NEWS: Shi'ites Win Plurality of Votes in Iraqi Election

POLITICS: Shi'ites Win Plurality of Votes in Iraqi Election

The United Iraqi Alliance won almost half the votes in Iraq's election.

The turnout was roughly the same as in the 2004 US presidential election, the highest since 1968.

So... about 60% then? That doesn't sound too hot for a first ever election. Sorry I had to call just that one sentence out, but without checking around, this sentence screamed to me "right wing meme". Like I could smell the ink from the fax. Sort of like "Bush got more votes than Reagan". Well... so did Kerry.


[Edited on Feb 13, 2005 by Keith]

58%

It's shit.

But It's better than nothing.


it's noticable that the Religious Parties have garnered almost 75% of the vote.

Oh come on, Keith. It's not a right-wing meme, it's a statistic.

Actually, the turnout wasn't 60% of eligible voters, it was 60% of Registered voters. There are about 18 million eligible Iraqi voters, but of course, lets not let the truth get in the way of good propaganda.
I would also like to see where the 'predicted turnout' figure came from?

It's also very important to note that the Iraqi's basically voted for an independent country and a timetable for a withdrawal of U.S. and 'Coalition' forces to leave Iraq. but in the days since the election American and Britain have said absolutely clearly that they would consider no such timetable and in fact, America are building long term Military bases all around Iraq at the cost of billions of dollers.


[Edited on Feb 13, 2005 by Akrasia]

Weren't the stories at the time saying 75% to 80% turnout?

No, its not a statistic, at least not as you've interpolated as "eligible" is not the same is "of voting age" which is the source of the US figures, and even there its based on a rough estimate. Four million adult Iraqis are disenfranchised by alienage, association with the Ba'ath party and a number of other reasons.

In other words, its complete dissemblance and one being spread wholesale in blogland. But hey, don't trip over the truth on your way to "victory".

Glad to know I'm not completely crazy. Or if I am, that I have company.

I for one applaud the turnout. These people had to deal with the threat of violence in order to participate in the elections.

With 8 million votes, that means that 8 million people want to see a peaceful conclusion to this whole debacle. They want an end to US Occupation, and an end to the terrorization of their country by the insurgents. Thus, 8 million Iraqis share our goals, and that is a good sign.

The insurgents want the U.S. to pull out. The U.S. will never pull out of Iraq, As long as the U.S. is in iraq there will be violence, therefore neither the insurgents nor the Iraqi people will get what they want.
The Americans will not respect the will of the people because 'america knows best'. But then, Democracy as far as the american administration understands it, has nothing to do with 'the will of the people' Before the War, the U.K, Italy and Spain all supported the war even though their populations overwhelmingly opposed it (in spain it was 98% against the invasion) But these were hailed as part of the progressive democratic 'New Europe' meanwhile governments that reflected the will of their people were villified and threatened. (Wolfowitz tried to get the Turkish Military to force the Government to disregard popular opinion)

There are two problems I have with this election. First, I have a hard time believing the Bush Administration invaded Iraq in order to bring democracy to the country. There are a lot of former Reagan/Bush officials in this administration. These people had no problems with mass graves back when Hussein was seen to be serving our strategic interests. Unfortunately the policy has not changed. Look at some of our new allies in the war on terrorism. Uzbekistan and some of the former Northern Alliance leader have egregious human rights records. We do not hear much about these since these people currently serve our strategic interests.

The second problem is that there has been thousands of people killed in the process of bringing about this election. The Bush Administration believes that these deaths, while unfortunate, are the price that needs to be paid in order to establish a democracy. They contend that more people would have been killed in the long run had Hussein been left in power.

I believe that Hussein was no longer capable of committing the kinds of large scale attrocities that he committed in the 1980's. Without the extensive funding from various western countries he had previously received, Hussein's government was weak and getting weaker by the year. In the absence of an immediate threat of large scale civilian casualties, I have to believe there was another way of removing Hussein without the thousands of deaths that resulted from the full scale US invasion. I'm not naive enough to believe that Hussein could have been forced from power with no violence, but certainly other avenues could have been attempted.

[Edited on Feb 13, 2005 2:10PM]

[Edited on Feb 13, 2005 2:12PM]

Isn't it interesting that on the face of it, the Iraqi election looks to be more democratic and representative than our "winner take all" system? Man, I'd love me some of that democracy.

[Edited on Feb 13, 2005 1:19PM]

You are right. We will not pull out of Iraq completely. Ever.

Up until we invaded the country in 2003, we were constantly trading shots with tem ever since the end of the first Gulf War.

We will always have a base in Iraq is my feeling. Look at Japan and Germany. We will have a base over there for a long time, as a strategic ready-point. We will probably end up keeping a Marine Corps expeditionary unit there.

And fuck the insurgents. We shouldn't leave because they threaten violence. That sets a bad precedence. If insurgents threaten destabilizing actions, we shouldn't back down. I know that a lot of people are going to take issue with what I am about to say, but I will say it anyways:

"All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Winston Chruchill

I know that a lot of you will argue that the US is some sort of evil country for being so big and audacious, but we are a hyperpower. And our status as such has made te world a lot more stable tan it would be without us. Sure we have made stupid mistakes, and done bad things, but the overall effect of our actions has been positive.

I wonder what Bush is going to do now that his guy isn't going win; think there's any chance we're going to hand it over to someone who isn't in the US' pocket?

Dude, you are soooooo way off the mark, it's not even funny...

Shall I let someone else take this one?

I am living proof of just how positive the overall effect of "your" actions has been. Stable my ass...

Gimme a fucking break...

(Understand that I'm not trying to be an ass to you, personally, I am simply unnimpressed - as polite and civilized as you are in your ignorance...)

While I can understand why you feel the way you do (I peeked at your profile), my point was that the net effect of all actions has been good. I feel that the world would be profoundly more fucked up without us than with us. I don't deny we have made mistakes, and that we have even badly fucked up some things that we shouldn't have. I simply feel that the world is better off with our influence.

Look at the UN for example. Without our strong military, the UN would be limited to writing letters expressing displeasure over what people do. The UN lacks any sort of legitimacy without a "big stick" to arm itself with.

As we have seen from Somalia, handing the situation over to UN control is just as bad as just declaring a state of anarchy in the country.

The US may have done some good things but for the most part they are almost incidental to our goals. We are constantly trying to bring democracy to countries who don't want it and / or aren't ready for it and it seldom turns out well. Our involvement in the international arena trained Osama Bin Ladin to fight in the Chechnyan conflict and we gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons. We helped Fidel Castro raise to power in Cuba so we could overthrow the dictator Batista and then when decided we didn't like him tried to take him out with the Bay of Pigs invasion but without air support the rebels we had been helping were slaughtered. We've interfered far too many times and have a terrible track record of things going horribly wrong whenever we get involved. And as far as helping the UN goes I think that would be a lot stronger if we paid our fees we owe them or we actually abided by their rules and didn't invade countries unilaterally or commit war crimes while we are over there. I do think the world is probably better off without Hussein in power but I doubt it will prove to have been worth the cost and we have certainly been making a mess of it.

The invasion of Iraq was ALWAYS going to completely destabalise the middle east.

Background: Iran is a Shia dominated State. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are all Sunni dominated States. Iraq was a secular state, albeit mostly run by Sunnis, whilst the population was majority Shiite (but don't forget that Tariq Azziz was a Christian). Iraq, as a pillar of secularism kept the peace in the region. Extremist Sunni muslims view Shia muslims as "apostates who have rejected the true Islam" (New Statesman, 31/01/05).

We now have a Shia majority in Iraq, who could well become closely tied with the Shia rulers in Iran (they're the guys trying to make nukes by the way), which could create a serious tension in the region between the Shia and Sunni States.

A bit of regional research might have done the coaltion the world of good in the run up to the war.

Of course we act in our own interest. I wouldn't expect our country to do otherwise.

I agree with you there. The situation was definitely mishandled.

There was actually a war game conducted in 1999-2000 where they examined the fall of Saddam's regime, and how to restore Iraq to a normal level. However, the people in charge (mainly CENTCOM Commandant Zinni) left at some point, and by the time 2003 rolled around, Franks was in charge, and there was no memory of any of the exercise, or any of the data or conclusions that would have helped avoid turning Iraq into a huge clusterfuck.

'nuff said.

Whose interest should we act in, if we shouldn't act for our own interests?

We have the power to basically do anything that we want. Our Supercarrier battlefleets could quickly establish complete and total naval superiority over the world if we felt like it. Yet we don't. We act responsibly for the most part, and generally try to use our power for good. I don't totally agree with the Bush doctrine of unilateralism and preemptive police action though.


[Edited on Feb 13, 2005 11:16PM]

skankzor wrote:
"We will probably end up keeping a Marine Corps expeditionary unit there."

No. Marines are for emergencies, Army is for garrison duty. And Marines deserve to be near thier families when they can(not to say other branches do not but Marines leave in the middle of the night)

Skankzor also wrote:
"We have the power to basically do anything that we want. Our Supercarrier battlefleets could quickly establish complete and total naval superiority over the world if we felt like it. Yet we don't. We act responsibly for the most part, and generally try to use our power for good. I don't totally agree with the Bush doctrine of unilateralism and preemptive police action though."

We can destroy anything we want sure but we cannot occupy the globe nor would we want to. and the American economy is built on trade with other countries and by invadeing at will we invite sanctions and embargos. sure we could bomb them too but unless America is to become a new Sparta and the rest of the world our Helots it makes no sense to wage wanton war. Nor could we maintain recruitment levels and then we could conscript but then who would we be?

so you statement:
We have the power to basically do anything that we want.
is incorrect.

I suggest you read Sun Tzu's the Art of War (Sawyer translation) and start reading this site daily: http://www.globalsecurity.org/

I think it has something to do with this guy: