|
This is a quick post to Kudos to you for your courage! Caption: [An Iraqi woman cries tears of joy after casting her vote outside a polling station in the holy city of Najaf, Jan. 30, 2005. (Faleh Kheiber/Reuters)] |
|
This is a quick post to Kudos to you for your courage! Caption: [An Iraqi woman cries tears of joy after casting her vote outside a polling station in the holy city of Najaf, Jan. 30, 2005. (Faleh Kheiber/Reuters)] |
= )
Okay, let’s not all get carried away here. There is a way to properly discuss and debate this issue without getting personal.
I think it is fair to say that those who support the election and are happy about it are looking at the event in itself, and those who do not support it are looking at the event in an entire picture surrounded by consequences. I think everyone here practically did not support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If this is wrong, please let your statement on that be heard.
As for those who did not support the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I am one of those, and I will be proud to stand on top of my roof in L.A and condem my government for doing it. Millions and millions of people in America were against this war for many reasons. One of them is this so called “liberation” of Iraq, a great public relations campaign (that’s all it is, its not true liberation) to cover up the real reasons my government is in that country: oil. This is the fact. It surprises me that so much of the infrastructure in Iraq is still not working or destroyed in this oil rich country. Why isn’t the oil being used to support rebuilding Iraq? It’s a rhetorical question because we all know how Bush’s cronies get around oil. By the way, the word cronies can only be used to identify Bush and his pals. I digress.
Anyway, the United States has a plan for Iraq and any vote that any Iraqi has made, really does not count because no matter what, the U.S. is in charge. It is as simple as that. The outcome of Iraq after some time? It will be whatever the U.S. will make it, as long as the U.S. government can exploit its rich resources, its people and its pride for the next fours years. As long as the U.S. is occupying Iraq, and Bush and his cronies (see Natasha, that is how you use the word) do not set a timeline for leaving the country, Iraq will always be in chaos. It surprises me that no one really mentioned the fact the WMD search is over in Iraq. No one made a big deal of this, especially our mainstream news media. It sickens me that people are willing to support this war and everything else that goes along with it when it was based on a lie. Democracy is not formed on lies.
I pray for the people in Iraq.
P.S. If anyone invaded my country, I would not sit there and take it. I would fight and continue to fight until the invaders left.
Oh and Natasha, I would kindly ask you to refrain from racism – Iraqi hostility. You don’t want to go down that path and it besmirches this blog, which claims to be otherwise.
Tsk, tsk, push a few buttons, scratch the surface, and see what you get…
Natasha,
Why do you believe you speak for my “countrymen”? The people who voted were expected to vote in high numbers. Perhaps, I should refer you to an unpublished interview Chalabi gave Al-Arabiya two days before the elections.
He said the south of Iraq must secede and become a bastion for the Shia.
The Kurds during the elections, voted in an impromptu referendum on secession as well.
Would you allow such a vote to happen in Jordan if it risked breaking the country apart? No, you wouldn’t. Would you allow a vote that was mandated by a Syrian urging all Jordanians to vote? No, you wouldn’t.
Ask yourself why Al-Sistani did not vote. Because he is Iranian. And here he is urging all Shia to vote. Is that legitimate to you? Would an American stand it for even one iota of a second if a Canadian told him how to vote?
No, Americans are particularly proud about their elections.
So, why in Iraq is it permissible?
Do you honestly think I want terror for my country? Are you so ignorant as to think that the Iraqi resistance is comprised of Jihadis?
Where was your blog when the Iraqi resistance issued a press release saying they will not mount ANY attacks during the elections, nor target polling stations, nor harm innocent Iraqis? How come no one put that up? Could it be that they want to continue to portray the Iraqi resistance as a bunch of thugs, jihadis?
You say Iraqis have a right to vote, to liberate themselves. Where is that liberty? Did you know that Iraqis will no longer have the right to vote for President, VP or any other official?
The vote on Sunday ended all that. The so-called parliament they will vote into power will choose the President and so on. Much as in Egypt. A flawed system.
That’s it for voting rights.
I don’t want that for my country. The vote will be seen in less than a year than the single worst debacle the Iraqis have brought upon themselves.
Once again, quit preaching to me what YOU think the Iraqis want. You never spent a day in Iraq and you wouldn’t shed a tear if it was blown to smithereens.
As for the hostility, you reap what you sow. Live with it.
Metalordie,
Iraqi hostility? Are you referring to the so-called resistance that is run by former baathists and Jihadis coming from Saudi and Yemen. Do you really think that they represent the Iraqi voice? Metalordie, the majority of Iraqis don’t support the resistance and it was proven on January 30. I don’t wanna keep repeating myself. Why can’t you see it!
The whole point of my post was to give kudos to the brave people who risked their lives for their country. The fact that you are an Iraqi makes your approval of “resistance in Iraq” even more saddening to me. The majority of Iraqis that I know inside and outside want this madness — run by the thugs and so called resistance fighters — to end!
They voted to make a difference, to improve their lives. Do your fellow countrymen a favour by understanding their needs. If you really care about your country, then you should be more flexible in your opinions and admit for once that this what your people really supported: a right to vote, a right to liberate themselves.
And then there’s this from the BBC regarding UK protests:
And there’s also this little blurb from AP:
It does give one pause, wondering who is this insurgency, what are their real aims and how much do they represent the majority of Iraqis? It’s not really clear either way. The vote tally will provide one measuring stick. But there will be others. I think speculation from afar is really near-worthless at this point; only for the purpose of spin. The final results will speak for themselves and the people living in Iraq will continue that debate, answering any questions those of us outside might have. Many Iraqis spoke on 30 January. Let’s see if we can’t let that develop of its own accord without speculation and spin.
Kissinger didn’t ditch the Kurds in 1975. Iran was supporting them to pressure Iraq into sharing the Shatt al-Arab. Once the Algiers accord was signed the shah no longer provided them with arms and refuge.
Pursuant to Sami Ramadani’s piece above, I dug up the original New York Times article he referred to.
Titled: U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote – Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
By Peter Grose,
Special to The New York Times
September 4, 1967. P2.
I also chose a paragraph from Mr. Grose’s article:
“The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta”.
Legitimacy to Allawi’s government, following the dismemberment of the IGC, is the historical equal here.
I may be in an air-condition office, Natasha, as are you, but in the end this is my country, not yours, and its best interests are at heart. I have family in Iraq that will be directly impacted by this and may be on the frontlines of a vicious conflict.
What’s your interest in Iraq? Will you even give it a mention when it is fragmented? Or will you gloat?
Natasha, why don’t you swallow this:
The Vietnam turnout was good as well
No amount of spin can conceal Iraqis’ hostility to US occupation
Sami Ramadani
Tuesday February 1, 2005
The Guardian
On September 4 1967 the New York Times published an upbeat story on presidential elections held by the South Vietnamese puppet regime at the height of the Vietnam war. Under the heading “US encouraged by Vietnam vote: Officials cite 83% turnout despite Vietcong terror”, the paper reported that the Americans had been “surprised and heartened” by the size of the turnout “despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting”. A successful election, it went on, “has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam”. The echoes of this weekend’s propaganda about Iraq’s elections are so close as to be uncanny.
With the past few days’ avalanche of spin, you could be forgiven for thinking that on January 30 2005 the US-led occupation of Iraq ended and the people won their freedom and democratic rights.
This has been a multi-layered campaign, reminiscent of the pre-war WMD frenzy and fantasies about the flowers Iraqis were collecting to throw at the invasion forces. How you could square the words democracy, free and fair with the brutal reality of occupation, martial law, a US-appointed election commission and secret candidates has rarely been allowed to get in the way of the hype.
If truth is the first casualty of war, reliable numbers must be the first casualty of an occupation-controlled election. The second layer of spin has been designed to convince us that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis participated. The initial claim of 72% having voted was quickly downgraded to 57% of those registered to vote. So what percentage of the adult population is registered to vote? The Iraqi ambassador in London was unable to enlighten me. In fact, as UN sources confirm, there has been no registration or published list of electors – all we are told is that about 14 million people were entitled to vote.
As for Iraqis abroad, the up to 4 million strong exiled community (with perhaps a little over 2 million entitled to vote) produced a 280,000 registration figure. Of those, 265,000 actually voted.
The Iraqi south, more religious than Baghdad, responded positively to Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani’s position: to call the bluff of the US and vote for a list that was proclaimed to be hostile to the occupation. Sistani’s supporters declared that voting on Sunday was the first step to kicking out the occupiers. The months ahead will put these declarations to a severe test. Meanwhile Moqtada al-Sadr’s popular movement, which rejected the elections as a sham, is likely to make a comeback in its open resistance to the occupation.
The big vote in Kurdistan primarily reflects the Kurdish people’s demand for national self-determination. The US administration has hitherto clamped down on these pressures. Henry Kissinger’s recent proposal to divide Iraq into three states reflects a major shift among influential figures in the US who, led by Kissinger as secretary of state, ditched the Kurds in the 70s and brokered a deal between Saddam and the Shah of Iran.
George Bush and Tony Blair made heroic speeches on Sunday implying that Iraqis had voted to approve the occupation. Those who insist that the US is desperate for an exit strategy are misreading its intentions. The facts on the ground, including the construction of massive military bases in Iraq, indicate that the US is digging in to install and back a long-term puppet regime. For this reason, the US-led presence will continue, with all that entails in terms of bloodshed and destruction.
In the run-up to the poll, much of the western media presented it as a high-noon shootout between the terrorist Zarqawi and the Iraqi people, with the occupation forces doing their best to enable the people to defeat the fiendish, one-legged Jordanian murderer. In reality, Zarqawi-style sectarian violence is not only condemned by Iraqis across the political spectrum, including supporters of the resistance, but is widely seen as having had a blind eye turned to it by the occupation authorities. Such attitudes are dismissed by outsiders, but the record of John Negroponte, the US ambassador in Baghdad, of backing terror gangs in central America in the 80s has fuelled these fears, as has Seymour Hirsh’s reports on the Pentagon’s assassination squads and enthusiasm for the “Salvador option”.
An honest analysis of the social and political map of Iraq reveals that Iraqis are increasingly united in their determination to end the occupation. Whether they participated in or boycotted Sunday’s exercise, this political bond will soon reassert itself – just as it did in Vietnam – despite tactical differences, and despite the US-led occupation’s attempts to dominate Iraqis by inflaming sectarian and ethnic divisions.
· Sami Ramadani was a political refugee from Saddam Hussein’s regime and is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University
sami.ramadani@londonmet.ac.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1403103,00.html
Tell him to shove his pride, too.
I don’t think anyone was under the illusion that a minority of 20 percent going to affect the quantitative side of the things. Democracy isn’t a magic wand, if in a multicultural country people vote according to ethnic and religious affiliations it just won’t work out. Belgium has problems, Lebanon has problems, and so will Iraq. People need education to be empowered, not a bloody ballot box.