Iranians are no longer willing to be considered the backwoods cousins of the Sumerians/Iraqis. They're insisting that their own country was a center of civilization as early, as glorious, and as significant as any other. And you'd better believe that this applies to the present as much as to 5000 years ago. Iran fully expects to be a regional power in the near future, and that is going to hold true regardless of whether or not the clerics continue running things.

[The Minus World]

116. Blue Thumbs Down

All of the above should be expected from a truly independent and free country. If we are to grant them true control of their destiny, living in a democratic state, we should be prepared for the people to rise up and do what they believe is right for themselves - including acts which defy, or even countermand, U.S. dictate.

After all, a free country, such as America, would be capable of developing WMDs and forming ideologically-driven alliances much like we have - unless there's a double-standard at work here, of course.

Nevermind "preserving freedom" within the ever-constricting confines of America, the complexity of what it truly means to "spread freedom" is lost on the brazen profiteers in this administration. They will only perceive bringing freedom to the Iraqis as an altruistic gesture if the Iraqis play ball with the U.S. government.

[LiberalFighter]

156. Under that situation... why should Iraq fear a war with the U.S.?

They will have Iran and many Muslim volunteers willing to fight the infidels. Will the American people accept the loss of our troops then?

[leesa]

186. What happens to our troops when the First Fool and his minions decide to

bomb Iran. They will descend upon these troops in Iraq like a tidal wave. Syria will probably help because they know they are next.

[killbotfactory]

37. I'm shocked we're counting the votes accurately

But I guess since we are their "protection" we figure we can bend anybody in power to our will.

[rayofreason]

103. majority

I personally am pleased that the elections will result in a Shiite-dominated government. They are the majority, after all. Unless the government of Iraq reflects that fact there can be no movement toward a just society.

[Worst Username Ever]

5. Jesus Christ. Bush can't do ANYTHING right.

He can't even do election fraud in Iraq correctly, and that is his specialty.

[Skeptic2]

131. ?

So if Allawi wins, Bush fixed the elections, but if Sistani wins, Bush TRIED to fix the elections and failed. Of course there's the theoretical possibility that Bush didn't interfere with the elections one way or the other, but that's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too simple, isn't it?

Oh, and:

All of a sudden, if Sistani wins, the elections take on an enormous significance since it's seen as a setback for Bush. But weren't you saying yesterday--literally--that the elections are a sham and the results wouldn't mean anything? If it's meaningless, how can it be a setback (or a triumph, for that matter) for Bush?

[Worst Username Ever]

139. Yep, that is exactly what I am saying.

As for your second paragraph,

"All of a sudden, if Sistani wins, the elections take on an enormous significance since it's seen as a setback for Bush. But weren't you saying yesterday--literally--that the elections are a sham and the results wouldn't mean anything? If it's meaningless, how can it be a setback (or a triumph, for that matter) for Bush?"

Prove it. I said no such thing.

[smoogatz]

174. Symbolism vs. substance

Bushco did their little victory dance about the apparent symbolism of these elections--all those blue-fingered Iraqis affirming their new-found freedom by voting for slates of candidates whose names were withheld for security reasons. It was all very heartwarming, and a considerable PR victory for Bushco. But--and this is true of every every major initiative Bush has undertaken--even though they won the PR war, the real outcome is likely to be a gigantic clusterfuck; entirely counter to our stated and unstated goals in Iraq and the Middle East. We were hoping for Chalabi; we settled for Allawi; we're going to end up with Sistani--Ayatollah Khomeini lite. Hooray for us. We win!

[davekriss]

190. Here's how a Shiite victory can be a victory for Bush....

What they are not telling you about the "election":

"On Dec. 22, 2004, Iraqi Finance Minister Abdel Mahdi told a handful of reporters and industry insiders at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. that Iraq wants to issue a new oil law that would open Iraq's national oil company to private foreign investment. As Mahdi explained: "So I think this is very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies."

In other words, Mahdi is proposing to privatize Iraq's oil and put it into American corporate hands.

<snip>

As Vice President Dick Cheney's Defense Policy Guidance report explained back in 1992, "Our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

<snip>

It turns out that Abdel Mahdi is running in the Jan. 30 elections on the ticket of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIR), the leading Shiite political party. While announcing the selling-off of the resource which provides 95 percent of all Iraqi revenue may not garner Mahdi many Iraqi votes, but it will unquestionably win him tremendous support from the U.S. government and U.S. corporations.

<snip>

I'll add that the list of political parties Mahdi's SCIR belongs to, The United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), includes the Iraqi National Council, which is led by an old friend of the Bush Administration who provided the faulty information they needed to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq, none other than Ahmed Chalabi.

<snip>

And The UIA has the blessing of Iranian born revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Sistani issued a fatwa which instructed his huge number of followers to vote in the election, or they would risk going to hell.

Thus, one might argue that the Bush administration has made a deal with the SCIR: Iraq's oil for guaranteed political power. The Americans are able to put forward such a bargain because Bush still holds the strings in Iraq.

Sounds like a traditional U.S. government "deal with the devil". Business as usual. USG foreign policy post WW2, as initiated by the likes of Nitze and Kennan:

The US has about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.

We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease talks about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights and raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”
---George Kennan, PPS 23, 1948

Same as it ever was... <sigh>

[Jack Rabbit]

203. Responding to the late Mr. Skeptic

I see he has been given the Tombstone Award, but some of his questions are worth answering.

Election fraud is not a toggle switch. In order for it to work, the election must be close. This one isn't.

I and many others have written that one should expect Sistani's party, the United Iraqi Alliance, to win any free and fair election in Iraq. That is not to be taken as an endorsement of their programs. I am opposed to Islamic republicanism as a fundamentally anti-democratic political system. That doesn't make it any worse than submission to colonialism, which is what the Iraqi List, headed by Iyad Allawi, represents.

We didn't really expect a free and fair election under the circumstances and we didn't get one. There were many problems and concerns about this election: it was held under a foreign occupation; a large segment of population felt, rightly or wrongly, that it was being disenfranchised by the process and boycotted the polls; a faction of nihilists disrupted the process; many candidates did not actively campaign and their names were not listed out of concern for their personal safety. To this I would add another: there was no truly democratic faction for which to vote; as noted, the factions which attracted the most attention were one of Islamic republicans and another of colonial puppets.

Nevertheless, the result was beyond fixing. It would appear that those who voted overwhelmingly rejected the occupation party. Bush and the neoconservatives in Washington wanted the Iraqi List to win and funded it. It has failed to get even 20% of the vote. The Iraqi people have done what the American people had an opportunity to do, had a historical duty to do and failed to do in November: they repudiated Bush and the neoconservatives. This cannot be ignored.

Meanwhile, the United Iraqi Alliance, widely perceived to oppose the presence of American troops in Iraq, gets about 70 percent. That can't be ignored, even if the conditions under which the vote was held were less than perfect.

I don't believe Bush and his neoconservative aids attempted to rig this election. It would have been too blatantly obvious. They did what they could for their favorites and watched helplessly as they went down in flames.

There is no doubt that under better conditions, the Sunnis, too, would have fielded a slate and it would have done well, cutting into the size of United Iraqi Alliance's victory. However, the Sunni slate would also have been opposed to occupation. In other words, had the Sunnis fielded a slate of candidates, the showing of the Bush-sponsored Iraqi List, feeble as it is, would have been further diminished.

The only question now is whether Mr. Bush and the neoconservatives will respect the results of this election. He has painted himself into a corner by singing its praises and now, it seems, he will have to live with its results. If he tries to weasel his way out of it, we can expect the Shiites to join the armed resistance. Mr. Bush's hypocrisy would be so naked that no one -- not even Tony Blair -- would lift a finger to help him.

It is my hope that the transitional government will ask foreign troops to leave, throw the multinational corporate war profiteers out of the country and invalidate the 100 decrees of American proconsul Paul Bremer, something the interim government of Dr. Allawi was prohibited from doing.

Again we will have an Iraq where Iraqi farmers will be able to save their seed.

[Skidmore]

6. Another gift from the

happy Iraqis to the NeoCons. Sometimes the book learnin' doesn't help much, nor does it compensate for a little common sense.

[Cocoa]

24. actually the neocons seem to like Sistani

I haven't figured the reason out yet, but from the beginning they were tooting Sistani's horn. David Brooks for example has lavished lots of praise on him.

[Mojorabbit]

60. I wondered about this too. n/t

[reprobate]

72. The neocons seemed to like Sistani because he seemed a voice of moderation

Remember when Sadr and his 'army' was raising so much hell? Sistani was a calming voice to all that mess.

Now the neocons are learning that just because someone opposes your enemy, that does not make him your friend.

These people in Washington have such a simple minded attitude toward the world. Perhaps a reading of Machiavelli would prepare them for the real world. But then REALITY will be their wake up call.

When they face unified Iran-Iraq intent on driving us out of the region, perhaps that will alert them to the real world.

[RafterMan]

75. How did a unified Iran-Iraq

suddenly get pulled into all of this? That's pretty remote.

[reprobate]

158. Just look at the lead article.

"A lopsided majority of votes, 72 percent, went to the United Iraqi Alliance list, topped by a Shiite cleric who lived in Iran for many years and whose Sciri party has close ties to Iran's clerical regime."

Which is not to say that Iran and Iraq will be a political unity, but that both have common interest in seeing that US troops leave the area.

Additionally, Seymour Hersch said that the neocon purpose of letting Israel attack Iran is to turn Iranian popular opinion in Iran against the Mullahs so they will overturn their government. No one with even one neuron in their head thinks that will happen.

Far more likely what will happen is that the popular opinion will turn angry against the US and the Mullahs will be able to foment it into an attack on our forces. And remember that the Iranian border is only a few hours drive from Baghdad, and they have a huge army. Combine that with the ever present Iraqi anger at the US occupation of Iraq and you have a whole bunch of whup-ass ready to unleash on our troops.

George W. Bush. Failure has gone to his head. He has delusions of adequacy.

[MADem]

204. It's a shi'ia thing, where you live doesn't matter so much as

...what you say you are. And near as I can tell, it's Islam first, shi'ia sectarian identity right beside that, and national identity pulling up a distant third. You deal with your neighborhood, regardless of where you were spit out in infancy, or where you spent your time.

Karbala and Najaf are as holy as Mecca and Medina to the shi'ia. The tomb of Imam Ali, and whatnot. Khomeini lived for many years in Iraq, after he got the boot from Iran -- he made most of his tapes that were blared from the rooftops by the Pasaradan right before the revolution (audio back then, but shades of Osama nonetheless) in Iraq. He lived quite comfortably there until Saddam finally told him to take a hike, and off he went to Paris. We all know what happened after that.

Here's another odd factoid. When Iranians go to visit the holy places in Karbala and Najaf, even the poorest Persian pilgrim is WEALTHY by Iraqi standards, due to the exchange rate and the fact that the Iraqi economy is such a mess. Hotels used to be cheap there, now they cost a fortune. Vendors hawk shit all over, where before there wasn't a commercial profit motive. As a consequence, these cities, which used to be rather pure, simple, and nice, in a religious sort of way, have become centers of commerce and avarice. It's changing the character of the sites, and not in a nice way.

My sense is that we do not have enough people currently in government who truly understand the complexity of the relationship between Iraq and Iran, between the Arabs and Persians, between the shi'ia on both sides of the border. On the one hand, there are tons of dead and loads of heartbreak on both sides, a legacy of the what for the longest time seemed like a never-ending Iran-Iraq war. On the other hand, there's religious solidarity, a sense of unification through persecution, and shared experiences. There's a range of emotions there, and our government doesn't really have a handle on them. They need to get a clue that these people are not motivated in the same ways that we might be.

[reprobate]

207. Thanks for the insight. You put a human face on it.

[ultraist]

194. Iran is PISSED at the US, especially after condisleazy's speech!

It wont take much for Iran and Iraq to team up against us. Condi said, we are not threatening to invade Iran, "AT THIS TIME."

NOT TO MENTION, that tens of thousands of Iraqis are demanding a date for a US pullout.

WE ARE SO SCREWED!

[midnight armadillo]

102. It's racism...

These people in Washington have such a simple minded attitude toward the
world. Perhaps a reading of Machiavelli would prepare them for the real
world. But then REALITY will be their wake up call.


I think it's likely that this simple view of the Iraqis is fueled by racism - they just cannot seem to fathom that there is any complexity or depth to Iraqi and Arab culture. Racism rears its ugly head again.

[okieinpain]

104. personally, I think someone driving us out of the region would be

good thing. I know it would cause havoc with the economies, but maybe we would start thinking about finding new sources of energy.

[not systems]

7. Sciri == Supreme council for Islamic revolution in Iraq

Watch Bush suppress the "democracy" he claims as his
greatest achievement.

[EST]

8. First frickin' hawhaw I've had on DU in a long time.

Maybe I should be concerned, and I know how serious this all is, but my "glee" button really got pushed. Snort

[BadGimp]

9. Say hello to Iran II

We have created what will now become the new gravest threat to ourselves and Isreal.

A Islamic Theocracy in control of Iraq.

Way to go George..

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

16. Maybe they'll merge and call itself Iranq? (nt)

[KansDem]

98. Yeah! And its citizens would be known as "Iranqers" (eom)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

119. *guffaw*

[Az_lefty]

10. The fool on the hill is actually shocked by this?

ROTFLMAO

[realFedUp]

11. Wonder what the votes totals outside Iraq are?

Maybe they won't fiddle with the votes
inside the country...but howabout outside
the country where no one is really watching.

[RafterMan]

22. According to the NYT article on the front page

Sistani's group is also doing well among overseas Iraqis.

"The trend toward an alliance victory was reflected even in the overseas voting by Iraqis in 14 countries, including the United States and several European and Middle Eastern countries. Dr. Allawi, who himself lived for more than 20 years in exile during the rule of Saddam Hussein, had been expected to score strongly in voting by Iraqi expatriates."

[realFedUp]

26. thanks!

that is a surprise...wonder if the Bushies
do want Sistani as head as some Rovian move
to invade Iran?

[Don1]

180. Absentee Ballots

Yes, but you forgot about the Iraqi ex-patriate absentee ballots of which 687% will be for Allawi.

[aneerkoinos]

134. Outside Iraq

Guess which country has most Iraqi expatriates and where expatriates voted most actively?

Correctomundo... IRAN! :D

[Lorien]

13. What?

no Diebold machines in Iraq?

[Oreo]

14. Republican scum.... take your purple finger

and shove it

[Sir Jeffrey]

54. First thing I thought when I saw the pictures from the SOTU...

Why were they fingering Grimace?

[mulethree]

188. all those republican congressmen presumably voted for Allawi?

I found it rather nauseating.

Apparently the process for Iraqi's voting absentee from America
allows American congressmen to register and vote in the Iraqi
election and get their finger marked?

Or were they just pretending and didn't actually vote? Just
wanted to mock the Iraqi's who were proud of their participation
by co-opting the symbol of brave people onto their cowardly, privileged, uncalloused fingers?

But I wonder if the Shia did themselves harm by voting so heavily for al-Sistani? He may get 40% of the vote and get ? 3 out of 275 seats on the constitutional convention? Would they have done better by spreading their votes to several parties?

[Jacobin]

15. Who could POSSIBLY have predicted this???

:eyes:

Iraqis selecting a theocracy?

We must all forgive Condi. She could not have predicted this, so stop saying that.

[rocktivity]

38. Could Saddam's enforced secularism be the one thing he did right?

Of course President Mightymouse thought Iran could end up a theocracy. But that's fine with him--he wants the U.S. end up with a theocracy, too!

:headbang:
rocknation

[RafterMan]

43. Absolutely

not!

Speaking as an atheist, enforced secularism is the absolute best way to spread religious extremism -- communist Afghanistan, the Shah's Iran, Saddam's Iraq -- more. Their fear of political oppositiion just pushes politics into the mosque and their failure in governing just pushes people to have greater faith in religion.

On the other hand, religious establishment, from the CoE to the Iranian mullahs, has the opposite effect -- religion becomes mired down in the realities of government and saddles itself with all the mundanities of the world, causing people to lose faith, or at least ardor.

But in any event, it remains to be seen whether this group will shoot for something that qualifies as a theocracy. I personally doubt it.

[shrike]

89. I'm a practicing Catholic and I agree with you completely

Francis of Assissi instructed his followers not to meddle in the affairs of this world.

Religion plus government does not work. End of story.

[Donailin]

166. St. Francis

My favorite Saint, next to Jude <g>

To wit: "Preach the Gospel daily, use words when necessary"

[shrike]

93. Oops, misunderstood your post

Sounds like you think a theocracy might cause them to burn out on religion, unless I'd misunderstanding you once again.

Seems like a dangerous gamble to take, though. Europe has become a secular society with secular governments, but at a terrible, bloody price. I don't wish that on any society.

[RafterMan]

101. I don't see the conflict between your two responses

If a large chunk of Iraqis really do want a theocracy, are you saying that Saddam was right to tyrannize them to keep them from getting it? Isn't that (or the Shah, or the Algerian civil war, or...) a terrible, bloody price? If that's not your argument, how is allowing them to follow their own path a "dangerous gamble"?

The argument "the Muslim Brotherhood will take over!" has been used by every corrupt Arab strongman from Baghdad to Morocco as an excuse to escape popular sovereignty for decades -- for what? Now the idea of theocracy is more popular than ever, and the whole Arab world has a smaller GDP than Spain.

Thus -- for the reasons in this post and the last -- I am tired of the theocratic bogeyman. I think it would be a mistake for the Iraqis to choose theocracy, but it would be a bigger mistake to not let them choose one if they wanted it.

And again, I'm not convinced that they do want one.

[shrike]

122. I posted twice because I misread your post

Your response was a bit more complicated than I initially thought. I thought you were simply coming out against religion in government.

As to the rest of it -- very difficult question. I think the Iraqis would be better off without a theocracy, but if they want one, well, they're entitled to what they want.

My point about the dangerous gamble is Europe's bloody history. We've seen what harm religion and government can do. Europe ended up with a secular society, but only after a lot of blood was spilled over religion differences.

I would hate to see bloodshed in Iraq derailed by religious conflict, but on the other hand, how on earth can we stop a theocracy from happening if this is indeed what they want? We would be no better than Saddam, at least in that respect, if we prevented them from achieving the government they desire.

Again, very difficult question. Very complicated part of the world, with a tragic and remarkable history. My gut instinct tells me we should simply let them alone.

[rayofreason]

106. Agree

I agree 100%.

Look at western Europe with its state-sanctioned religion. Nobody goes to church. Poland, on the other hand, became even more Catholic in proportion to Communist attempts to suppress the Catholic church.

From what I read, the Mullahs of Iran have screwed things up so bad that almost no one there is in favor of a theocratic government.

[shrike]

123. European governments are secular, though

Also, Europe went through hundreds of years of very bloody religious conflicts. No wonder they're sour on religion.

[aneerkoinos]

135. Hey

Many European mainstream RW parties go by the name "Christian Demokrats"! And no hard separation between state and church in many countries.

It's not the governements but the European culture that is (mostly) secular.

[shrike]

159. Europe is as secular as they come

Governments and society.

[rayofreason]

202. secular

A strange secular though, with many countries taxing people specifically to support churches (and now mosques).

Cuiusr egio eius religio is still the rule.

[shrike]

211. To compare Euro society to muslim theocracies would be a bit

disingenuous to say the least. Besides, would not many of Europe's churches be considered tourist attractions rather than places of worship?

[IA_Seth]

88. LOL

There was probably a memo titled "Iraqis likely to vote for Islamic Theocracy" too...but you are right, we can't expect her to predict this.

[elsur]

18. That was pretty widely expected ...

The concern has always been how they are going to play with the Sunnis.

One thing I like about their proposed Constituional drafting agreement is that all provinces have to agree upon inclusions into the Constitution. That should prevent anything too crazy from making it into print unless all parties agree upon it.

Then again, with the Shiite, Sunni and Kurd fractions, it might just equal gridlock.

[Magleetis]

20. Again

We told ya so!! The prospects for a war with Iran are growing exponentially.

[Inland]

21. Looks like it is time to invade Iraq again.

[callous taoboy]

23. bush = King Midas in reverse. n/t

[geomon666]

25. The Constitutional Monarchy Party? What the hell is that?

Are they for a constitution or a monarchy or a constitution calling for a monarchy? :shrug:

[daleo]

113. Lots of countries are constitutional monarchies

Britain is one, Canada another. It just means that some monarch (like Queen Elizabeth II) is the formal head of state while the government is elected, usually headed by a prime minister. The prime minister has the real power. I presume this party in Iraq is arguing for something along those lines.

The U.S. is fairly unique in having the head of state and the head of government both vested in one office, the presidency.

[aneerkoinos]

137. Err...

And yet, the constitutional monarchy of Great Britain does not even have a constitution! ;)

Nethelands, Spain, Sweden etc. would be better examples. As curious tidbit, Prime Minister of Romanian (or Bulgarian?) Republic happens to be the rightfull heir to the throne of Romania, should it decide to become monarchy! :D

[daleo]

143. Well Britain has a constitution, it's just not written down.

Or so said my Poli Sci prof years ago - "a constitution is the body of law and custom, written or unwritten, that governs a country". Something like that.

Mostly I used Britain because almost everyone knows about Queen Elizabeth and the fact that Britain has a Prime Minister. But some of those other countries are less convoluted, I imagine.

[SnowGoose]

27. Possible Iraq futures and "liberty"

I also heard on NPR last week that the Kurds had an extra box on "election day" for a referendum on independence.

Bush wouldn't shut up about Iraqis taking their country back. Well, what if most Kurds want to secede from the country?

So here's one scenario:
1. Kurds somehow manage to wrestle independence from a very weak Iraq government - they *will* be opposed by Turkey (our putative ally), the US government will not support the Kurds.

2. Iraq's shia form a close alliance with Iran, with whom we are not on good terms at the moment.

So then who do we have left as allies? The sunni? This is what happens when you arrogantly insert yourself into a situation you do not understand.

Prov 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Choke on it George.

[RafterMan]

33. So you oppose self-determination

on the grounds that it leaves us without enough regional allies?

[SnowGoose]

69. Aw, hells no.

We're clearly not communicating on the same wavelength. In general, I doubt that someone who's forced into a national entity they don't support will be a reliable ally to those who forced that upon them.

My point is exactly opposite of how it must have sounded to you - I think the Kurds should get their own country. I'd like to see Turkey, Iran, and Syria say "Ok, we want justice and peace, what's it going to cost us?" (in terms of land)." If the Kurds could have a little land from each of the countries, plus their portion of Iraq, they could have a viable, albeit small, country. With oil, IIRC.

Not that this would actually *happen*, but overall, I think the world would be better off. Should a country want to keep a chunk of land, if most people who live on that land would rather belong to another country? If a nation-state is really there to benefit the actual human beings who live there, shouldn't those human beings get to choose their destiny?

Same thing goes for the Shia. They want to join Iran? Who the hell are we to say no?

My post was an attempt to point out the unintended consequences which can be reasonably expected when one goes toppling other societies.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

29. Is this guy someone who is not on the neocon payroll?

[Jazzgirl]

51. Noam Chomsky is NOT and never has been on any neocon

payroll. He is a pariah to them. Read about him here.

http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/biography/noambio.html

[RafterMan]

59. Uh

How did you get Chomsky from the post to which you responded?

[Richardo]

30. "Sistani tsunami": catchy, yet tasteless

:eyes:

[Strelnikov_]

70. They Are Picking Up Electoral Strategy And Marketing Pretty Fast

[Straight Shooter]

31. I'm trying very very hard to suppress a fit of laughter over here.

Bwahahahahaha!!

I know this is going to come around and bite us all in the butt, but nevertheless, I shall be repeating the Islamic Revolution talking point to all the bushies from here on out. "Bush got the Islamic Revolution in power in Iraq ..."

Constitutional monarchy sounds like rulers beholden to a limited constitution. :shrug:

[killbotfactory]

32. We didn't rig the vote?

F'n amateurs.

I can't believe it.

[rustydad]

73. Of course not

The military wants to get the *uck out of there pronto. Only the civilian bosses want to stay. If the Shite win they will try and bind the countries wounds and ask the US to leave. We will. Bob

[kimchi]

118. No, but it looks like we paid for ads for Allawi.

Why aren't people up in arms about that? How is that not an attempt to influence the vote? You are right: they should have rigged it behind the scenes instead of paying for it up front. Sad thing is, no matter how much they screw up the media pretends not to notice.

[Massachusetts]

34. What a great use of OUR TROOPS (enraged sarcasm)

"Americans are in for a shock," he said, adding that one day they would realize, "We've got 150,000 troops here protecting a country that's extremely friendly to Iran, and training their troops."

See you in Hell georgie boy! (I'll just be there for a while to make sure you get settled in nicely).
:evilgrin: O8) O8) :evilfrown:

[LynnTheDem]

36. Awwwww...bad news for "Saddam minus the mustache" and bush.

:)

"Americans are in for a shock," he said, adding that one day they would realize, "We've got 150,000 troops here protecting a country that's extremely friendly to Iran, and training their troops."

ROTFLMAO!!!

Of course, half of America and the overwhelming majority of the rest of the entire world warned BEFORE bush's war of aggression that this would be EXACTLY the result. bush; always wrong. ALWAYS.

[DS1]

40. I had a good laugh at Fox News last night, the reporter said

that Allawi was leading so far, but there wasn't enough votes to start predicting anything

I'm sure the irony of that statement was missed

[Charles19]

58. Election wasn't for Prime Minsiter, for the upteenth time.

See my other post on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1205924&mesg_id=1209472

[DS1]

67. Where did I say it was? For the first time

:eyes:

[Charles19]

91. Sorry it looked that way, was agreeing with you

on how Fox has it wrong.

[Occulus]

41. 'Kay. And HOW many of us said this could happen?

Og, Great. Just GREAT. Now we'll have another problem.

What if the new Iraqi President exhorts his people to try to oust the USA? What then?? Bomb them- as the enemy, this time?

Good Christ on a sidecar. This isn't good.

[doubleplusgood]

42. "Shia-dom is on the March"

We'd better hurry up, then, and train the new Iraqi army so they can stage a military coup...to save democracy, of course.

[tx_dem41]

45. B-b-b--but, I thought all you voting experts thought the fix was in?!?

:eyes:

[RafterMan]

48. Didn't that get old?

[tx_dem41]

53. Very old. n/t

[bvar22]

80. Voter verified Paper Ballots.

We should DEMAND VVPB for our next elections (2006).

[shrike]

49. So it was a free election, after all n/t

[July]

63. It was a mess. But now that Bush has told us it was freedom

in full flower, he may have to eat the result of whatever did take place there.

[shrike]

90. I was being a bit sarcastic

Though you have to admit, if they didn't choose 'our' candidate they must have been a little freer than we thought they'd be.

[PunkPop]

64. If you're implying that this result somehow makes the

election legitimate I would disagree.

It was held under a military occupation and was (rightfully in my opinion) boycotted by a significant proportion of the population. The results may represent the will of those WHO PARTICIPATED, but it certainly can't be considered a "free and fair" election.

It does appear that the U.S. puppet is not going to "win" which is a little surprising considering the corrupt nature of everything this administration touches. But that doesn't it make it legitimate.

[tx_dem41]

76. Well, since I wasn't implying that, I guess you're wrong.

How did you infer that?

As for being a "little" surprising...haven't you been reading the Arab press and ME experts for the last 3-4 months? This isn't surprising at all!

[PunkPop]

92. I inferred that from the sarcastic tone you were directing

at those who might have questioned the legitimacy of this election.

What I was saying is it's surprising that BushCo. couldn't figure out a way to install their man despite the will of those who voted. I realize Allawi is not looked upon favorably by most Iraqis. Yes, in the event of a non-rigged election, it is not surprising at all.

[driver8]

85. In the eyes of the Bushies it was fair...

after all, we all know how they run elections!

[DrWeird]

68. Counting ain't over yet.

nt

[tx_dem41]

77. True....

I acknowledge I'm walking out on a limb, Doc. I just think its a strong one.

[PsychoDad]

121. when there is a landslide majority

There's only so much fixing you can do without it being notced by an aware public.

[tx_dem41]

124. And the voting "experts" on the forum...

should have done some homework and recognized that this wasn't going to be close.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

140. Give it another week....only 10% of the vote has been counted.

[VegasWolf]

187. I freely admit that I thought that bush would somehow rig the

elections. After all, way to much money has been
spent over there to simply leave all that oil to the
Iraqis. Woulda been prudent to rig it. Once again
I am stymied by the sheer stupidity of bush and company.
I am now forced to revaluate whether I think the 2004
election here was rigged at all. It may be entirely possible
that there really are that many stupid people in the US.

[daleo]

193. I assumed the elections would be rigged too.

But there is still time for some kind of chicanery. I guess we will see in a week or two. Maybe Bush has cut a deal with these guys already.

If I was wrong, well I will eat a shoe shaped chocolate cake, like the bow tie guy did.

[tx_dem41]

206. I think you're onto something, Vegas.. n/t

[yebrent]

46. Anyone know Sistani's stance on the US occupation?

I know he pushed very hard for the election. Anyone know his reasoning? Is he expected to ask the US to leave sooner rather than later?

[RafterMan]

50. Only that they leave

eventually. "As soon as possible" is the phrase, I believe.

He's a solid, pragmatic politician -- I expect his party will find the US a useful foil as they get their act together and try to start governing.

[meganmonkey]

55. Welcome to DU, yebrent!

I like seeing Trey in your sig line :)

:toast:

[yebrent]

61. thanks!

They are my favorite politician, author, and musician.

[cliss]

129. There are some articles on Counter Punch which

go into detail about this. Here's the story the way I understood it:

(and this is a Byzantine plot worthy of a Mozart Opera, at least Wagner)

Mullah Al-Sistani was OK with the American occupation. He most probably saw this as his opportunity to finally be free of the Sunni muslim dominance. The Shi'as by far outnumber the Sunni muslims.

When the insurgency became out of control in 2003, the US realized that it could not rule Iraq directly. Imagine that. "King" L. Paul Bremer, crowned in the middle of Baghdad square.

Fortunately, that little scheme went down the toilet.

So at this point the Americans were stuck. They knew that they were completely dependent on Al-Sistani's approval or disapproval. Al Sistani pushed for national elections. The US balked, but they had no choice. WE DIDN'T WANT ELECTIONS, regardless of what that Court Jester Bush says.

But we had no choice. Hence the outcome. Al-Sistani is no fool. He's a shrewd man. He's going to go along with the status quo......for now. At some point in the future, though, he will oust his blood-sucking parasites. He'll double cross the US, just like they would to him. If they wanted to, they could cause a huge uprising and we would be forced to leave. Make no mistake, Iraq listens to this man.

But for now, Sistani is using the situation to his advantage.

Check Mate for Bush .....coming up.

[no safe haven]

138. "Al-Sistani is no fool"

And his memory hasn't failed him, either. There are scores to be settled, I'm sure, for how Poppy screwed over the Shias the last time. Not only is Al-Sistani shrewd (ref. his handling of Sadr) but he's a patient man. He will be watching all the pieces fall into place waiting for the end game to come into play, and then make his move.

[aneerkoinos]

142. He's the Good Cop

Sadr and Sunni militanst played the role of Bad Cop.

AFAIK Sistani has allways strictly refused to meet any US officials. He has truly played a masterfull game, with patience that US cannot understand.

Also, let's not forget, SCIRI has an army, the Badr corps, tens of thousands of Iranian trained fighters. And Sadr's Mahdi Army will join the ranks if needed (ordered by Sistani). And if needed, they can turn to Iran for military assistance. They really don't need US army for protection and training...

[Stuckinthebush]

47. I have this image in my head

All of the goofy, grinning GOP congressmen with their purple fingers in the air slowly start to frown as their indigoed digits make a hasty retreat from the air.

Somewhere there is the sound of a record being scratched to a halt.

[ynksnewyork2]

52. This is what was

expected to happen. Not a surprise.

[Canuckistanian]

56. "despite an aggressive television ad campaign waged with U.S. aid"

What was the US doing helping a political campaign? What definition of freedom is this?
Good for the Iraqis on rejecting this.

[Lisa]

107. from what I've heard, the commercials were typical over-the-top GOP ...

Blatantly staged scenes of people dancing in the streets, etc. (like an outtake from a cola ad) -- heavy-handed and condescending. They probably thought they'd sweep the "newbie voters" off their feet.

[complain jane]

192. Television? I thought they only had 2 hrs electricity a day still.

And it's filled with GOP ads? Christ.

I'm sure the ads were as condescending and presumptuous as "shock and awe".

Don't these imbeciles have the slightest friggen clue that they're imbeciles?

[Rockholm]

57. What abouth the exit polls?

[EST]

62. So, let me get this straight.

We invade a helpless nation on the basis that they have and are ready to use weapons of mass destruction, particularly a-bombs. We kill damn near a quarter of a million people to "free" them and make sure they remain WMDless. They form a government with a specific directive to get rid of us and make us stay gone-including accumulating atomic weapons to back it up. Now after all this killing, torture and other assorted horrors we end up with another -really pissed-enemy that really does have wmd and is just looking for a good excuse to use them on us as well as being well schooled on terrorism by now. EEEAAAGHHH!

Stoopid Stoopid fuckers! Hope we invent a time machine and go back to insist that bi*** Barbara get an abortion in 1946. The sky-she am really fallin'.

[despairing optimist]

172. Remember the Rapture. The Rapture.

These guys want to fly the whole world into a skyscraper so they can get to Paradise.

You're making too much sense. They create their own reality. The more they mess up things, the closer they get to ending it all.

[htuttle]

65. (cue trombone)

Wah-Waaaaah....

[DrWeird]

66. I'm betting the Ayatollahs will be appointing Al Sadr.

Boy will there be a dust up when that happens.

[RafterMan]

71. Al Sadr was on the United Alliance's slate of candiates

right there with Chalabi.

I don't think any dust up is in the works. Al Sadr bit off a little more than he could chew, and the shiite establishment seems to have brought him back into the fold.

[alcuno]

221. Al Sadr was not on the UA's list. He said he opposed a vote under

occupation.

[IA_Seth]

78. This is only part 1

Part 2 will be Allawi being declared "weiner" after "all of the votes are counted."

Part 3 will be a civil war in Iraq, with Iran supporting the Shiites against the US-backed puppets, headed by Allawi.

We will all live in interesting times.

[Strelnikov_]

79. "Allawi Garnered Just 5 Percent . . Less Than The Communist Party "

"The election commission also released final vote tallies from overseas voters in eight countries, the United States, Britain, France, Iran, Syria, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Australia. The alliance won of 44 percent of the 170,000 votes cast in those countries, the Kurds 18 percent and Allawi's list 12 percent. In U.S. voting, Allawi garnered just 5 percent of the vote, less than the Communist Party total."

[underpants]

99. I've read many times that the Socialist/Communist party will do well

W invades a country and Communism is established. BRILLIANT!!!!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

111. I thought the Communists sold out to the occupators?

Or am I misinformed?

[sarcasmo]

82. This is funny, Ali al- Sistani is backed by the hard line Iranians.

[Magleetis]

83. Then there is this

Al-Sadr demands date for US Iraqi pullout

Iraqi Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his community's senior religious leaders to insist on a timeline for a US troop withdrawal.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D693FE03-4608-4C4E-929F-43399EB31BF1.htm

[Old Mouse]

84. Let the assassinations begin!

[bvar22]

86. But I already updated my map of the Middle East.

[Magleetis]

87. Thats good

LOL

[VegasWolf]

184. Shouldn't that be Bushastan. n/t

[maxrandb]

94. Anyone Want to Guess How Long

until we see Condi trudging up to the UN with charts and satelite pictures and little medicine bottles? Then she'll, warn us that the "United Iraqi Alliance government" has "weapons of mass destruction, torture and rape rooms, mass graves, mobile chemical weapons labs, etc"

How exactly do you go about re-invading a country?

Now that the "exit polls" have been broadcast, how do they justify the "Rocky Balboa" come from behind victory of Alawi without causing the whole damn Middle East to explode.

How long until * tells us that we need "regime change" in Iraq to "free" the Iraqi people.

Oh, and how wonderful this is going to be for the woman of Iraq.

FUCK RED AMERICA!!! Get your happy asses over there! The Marines missed their quota last month? How the hell can that be? There should be lines around the block with you "patriots" just itching to kill someone, because hey, it's fucking fun!

YOU LAZY BUNCH OF ASS PICKLES

[KansDem]

109. This sounds like a Monty Python skit...

"We must now re-invade free Iraq to really, really make it free in a new, freer Iraq..."

"We must do this to change the recent regime change. We must engage in regime-change change!"

"WE DEMAND A REGIME-CHANGE CHANGE FOR A FREER FREE IRAQ!!"

I wonder if he'll use the ol' WMDs argument again...:shrug:

[maxrandb]

196. Hey, as long as 51% of Amurika keeps giving him Mulligans

[JerseygirlCT]

95. Although it's enjoyable to watch Bush's plans fall apart

I'm very nervous about another hard-line theocracy in the region.

Just because it's bad for Bush doesn't mean it will be good for us, you know?

[Itchinjim]

96. I'm sorry, I know it's been said countless times here but,

what a bunch of complete DUMB FUCKS these Bushies are!
Good God Almighty.

[cloud75]

97. the iraqis are saying something.

Iraqis are going to reject anyone who is backed by the us...those commercials did more harm than good...we are in for a big surprise once iraq is back on it's feet (several years) it's going to take Hillary or Obama to fix shrub's big mistake.

[bluedog]

127. funny huh

the American people voted for a puppet and the Iraqi people voted against a American run puppet government!

[okieinpain]

100. why is this shocking, they are 60 percent of the population, you

throw religion fundie on the pile, then you add that a lot of the others protested the vote, you get lop-sided victory. why the fuck is this surprising to anyone.

what's is bush expecting, that allawi, is going to get a bunch of mysterious votes at the end.

:~)

[bluestateguy]

105. A vote for Allawi would be a vote for the occupation

So this vote should be interpreted as a mandate against the US occupation. It's time for the US to leave Iraq, NOW, lock, stock and barrel.

[not fooled]

108. Iraqi voters MUCH smarter than red-state 'Murkans

So, the Iraqis weren't conned by *co propaganda/ads pushing the US-backed puppets.

= Iraqi citizens could give civics lessons to red-state 'Murkans: * IS A LIAR



regarding the inevitable ouster of the US and rise of some sort of theocratic Ira- q/n:

it's BLOWBACK time, BABY!!! courtesy of our ignorant, dumb-as-a-box-o'-rocks chimperor and his minions:eyes: :crazy: :eyes:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

110. But what a SHIT position for them to be in.

On the one hand, you have corrupt collaborators of a bloody foreign ocuppation.

On the other hand, you have religious fundamentalists.

Tell me how this is better than Saddam (minus sanctions)?

[napi21]

128. I've believed all along that Iraq wanted a theocracy.

And if that's what they want, that's fine! They should have the kind of state they want!

I find it rather amusing that the arrogant neocons thought they were so good at propaganda, that their guy couldn't loose! HA!

I hope it works out to be the kind of state that the Iraqi people want, and it kicks Shrubco hard in the back of the knees!!!

[MADem]

205. If it's good enough for 'Murica, it's good enough for them! n/t

[daleo]

114. It is hard to believe Bush will accept this.

Unless he has already cut a behind the scenes deal with this group. It is hard to believe BFEE would miscalculate this badly, but you never know. It could get interesting.

If Bush gets an Iraqi government that is more against the U.S. than Saddam was, well, it's a shame about all the dead Americans and Iraqis. I suppose Bushco would just try again somewhere else.

[htuttle]

117. "hard to believe BFEE would miscalculate this badly..."

Bwhahahahahahahaha!

Seriously?

These are the same people who expected candy and flowers after dropping huge bombs!

Look, if it don't involve stirring up NASCAR fans or gay marriage or some wedging some domestic demographic slant, they're totally incompetent. And if they didn't control the US mainstream media, none of that stuff would have worked either.

Not a single one of their foreign policy adventures has turned out the way they ORIGINALLY thought it would. Not one that I can think of.

[daleo]

125. You're right - bad phrasing

I meant more about the optics than the reality. This looks bad, and even media spinners will have a tough time calling it a victory. I think so anyway, but the WMD thing proves the public has a pretty large capacity for being gulled.

[BronxBoy]

153. Actually

Not a single fucking thing they have done AT ALL has worked out the way they had originally planned.

[reprobate]

209. Absolutely right. They are masters of PR and not much else.

Also right that without the american State Media they would have failed here too.

But this is what happens when ideologs are in charge. They, like religious fanatics, think that their way is the only way and if only everyone would think as they do it'll be ok.

[One_Life_To_Give]

115. Thought Iran and Sistani didn't get along n/t

[aneerkoinos]

144. Sistani is Iranian n/t

[One_Life_To_Give]

146. But at Odd's with the

Shiites ruling Iran. IIRC

[aneerkoinos]

150. Let's say

Politics and intrigues between Shia clerical factions and are extremely byzantine... it seems that even Juan Cole has hard time keeping the track. :)

[Darranar]

126. Nonsense. This was expected. It won't make much of a difference. n/t

[Disturbed]

132. Maybe there will be another outcome.

Al Sistani invites Kurds and Sunnis to power share and all three groups demand an immediate U.S. Withdrawl, incl. the 14 bases and all U.S. Multi-Corps. A secular Govt. based on the British model is formed and Iraq regains control of it's oil yet is willing to sell to the U.S. at reasonable price.

[Darranar]

169. Won't happen. The US controls Iraq. The US won't give it up. n/t

[donheld]

130. Maybe some day the USA will learn

It cannot push every country on earth around.

[merh]

133. They will steal the election for their guy, just like they did here!

Only trouble is, the Iraqi's won't complacently accept the theft. They know who they voted for and it wasn't the weed's hand picked flunky.

[Sabriel]

141. Excuse me while I engage in some serious Schadenfreude

Ahhhh, that was nice....

[zara]

145. It's a Democracy Stupid Did Halliburton Flub Diebold Delivery?

Well, we got a democracy at last! A shiite democracy. Put the 20 Million in Iraq together with the 70 million in Iran. That's a pretty large population. Any bets on when the US is asked to leave?

[kk897]

147. the shock may be mock

It seems you're all assuming that the theocons don't *want* a Middle East in complete turmoil. Perhaps this is all going to plan and it only looks like incompetence. I read before the American military invaded Iraq that a Shiite-ruled government would be a likely outcome, and I'm just some chick who reads stuff on the internet, not a government with huge numbers of analysts at its disposal. C'mon, it wouldn't be a surprise at all to those who really wield power in the country.

Which is scarier? Perpetual war through incompetence, or perpetual war through planning? Which is more likely to eventually cause full-scale nuclear war that will destroy the world? And are we quite sure that isn't what the theocons want? Maybe either way it works out for them.

I don't know if people can really be that evil, or that Eeee-vile, but I wouldn't put it past 'em.

[tsuki]

149. If this is true, I wonder how long Bush will bring "democracy" to Iraq?

[aneerkoinos]

151. A prediction

The Shia party will form the governement alone, given they got absolute majority, if not, with Kurdi parties. They will ask occupation troops to leave inside a year, before the next election is due.

To further sooth Sunnis and Sadr and to pacify country, they will agree to postpone writing the final form of constitution until there has been free elections without occupation, when all elements can freely participate.

The corporate sell-out canseled, Allawi takes asylum in Florida, US embassy designated a clay hut on the Haifa Street. Negroponte blown to pieces. Iraq, Iran, Libya and Venezuela, together with Russia, switch to euro. Rest of OPEC follows.

Washington rebels, Bush and Cheney dethroned, Bush put in mental asylum, Cheney dies "naturally". None the less, US goes down the shitter because of historical forces. After few years of turmoil and hardship, a New Nation is born, taking after the Cuban model.

How's that? :)

[Wright Patman]

155. The U.S. will go all-out nuclear

before the Euro switch occurs. If the dollar cannot be the world's reserve currency, there just ain't gonna be a world anymore. Any questions?

[RafterMan]

171. Please ask China

about low-valued currency before you hit that button.

[bushcrab]

179. I'd pay $8 to see that movie

[Gloria]

152. Heard a report this afternoon on the Voice of America which shocked

me, because for a moment I thought I was listening to a foreign broadcaster. They said that there was no way to know what percentage had even voted, let alone an actual tally, because although a certain percentage of polling places had been counted, they were only in some areas and basically, no one knows how many of the actual voters thess places represent. That part sounded honest.

Then they said that the voting had been "designed" to assure all groups would be represented in the new government! I swear to god, that's what they said. Now, what the hell does that mean?? (I immediately wondered why we couldn't have things like that here, LOL!!)

[RafterMan]

157. It means there was a large assembly with proportional voting

I'm not one of them, but lots of people want that here.

[genieroze]

160. Time to ADJUST the vote. eom

[Clarkie1]

161. Well, now things get REALLY interesting n/t

[Kimber Scott]

162. So, if the Shiites take control of Iraq are we going to have to invade it?

:evilgrin:

[Donailin]

164. LOL!

the only thing tempering my laughter is the fact that asshole is asshole enough to consider it.

[Donailin]

163. Hooray!

Good for them. And what American can be disappointed in this, it is exactly what the nameless one preaches from his bully pulpit, "Democracy in Iraq!"

[cosmicdot]

165. Congressional GOP requisitions blue ink stain remover n/m

[deacon2]

167. Is Mitofsky doing the polling? n/t

[geniph]

168. Countdown to imposition of full Shari'a law:

5...
4...
3...
2...

[smoogatz]

170. Classic Blowback

This is the obvious outcome. Remarkably (or not), no one in the Bush administration seems to have predicted it.

[twaddler01]

173. Allawi ahead?

How is this a shock?

:eyes:

[RafterMan]

175. ?

Allawi behind, I think you meant.

[smoogatz]

176. Way behind.

Way.

[twaddler01]

178. He will likely win...

Then we will all be "shocked" <sarcasm>

[Carni]

177. This was a no brainer

Could bushco have at least taken the time to reflect on the war between Iran and Iraq (DUH?)before they *invaded to liberate* Iraq?

ASSHOLES!

[Lizzie Borden]

181. I'm sure, at the eleventh hour, Allawi's

vote totals will magically just start to soar.}(

[VegasWolf]

189. Never underestimate the stupidity of bush! n/t

[gatorboy]

191. Of course!

And those early results, like Kerry's exit polls, will be proven 'false' by the media. :eyes:

[tinfoilinfor2005]

197. YUP!!

Just saw in the Washington Post that the numbers are already starting to show an increase toward Allawi. LOL!! As someone said earlier in the posts, the votes haven't been Diebolded yet. Once they are run through the machine, the right guy will win!!

[leesa]

182. Oh gee...yet another entirely predictable surprise.

[VegasWolf]

185. If Allawi is not retained, does this mean that 300 foot, brass statue

of bush the conqueror in Baghdad won't go up after all?

[ultraist]

195. If Allawi loses, we KNOW the US has lost ALL control in Iraq

[Mark E. Smith]

198. Allawi's Role in The New Iraqi Government

Target.

[Gyre]

199. They don't even care enough about Iraq

to steal their election. To them it's just a place to dump ordinance and troops. Clearly, they don't give a damn. It's called prima facie evidence.

Gyre

[Dark]

200. I'll wait until the entire vote is counted. n/t

[Javaman]

201. Not in shock, fully expected this, part of morons* plan...

The reality is: alawi is weak, and Sistani is strong. Period.

Moron and the rest of his henchmen realise this. So they feign their shocked surprised and punch it up with "Americans are in shock" headline of bullshit.

If they depend on alawi to get the country back into shape, we are in for the long hall with this money sucking, life taking war.

Like with Diem in Vietnam, we supported him until he became a problem. (instead of elections, we just had him killed) alawi is a problem now and there is no clean way of getting out of that mess known as Iraq, so what do we do?

Have the peoples popular cleric win, thus the will of the people have spoken. He tells us to get the hell out, thus the exit plan. They have known all along that alawi was working on barrowed time anyway.

All this by 2006. Then they will spin it, with the free and fair election bullshit. repukes will retain congress because of their brilliant war plan blah blah blah bullshit bullshit. It's not about THIER elections, it's all about OUR elections and preparing for the next war.

[IronLionZion]

210. They have the right to vote for whoever they want

That's democracy and it's what we exported to them.

it's none of our business who they elect.

[Guns Aximbo]

213. He will meet with a terrible accident...

israel style...

[Moderator]

214. kick

[donco6]

215. Early returns show cleric-backed coalition ahead

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Early Iraqi poll returns from three key groups of voters show a coalition backed by the nation's top Shiite cleric ahead of the U.S.-backed interim leader and his secular party, according to sources close to the election.

The coalition supported by Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani led in early ballot counting in the predominantly Shiite south, in Diyala province and among Iraqis overseas.


So we got rid of Saddam to put in another Khomeini? Brother. Suppose Bush will let THIS election stand?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/05/iraq.main/index.html

added link - oops.

[BlueEyedSon]

216. Hey GW, how do you like real (non-BBV) democracy in Iraq now?

[NNguyenMD]

217. al sistani is considered to be a part of the more moderate, pragmatic

political leadership. They're not going to have a puppet Allawi government, and I think that that can only be good for the Iraqis. Legitimizes the election more too.

[bucknaked]

218. Thought they were year's beyond our own electorial savvy!

Shouldn't massive turnout equal exact outcome?

[napi21]

219. What happens to Allawi now?

Does this mean the US is out of there? I'm glad Allawi isn't going to win. It does make it look like the Iraqi people will get the choice they want.

Betcha Rove is disappointed that he couldn't control this election!

[Why Syzygy]

220. You mean

the United States of America didn't win the election?
(too soon to say for sure)

Officials have not tallied results from most of the country's Sunni and Kurdish areas and the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq cautioned the early returns should not be used to interpret final results.


Ah geeze. All those billions of American taxpayer dollars and bombs couldn't get the job done?

Some fuckwad is way off course here. Guess who.