The Iraqi Elections: an Important Watershed

...........guys, stop talking about iraq .......... it is all over - the low level insurgency will continue for a few years but in the end it will be all okay ............next stop is tehran, even though i would prefer it to be saudi arabia - the source of all evil .........untill and unless mecca and medina are turned into a independent religious tourist attraction, like the vatican, the trouble with islam will continue ..............

............ bush is on a roll - unfortunately he has only four more years to clean up the world ...........

Ordinary_Muslim #35: ``It is surprising to see how many people view Saddam in 2003 as a harmless fella - your friendly neighbourhood bully, who wouldn`t harm a butterfly.``

I am actually surprised some people consider Bush, ``a harmless fella - your friendly neighbourhood bully, who wouldn`t harm a butterfly.``

Nobody is saying Saddam was harmless. Even though he was a US ally, at one point, when he was needed by the USA. Apparently, the USA didn`t think he was evil back then.........What people in all countries (except USA and Israel) are saying is that the USA does not just have a right to attack countries, as and when it wants. And kill 100,000 of their citizens. Who gave it that right? How can the USA complain when it is attacked, when it feels it has a right to attack other countries, as and when it wants?

One day Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam, next day he attacks him. One day it is supporting and training Mujahideen and the next day bombing them to death. I wouldn`t be surprised if in a decade or so, Sistani`s govt. is being attacked. It is a pro-Iran religious govt., after all.........During this whole time, I doubt the USA govt. will ever count the dead in Iraq. That will have to be left to the independent NGOs.....

All this stuff about Saddam having nukes was nonsense. If Saddam had nukes, he would not have been attacked, by the USA. Much like North Korea is not being attacked. And even if Iraq had nukes. So what. Pakistan has them. India has them. Israel has them. And USA has by far the most lethal versions of them..........

A couple of things you need to keep in mind. An overwhelming majority of the people of Kuwait and Iran - two countries attacked by Iraq - were against the USA`s attack on Iraq. Yet the USA kept saying that Saddam was a threat to its neighbors. Even when the neighbors were crying at the top of their voice, that they did not consider Iraq a threat!!!

Romair great write up -- now hear this:

A Criminal heads democratization in Iraq -- (by the way this convict is other than the usual one George Bush)

``The Washington Post headline was straight out of The Onion: ``Iran-Contra Figure to Lead Democracy Efforts Abroad.`` They were writing about Elliott Abrams. With a straight face.

Further proof that under the Bush Administration truth is stranger than fiction.

Abrams was convicted in 1991 for lying to Congress about his role in trading profits from illegal arm sales to Iran for aid the Contras, who were trying to topple the Sandanista government in Nicaragua.

As Ronald Reagan`s Latin America hand, Abrams flew to London under the pseudonym ``Mr. Kenilworth`` to extract $10 million for the Contras from the Sultan of Brunei.

A pardon by Bush 41 saved Abrams from prison time, and a job as the National Security Council`s director for Near East and North African affairs resurrected his career.``

Re: # 34
>> the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program

Saddam the Harmless:

It is surprising to see how many people view Saddam in 2003 as a harmless fella - your friendly neighbourhood bully, who wouldn`t harm a butterfly.

Here`s what Duelfer`s report states: ``There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise. In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted. ...

``Huwaysh claimed that in 1999 Saddam asked how long it would take to build a production line for CW agents. Huwaysh tasked four officials to investigate, and they responded that experts could readily prepare a production line for mustard within six months.``

When one has to deal with a barbarian like Saddam, one has to proceed with caution. Trusting Saddam`s word that he had no wmds would amount to suicidal naivete. Romair types can indulge in such irresponsible attitudes because containing Saddam is not their headache; it is Bush`s problem. Such fault-finders of Bush are principally fence-sitters who have nothing positive to contribute, merely to tear down people they bear a grudge against.

``Vulgar people take huge delight in the faults and follies of great men.`` Arthur Schopenhauer

Some interesting contradictions: Iraq, Iran and North Korea are on the US axis of evil.

1. North Korea has nuclear weapons, Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, Iraq did not have any kind of nuclear weapons. The US is trying to negotiate with North Korea. It has only subtly threatened Iran. And it bombed the crap out of Iraq, because it said Iraq had WMDs.

2. The USA has the biggest stash of nukes in the world, and is currently the biggest violator of the NPT. Iraq has no nukes. Yet the USA and UK (both NPT violators) bombed Iraq.

3. Saudi Arabia is the center of Al-Qaeda. Fifteen out of the Nineteen hijackers were Saudi. Saudi Arabia is heridatory dictatorship. Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. Yet Iraq got bombed, because it was accused of having links with Al-Qaeda.

4. Iran is a semi-democracy, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Morroco etc. and heridatory dictatorships. Yet the USA is threatening Iran for democracy.

5. Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, before being bombed. Yet it was bombed for having links with Al-Qaeda. Now after the bombing, according to US sources themselves, Iraq is the new center of Al-Qaeda.

6. Iran is being threatened because it has influential Ayatollahs in the govt. Despite the fact that it is Khatami is a philosopher, and not a true, ``Ayatollah`` (although a son of one). He is democratically elected.

Iraq now has an Irani citiizen Grand Ayatollah as its most powerful political figure. He is being portrayed as the future hope of Iraq by the USA (even though he refuses to meet with any American).

What is odd is that an Irani citizen Ayatollah cannot be the head of Iran (his own country), according to the USA. However, an Irani citizen Ayatollah is the next big hope for Iraq - a country of which he is not even a citizen!!

7. The alleged aim of the these neo-con policies is, now, not WMDs, but the spread of democracy. Not a single country in Europe had a majority population, which supported the Iraq war. The, ``democratic`` opinion in every single country in Europe was, overwhelmingly, against joining the US coalition (upto 80% to 90% in some European countries).

However, the US govt. pressurized all the leaderships of these countries to go against the democratic opinion, of their own citizens, to attack Iraq to introduce democracy in Iraq. Those Europeans that went against the democratic opinion of their own citizens (Spain, Italy, Poland etc.) and joined the coalition, were actually referred to as the New Europe by the US govt., while those who supported the democratic opinion of their own citizens, were called Old Europe!!!

8. Over 90% of the Turkish populalce was against this war. So the Turkish govt. supported the democratic opinion in their own country, and did not allow US troops on its soil, to invade Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz and the US govt. were furious and actually asked the Turks to apologize to the USA. Why? Because the Turkish govt. supported the overwhelmingly democratic opinion of Turks, for not allowing the USA to invade Iraq to democraticize Iraq!!!

But, the following is the real kicker. On the eve of the recent US elections, even after the US govt. had itself declared that Iraq had no WMDs and no links to Al-Qaeda, a study found the following:

``Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program.....

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October.`` http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

Truly amazing!!!

The neo-con strategy is now totally out of the control of the neo-cons. It is completely off track, and they are trying hard to make lemonade with the available lemons......

The future of this strategy is now fully in the hand of an Irani citizen named Grand Ayatollah Sistani. He can now raise one finger, and reduce the whole US policy to rubble.........Who would thought this could ever happen.........

Now this is how leaders of great nations respond. Not like our AbdulAmreeka Musharraf, The Chief goraa-goo-chaater in uniform, the Mir Jaffer and Mir Sadique of our times. May Allah punish him as He punished Saddam at the hands of the very enemy who he thought his friend.

The westernised scum , these `moderate` and `enlightened` ones are the reason Pakistan cannot get rid of the U.S thuGGS.

---

Iran leader vows ``scorching hell`` for attackers
By Reuters, The Associated Press; Reuters and Los Angeles Times


An Iranian woman holds an anti-U.S. and Israel banner during a ceremony yesterday marking the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Tehran.

TEHRAN — Iran, facing mounting U.S. pressure over its nuclear program, promised yesterday a ``scorching hell`` for any aggressor as tens of thousands marched to mark the 26th anniversary of its Islamic revolution.

A month after President Bush warned that the United States hasn`t ruled out military action against Iran, President Mohammed Khatami responded before a crowd gathered on a snowy square in Tehran.

The U.S. accuses Iran of maintaining a nuclear-weapons program, which Iran says is for peaceful energy purposes.

``Will this nation allow the feet of an aggressor to touch this land?`` Khatami asked at the crowd. ``If, God forbid, it happens, Iran will turn into a scorching hell for the aggressors.``

His statements drew chants of ``Death to America!`` from the crowd.

Khatami is widely recognized as a leader of a moderate faction in Iran. Indeed, Khatami himself indicated in his speech that the talk of a possible U.S. invasion was pushing him into a united camp with Iran`s hard-liners against foreign meddling.

``The Iranian nation is not looking for war, violence and confrontation,`` Khatami said.

``But the world should know that the Iranian nation won`t tolerate any aggression and will stand united against aggression despite differences,`` he said, referring to the internal divide in Iranian politics between reformers and the more conservative clerics.

Last week, Bush accused Iran of being ``the world`s primary state sponsor of terror,`` and last month he said his administration won`t rule out using military force against Iran over its nuclear program.

Until Khatami`s statements, some had pointed to a possible softening in Iran`s position in recent comments made by Iran`s top nuclear negotiator, Hasan Rowhani, who said that his country wants to resolve its differences with the United States.


But in his speech yesterday, Khatami was adamant that Iran won`t scrap its nuclear program. Iranian scientists worked hard to develop nuclear technology on their own and will not stop due to ``the illegitimate demands of others,`` he said.

``We have decided to move toward scientific progress, including peaceful nuclear technology and we will continue this path,`` Khatami said.

Khatami said Iran`s decision to suspend uranium enrichment in November was a voluntary sign of good will that should be reciprocated by the International Atomic Energy Agency and European negotiators pressing Iran for concessions on its nuclear program.

The suspension, policed by the IAEA, is aimed at building trust and avoiding U.N. Security Council sanctions.

Under an agreement reached with Britain, France and Germany, who negotiated on behalf of the European Union, Iran will continue suspension of its enrichment activities during negotiations with the Europeans about economic, political and technological aid. Iran has said it will decide in three months whether to continue its suspension.

Re: # 30
//...not an Arab. Now, is racism really called for here? ...//

Well - if you can call me a red-neck - I can call you an arab. Once you start throwing epithets like red-neck from the get-go - you pretty much open yourself up for similar treatment. Besides - apply the duck theory to yourself :)

Anycase - the statement was NOT meant as a racial comment - rather, it states a certain fact. Despite their enormous oil-wealth, arabs/muslims are poor in many sense of the word. They are weak, impotent, divided, uneducdated and have proved to be very stupid - so much so that the white man can dare colonize them all over again.

Over the century - the white man has wrecked great havoc to peoples around the world - both whites and non-whites. Those who are smart have learnt the lession and taken action to protect themselves. Arabs/muslims have not. First afganistan, then Iraq, now Iran, tomorrow it could be syria.

Think. How come the white man dare ``civilize`` arabs/muslims twice in the same century?

Everyone loves OSAMA..and Amen Al-ZWAHIRI too!

Al-Qaida blasts US notion of `freedom`

Thursday 10 February 2005, 22:19 Makka Time, 19:19 GMT

Ayman al-Zawahiri (R) is thought to be Usama bin Ladin`s deputy



Al-Qaida`s deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has condemned the American concept of freedom in a taped speech broadcast by Aljazeera.

Aired on Thursday, the audiotape message said the freedom sought by millions in the Islamic world was ``not the freedom to destroy others ... it is not the freedom that allows [America] to support oppressive regimes``.

Al-Zawahiri said he could not accept Washington`s continued promotion of ``Israel`s freedom to annihilate Muslims``.

The comments were first issued on 2 February on the internet, but were aired for the first time on Thursday.

Al-Zawahiri also slammed what he called ``fraudulent elections held under occupation``, in a reference to last month`s polls in Iraq.

Liberty as construed by the Americans, he said, was based on ``usurious banks, giant companies, misleading media outlets and the destruction of others for material gain``.

Real freedom was ``not the liberty of homosexual marriages and the abuse of women as a commodity to gain clients, win deals or attract tourists,`` al-Zawahiri added.

``It is not the freedom of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib,`` it said, referring to US-run prisons in Cuba and Iraq where serious allegations of torture have been levelled.

``Our freedom ... and the reform that we are seeking depends on three concepts - the rule of Sharia [Islamic law] ... freeing Islam from any aggressor ... and liberating the human being.``

No to occupation

In the Islamic world, the people had the ``right to choose its leader, hold him to account and criticise him ... I do not think that we can achieve reform while we are under American and Jewish occupation.``

Egyptian-born al-Zawahiri is Usama bin Ladin`s right-hand man and has been pictured travelling with the al-Qaida leader through Afghanistan.

Both he and bin Ladin are believed to be hiding in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and have eluded capture since the 9/11 attacks for which they are blamed.

Aljazeera

mohar11,

``You are just seething with impotent rage - so much so that you see ducks or red-necks where there is none :) ``

Nope...just telling it like it is. :-)

``Like I said - I understand why you guys are delirious with hatred. In a way - Bush is getting away with murder, literally.``

Nice way of putting it...I agree. And I admit, I am a bit upset at that...not with Bush but the people who support Bush actaully...

``For you ummahites, Bush is the ultimate red flag - he is the ultimate proof of your impotence, pussillanimity and sutpidity. He is walking right over you guys - and there is nothing you can do about it :)``

Actually, I could argue that whatever little resistance the Iraqis did put up was sufficent to stop him in what could only logically be his ``real`` reason for invading in the first place. The neo-cons lost, so I really don`t care how anyone spins it. Now that I look at Iraq...I just don`t see how it fits into American interest. Iranian born Sistani is perhaps the most powerful man in Iraq. Kurdish Talibani also has STRONG iranian links. What the heck? Well, not my problem. I gotta admit, things are so confusing that I`m suspicious. Just what are the neo-cons thinking now? Cut and run? Or did I miss somethin....

``And unfortunately, it`s not gonna get better for you guys. If this election thing works out - then Bush, the ``moron``, would be declared the greatest visionary that ever lived. His place on Mt Rushmore would be secured :)``

Good, so Birds can s*it on it for the rest of time :-)

``... thus cementing the fact that you arabs are good-for-nothing bedouins who can be civilized only by whitemen with daisy-cutters.``

Teeheee...not an Arab. Now, is racism really called for here? Anyhoo, spoken like a true red neck. Hehee :-().

``But there is still hope....So chances are they are going to screw!-up this one too. So your wish may be granted. Iraq may end up a violent sh!t-hole instead of a beacon of civility in an area dominated by cut-throat bedouins. ``

Nooo! That`s not what I want. I`d prefer a unified Iraq, turning to the neo-con administration and saying ``thanks for the delayed help, now get the f*ck out ass*oles``.

Also, Iraq doesn`t have many bedous...jeez...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 25
vert

You are just seething with impotent rage - so much so that you see ducks or red-necks where there is none :)

Like I said - I understand why you guys are delirious with hatred. In a way - Bush is getting away with murder, literally. For you ummahites, Bush is the ultimate red flag - he is the ultimate proof of your impotence, pussillanimity and sutpidity. He is walking right over you guys - and there is nothing you can do about it :)

And unfortunately, it`s not gonna get better for you guys. If this election thing works out - then Bush, the ``moron``, would be declared the greatest visionary that ever lived. His place on Mt Rushmore would be secured :) thus cementing the fact that you arabs are good-for-nothing bedouins who can be civilized only by whitemen with daisy-cutters.

But there is still hope. Neo-cons are good at throwing smoke-screens over US voters - but they screw! up everything else. So chances are they are going to screw!-up this one too. So your wish may be granted. Iraq may end up a violent sh!t-hole instead of a beacon of civility in an area dominated by cut-throat bedouins.

That would your ultimate triumph - you guys desperately want this ``liberty around the world`` project to fail.

Here is a 9/4/1967 New York Times news report regarding ``elections`` in Vietnam. Can you see how similar the reporting of that discredited ``elections`` is to the recent ``elections`` in occupied Iraq?

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose,
Special to the New York Times

(New York Times, 9/4/1967, page 2) WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 -- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam`s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson`s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

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.

Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration`s view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating
widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong`s disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.

echo,

..... what will do when the israelis and the palestinians settle their issues and the new iraqi government is in place this time next year ? .......... what will then fuel the hatred that sustains your soul ????

mohar11,


``Just because I supported Bush [on this one] doesn`t mean I am red-neck :)``

If you walk like a duck...talk like a duck...hehee...how dem old Duke boys doing anyhoo? Give my regards to Boss Hog...

``I understand why you guys are so angry and hateful towards Bush. But the fact is that he has shown you guys the finger. Just like he has shown the democrats who is the boss :) ``

Not really...all he`s managed to do is spin a non-victory into a victory. His speech was awesome...did a good job, and for that I`ll give him and his team some credit. Hey, what`s that whirring sound? Must be orwell spinning in his grave...

``Sure, afgan ``democracy`` has warlords and turn-coats and stooges or whatever. But this is a start - and seems to be a good start.``

Karzai is not a good start. Like I said, Afghan and Iraq are apples and oranges. Iraq, it must be said, is a good start...but then, much of how it turned out had to do with Shia belly aching. Me thinks Bush and the gang are content with a pull out that leaves Iraq in one piece...whatever their ambitions were have been thwarted. This wasn`t the cake walk neo-cons wanted.

``You can`t have perfect democracy[if there is such a thing] from day one, can you?``

I dunno...neo-cons thought otherwise.

``I mean, after 60 years, Indian ``democracy`` still has warlords, mafias, turn-coats and stooges...... 12 people died on election-day in bihar. 19 died in Iraq. Not too bad, is it? ``

Don`t even compare :-) I mean, significantly more than 12 people have died leading up to the elections, and for the immediate future it can be said that many more will die...at the hands of GIs no less.

``Coming to Iraq - thanks for sharing the wisdom - that election in Iraq happened because Sistani wanted it. Bush ``didn`t do squat``. Any other gems? :)``

Do you even know the history up to the elections? All one had to do was follow the news (hell, even American news). Sistani agitated for it, and wanted them sooner rather than later. Really, the Americans had no option but to oblige.

1) Recall way back when that the Bush administration insisted that no elections would be held until a constitution was drafted...by U.S.-chosen Iraqi ex-pats. LOL...there`s neo-con conceptions of democracy for you!
2) That declaration met with strong opposition, so U.S. responded by proposing an election where only hand-picked individuals could participate. Bwahahaha...there`s neo-con democracy for you...sounds an awful lot like Iranian `democracy`. BTW, this is exactly the Afghan model.
3) The refusal of the non-governmental leadership in Iraq to accept this process and their call to Iraqis to take to the streets demanding ``one person-one vote`` ultimately resulted in the elections

So there you have it. One only has to read the news.

Now, enlighten me. Exactly what DID Bush and co do that was so pivotal? The fact is, the Kurds have been holding out on their own politically since the end of GWI. Ditto could have been done for the Shites, however that simply wasn`t in their interest at the time (those pesky Shites do in fact have strong ties to Iran).

That would have left the Arab sunni tribes/bathists out...well guess what...that`s EXACTLY the situation we have today after these `groundbreaking`` elections that allegedly couldn`t have happened without GWII. Duh...I don`t think so. :-)

These elections were not the reason why America invaded Iraq. Nor were the elections that the Americans found themselves obliged to oversee only possible due to GWII. Basically, if democracy was the actual goal, there would have been smarter ways to do it that wouldn`t involve the death of 10k-100k Iraqis (Bush gets full credit for this, though). So...how was this a vindication of American policies? Right...`cause Bush said it was! Silly me :-)

Now, as it would have been even if the Kurds and shites were given autonomy from Saddam, the idea of a unified Iraq is up to the Iraqis themselves to champion. Here it must be said Bush CAN`T do squat...it`s simply not his problem.

Re: # 20
//...these pro jihadi jaloos and terrorist supporting groups have free reign. This cannot happen without the support of the govt...//

And support of the people - 65% at last count. Islamic fundentalism has been national obsession in Pakiland. The gov`t, the elite, mullahs, the civil society - support for jihad has been widespread.

Even though, there have been some abatement in recent days - after daisy-cutter rained down next door.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts