Iraqi Elections

Orizio

While the elections have been briefly talked about here,it easily deserves a thread of its enough.In my opinion,its unlikely the elections will represent democracy in Iraq.

The first problem is the lack of info and the sheer size of canditates and partie in Iraq that thew people can vote for.There is currently a whopping 98 different entities(i.e.independents,parties etc).That basically adds up to 7000 people that the Iraqi people need to look up before they can vote for the entity that will best represent there ideals and values.The problem is obvious.How can the Iraqi problem vote properly with the current security problems in Iraq and when the information on canditates and parties amounts to this?

Next is the head start that Shia parties and the current Iraqi officials have over the rest of the oppostition.Firstly the Shia parties and the current Iraqi officials have the advanage of being recognised by the Iraqi people through there current control of the Media.Obviously,with the massive choice of parties on the ballot,instant name recognition is a distinct help.Those appointed by the US years ago have grassroots organisations that the independents simply don't have.Most importantly,expatrite parties have the strong support of Iraqi voters who are voting from outside of Iraq.Once again the chance of those outside of Iraq knowing about parties outside of the big 3(United Iraqi Alliance,Iraqis party and the Kurdish alliance)are minimal,thus the expatrites will be strongly represented outside of the country.

Finally,the lack of security in Sunni areas is bound to lead to a low turnout,which will significantly help the Shia.Many Sunni parties have rightly called for the election to be postponed-how acan a election take place when there is fighting like this?So with the elections over and a Shia majority,what will the Sunnis do?Will they hand over Kirkuk and its oil to the Kurds?Will the Sunni allow themselves to be even slightly controlled bi the Shias?With this in mind the possiblity of a end to violence post election is unlikely,but the idea of a increasing of violence post election seems a woring possibility.

So what does everyone else think?

Flukey

It has already started, and brace yourselves, it is going to get worse. Already we are being told that there are elections in Iraq and Freedom and Democracy reigns and everything is hunky dory. Some people actually believe it. What is going on is a rushed through show, in an attempt to show the world that there are elections in Iraq and Freedom and Democracy reigns, but don't believe a word of it.

There are over 120 parties and 1000s of candidates, all on the one ballot paper. Almost every one of them are completely unknown to the electorate. Those that can read, would take a very long time to read all the names and there is no way they can make an informed choice. There has been little or no canvassing. So nobody really knows who or what they are voting for and no one is going to be able to make an informed choice. So the results - if we even get the real ones - will be just pot luck and cannot truly be said to be the will of the people, which is surely what democracy is meant to be.

Not alone that, but the conditions under which the elections are taking place are hardly ideal and having elections is making things worse and it is not going to improve things much subsequently. All the fighting will have to play itself out, as is the case with any war, before politics can really kick in. People can't exactly walk calmly and coolly down the street to their local polling office and cast their vote and return home in the same manner. They are in a war zone. Most of the polling offices are being kept secret until the last minute. Some have already been levelled and more will be. Intimidation would be high as a result. I wouldn't call all that a free election.

Maybe we will get freedom, democracy and elections some day in Iraq, but this charade certainly isn't it. GWB may well get up over the weekend and pronounce to the world that there are free and democratic elections in Iraq, but this certainly is not that, not in the way we understand elections. People may well be marking names on sheets of paper, as we do, but there the similarity ends. What they will be marking will be pure random choice, picking a few names out of 1000s, none of which they know. They might as well be trying to pick the Lotto numbers. Free and democratic elections? Get a grip!

mike65

The polls closed in Iraq at 14.00 GMT.

The turnout was estimated at about 75% which is pretty damned good in the cirumstances. As expected the Sunni areas had a very low turn out in the face of threats from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and similair.

As a free election goes its clearly not perfect but it had to happen or there would never be any elections. al-Zarqawi should'nt have got encouragment by postponement or cancellation.

BBC reporter logs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4214707.stm

Mike.

pete

mike65 wrote:

The turnout was estimated at about 75% which is pretty damned good in the cirumstances. As expected the Sunni areas had a very low turn out in the face of threats from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and similair.

Iraq's electoral commission held a news conference 90 minutes before polls closed to say turnout was estimated at 72%, with 90% or more in some Shia areas.

But electoral official Adil al-Lami did not say how these figures had been reached.

Earlier, the top UN electoral adviser Carlos Valenzuela offered a much more cautious assessment, saying turnout appeared to be high in many areas, but that it was too early to know for sure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4219569.stm

monument

mike65 wrote:

As expected the Sunni areas had a very low turn out in the face of threats from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and similair.

An Iraqi doctor currently living in the north, who has been to Iraq since the start of the war and who has family over there, stated today on the NI edition of the BBC’s Politics Show that violence is only one of, and a smaller, reason to why the Sunnis are keeping away, he outlined other (what he said were more important) reasons…

- lack of knowledge of the candidates
- just one constancy – he stated Israel is one of the only other countries that do this
- the elections and the government type are being drawn up by the occupiers

Interestingly, he also pointed out that the reason that the police were being killed so much was because of their make up – the occupiers groups and sends one section of the community into another’s area, rather then making it mixed force.

pete

Confusion surrounds turnout statistics in Iraq's election, with the country's election commission backtracking on a statement that 72% had voted and top politicians insisting the turnout was high.

The commission said its initial tally had been little more than a guess based on local estimates.

"Turnout figures recently announced represent the enormous and understandable enthusiasm felt in the field on this historic day," a commission statement said.

"However, these figures are only very rough, word-of-mouth estimates gathered informally from the field. It will take some time for the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq to release accurate figures on turnout."

Commission spokesman Farid Ayar indicated that around eight million people may have voted, or about 60% of registered voters. That would still be more than many had expected.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B49A6A7B-9FE7-4C65-BA06-11461071FEAA.htm

toiletduck

fair play to the Iraqis. A much higher turn-out than most people expected. I hope this is the start of the end of the "insurgency"

jhegarty

Flukey wrote:

It has already started, and brace yourselves, it is going to get worse. Already we are being told that there are elections in Iraq and Freedom and Democracy reigns and everything is hunky dory. Some people actually believe it. What is going on is a rushed through show, in an attempt to show the world that there are elections in Iraq and Freedom and Democracy reigns, but don't believe a word of it.

There are over 120 parties and 1000s of candidates, all on the one ballot paper. Almost every one of them are completely unknown to the electorate. Those that can read, would take a very long time to read all the names and there is no way they can make an informed choice. There has been little or no canvassing. So nobody really knows who or what they are voting for and no one is going to be able to make an informed choice. So the results - if we even get the real ones - will be just pot luck and cannot truly be said to be the will of the people, which is surely what democracy is meant to be.

Not alone that, but the conditions under which the elections are taking place are hardly ideal and having elections is making things worse and it is not going to improve things much subsequently. All the fighting will have to play itself out, as is the case with any war, before politics can really kick in. People can't exactly walk calmly and coolly down the street to their local polling office and cast their vote and return home in the same manner. They are in a war zone. Most of the polling offices are being kept secret until the last minute. Some have already been levelled and more will be. Intimidation would be high as a result. I wouldn't call all that a free election.

Maybe we will get freedom, democracy and elections some day in Iraq, but this charade certainly isn't it. GWB may well get up over the weekend and pronounce to the world that there are free and democratic elections in Iraq, but this certainly is not that, not in the way we understand elections. People may well be marking names on sheets of paper, as we do, but there the similarity ends. What they will be marking will be pure random choice, picking a few names out of 1000s, none of which they know. They might as well be trying to pick the Lotto numbers. Free and democratic elections? Get a grip!

well I think 1000 names is better than the last "election" they had in Iraq , that had one name.

As a surprise Sadam got 100% for the vote. He celebrated by letting some people out of prison , their crime was not voting for him the last election before that.

Anyway, how would you have suggested they cut the names down, I am sure everyone would be very mad if President Bush decided to leave some names off because he didn't like them.....

Nuttzz

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13292300,00.html

Iraqi election officials said turn-out among the 14 million eligible voters appeared higher than the 57% that had been predicted, while United Nations officials described the process as "representative and fair".

/edit: wouldnt go as far as to say terror was defeated but its a decent start

Essey

Holy mercy! We are now quoting Aljazeera.net???? Why don't we just phone up old Binny on his "mobile" and ask for his rational insight? All politics aside - the Iraqi courage, resolute and belief in democracy was humbling to us in the West - 57% of them spoke (probably more than who voted in the last Irish election) under the most terrifying of circumstances - and you cant spin that! Aljazeera.net (LOL) - now there is fair and balanced! - your killing me here.

BuffyBot

Aljazeera.net (LOL) - now there is fair and balanced! - your killing me here.

More fair and balanced than *some* "news" providers out there we could mention...

Essey

Oh Buffiness! You dont mean FOX now - do you? Actually they have been calling it right all along - but I'm not hear to gloat!

Hobbes

It's amazing how stats can be your friend.

Watching it on the news this morning about how "Unpresidented record number of voters from outside the country". What they fail to mention that something like less then 1% of Iraqis outside the country actually registered to vote. If they were going to bother to register odds on they were going to vote as well.

So 90% of less then 1% (for example) would most certianly not be unpresidented.

I would wonder is the same statistic is being applied to the voting inside Iraq as a large number of people actually boycotted the election (so I assume they wouldn't register for voting either). Add to that there was reports of cities being threatend with food aid being stopped if they didn't vote for the current intrim government.

Ooh Essey, AJ are about as impartial as you can get in the middle east. As for Fox News it is the #2 top entertainment station second only to the Daily Show (which sadly actually reports the news).

while United Nations officials described the process as "representative and fair".

I wonder about this as well as no independant body was monitoring the elections (like they did in the US, which was "mostly fair").

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Add to that there was reports of cities being threatend with food aid being stopped if they didn't vote for the current intrim government.

linkage please?

Essey

Hobbes wrote:

It's amazing how stats can be your friend.
Ooh Essey, AJ are about as impartial as you can get in the middle east. As for Fox News it is the #2 top entertainment station second only to the Daily Show (which sadly actually reports the news).
AJ (as you affectionally refer to it as) - in not imparital - Its old Binny mounth peice sorta like Sinn Fein was the IRA :eek:- oh right I guess you would call that impartial. And FOX is the #1 watch station - unless you are sitting in a cave in Afghanistan.



I wonder about this as well as no independant body was monitoring the elections (like they did in the US, which was "mostly fair").

I agree no intellectual body was monitoring the elections - they left it up to the UN -

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

weren't the Un monitor people not even in iraq?

Essey

Mordeth wrote:

weren't the Un monitor people not even in iraq?

Yes mordeth they were - hobbie just conveniently forget that. Bit of habit that around here.

Hobbes

Essey wrote:

Yes mordeth they were - hobbie just conveniently forget that. Bit of habit that around here.

No. the UN monitors were not at the voting areas for fear of attacks. It was not monitored by an independant body on the day.


... With regards to the linkage to the food ration threats, can't find the news link, however if you remember Raed (from salampaxes journal) he has a report on it here..

http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2005/01/vote-for-food.html

Here some more details about the Iraq elections.
http://electroniciraq.net/news/1836.shtml

Or comments about polling stations not opening on time and others closing early. Or the 72% turnout Which has no factual data to back it up.

Also a lot of the footage of queues of voters were from the Kurdish areas which are safer. Kurdish turnout was very high, while Sunni was almost non-exsistant.

As for my earlier figure that was also incorrect. More then 95% of expats registered to vote actually voted, however less then 25% actually registered (I believe the 1% I got for UK totals on BBC News, but seeing as I can't find the link for that we will go with this figure).

mike65

It'll all come out in the wash in 10 days...

Mike.

Essey

Hobbly wobbly:

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/050130/323/fbdre.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050128/wl_nm/iraq_election_valenzuela_dc_1

the ones who didn't turn up we off on the sunshine holidays - with all that dosh from the oil for food program - shhhh - I'm not mentioning any names Kofi.

Sand

Like the Afghanistan elections before them, Sunday provides grounds for some optimism. The people seem to have braved threats of blood on the streets from the terrorist groups to vote - which incidentially provides some indicatation of just how widespread the terrorist support in Iraq really is despite claims to the contrary.

Bad news is that Iraq is no better or worse off in real terms than it was on Saturday. An insurgency that openly declared war on democracy ( Al Zarqawi's exact turn of phrase as I recall, which again shows how laughable Bush's claims that the terrorists hated our freedoms - obviously they hate them because they pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty ) prior to the elections isnt going to suddenly bend to their will after them. The program to train up the Iraqi security forces and motivate them to take the fight to the insurgency in the face of attacks on them and their families is still a tough one, though the realisation that the majority of Iraqis support legimate democratic government over terrorism can only be a morale booster for them.

The government that comes out of these elections could be a fricking nightmare as well. Despite a thread on this board a few days ago about the unusual nature of security arrangements for the Iraqi elections it is a tad unrealistic to expect Iraq to go from tyrannical dictatorship to jeffersonian democracy in barely a year, especially when under remorseless attack by fanatical terrorists like Al-Zarqawi who is deliberatly attempting to incite a civil war between Sunni and Shias. The Iraqi government could end up being a Shia Islamic government heavily aligned to Iran, with a section of Kurdish nationalists determined to remain seperate from the rest of Iraq in all but name, and of course a Sunni minority who feel alienated from both, though apparently turn out in Sunni areas was much higher than expected so who knows. All we can hope for there is that this scenario plays out as a classic example of checks and balances, rather than a recipe for the break up of Iraq and civil war.

Personally, I dont think Iraq is ready for this election yet. The original U.S. plan was to hold off on elections for another 2 years, which would give more time to build up and legitimise legal institutions and rights for citizens which would help to reassure voters that the election wasnt going to be ethnic warfare by other means - which is apparently the main fear of the Sunnis, that they would be marginalised in a Shia Iraq that is friendly to its old enemy Iran. But that didnt prove possible given the pressure from Al-Sistani and of course the impossible to please international criticism which switched shamelessly from criticising the concept of a selected provisional government to criticising the elections as being impossible to hold.

The one positive is that international support might be easier to garner when dealing with an elected Iraqi government but such a government will be placed in a difficult position. To please the anti-US international lobby and indeed the majority of Iraqis who want the U.S. out of Iraq theyll have to criticise the US, but at the same time they need the US until their security forces can defend the government - and as the people of Darfur have learned international multilateralism adds up to roughly **** all so the warmongering unilateralist US is the only show in town. Its a tough game for them to play - especially as there will be immense pressure from Democrats for the Bush administration to declare mission accomplished and cut and run. All exit and no strategy. If Iraq is to work, it needs to be a US foreign policy priority for the next decade at least. There are still American bases in Germany 59 years on afterall.

At the end of the day, this is just another inch forward on a very long journey to what we hope will be a functioning democracy. Theres going to be good days and bad days. Give it a few days and the happy stories about Iraq embracing democracy will be replaced by stories about car bombings and murders of elected officials again - there were attacks even on the day of polling afterall. And there will be the return of the "i told you so, i told you so" brigade - until the next step forward when theyll go all quiet again.

Orizio

Essey wrote:

the ones who didn't turn up we off on the sunshine holidays - with all that dosh from the oil for food program - shhhh - I'm not mentioning any names Kofi.

Wow thats completely deluded.The people(sunni's) who didn't vote did so because the election system was in favour of Shia control and because the US army were unable to protect the Sunni people from fear of reprisals and car bombings.Because the Sunnis will be deprived of there democratic voice,they will have to resort too violence and the possibility of a civil war grows.Don't forget about the Kurds-Kirkuk is going to be a explosive topic soon enough.

What should have happened pre-election are things like this.Development and preperation for the elections should have been done by a non partial agency(i.e. UN) to allow the elections to be fair.Party development and campaigning should have been at least a year long to allow the Iraqi people to read up on the parties out side of the big 3.All parties and officials running for government should have been barred from government positions for at least 6-9 months prior to the elections.Equal campaign support for all canditates.And a multi-district system should have been put in place.

arcadegame2004

Many Sunni parties have rightly called for the election to be postponed-how acan a election take place when there is fighting like this?So with the elections over and a Shia majority,what will the Sunnis do?Will they hand over Kirkuk and its oil to the Kurds?Will the Sunni allow themselves to be even slightly controlled bi the Shias?With this in mind the possiblity of a end to violence post election is unlikely,but the idea of a increasing of violence post election seems a woring possibility.

Well to be fair the Sunni Arabs are only 20% of the population so they were always going to have to accept the Shias (60%) getting the lion's share of power anyway. If they can't accept that then they are showing contempt for democracy in a similar way that the Unionists did in 1920, when the wishes of the majority in Ireland were sidelined to appease an extreme minority. Unlike the Unionists in 1920, the Sunni extremists must not be pandered to.

To delay the elections would have been to hand a victory to the terrorists. I by no means accuse all the Sunnis of being extremists. Some are, whereas others were just intimidated out of voting by threats from Zarqawi and his fellow Islamofascists to turn voting-queues into "lines of death". The success of this election (and the 57% turnout is nearly as high as the 62% in Ireland last time around) is a disaster to Zarqawi because is finally nails the lie that him and his henchmen are supported by the majority of Iraqis. Congratulations to the brave Iraqi voters, who refused to be disenfranchised by the terrorists.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well to be fair the Sunni Arabs are only 20% of the population so they were always going to have to accept the Shias (60%) getting the lion's share of power anyway.

Just to pull you up on that point. A link I posted earlier expains it better but it is possible for the minority to get a massive amount of seats due to how the system currently works. For example because there was a large Kurdish turnout they are expected to get a large number of seats.

The people were less voting for parties and more voting for ethinic region.

Hobbes

Essey wrote:

Hobbly wobbly:

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/050130/323/fbdre.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050128/wl_nm/iraq_election_valenzuela_dc_1

There is a difference in being in the country and actually observing the polling stations on the day. And I am not talking about looking at a Queue from the outside.

Keep trying though.

damien

United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in [insert country]'s presidential election despite a [insert terror group] terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from [insert besieged capital city], 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the [insert terror group].

....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President [insert idiotic Texas Republican]'s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in [insert besieged country]. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in [insert date], to which President [insert idiotic Texas Republican] gave his personal commitment when he met [foreign puppet politician], the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

Dateline? Sept. 4th, 1967.

Fact-Checked with archived NYT links at Daily KOS.Daily Kos

Nuttzz

Hobbes wrote:

There is a difference in being in the country and actually observing the polling stations on the day. And I am not talking about looking at a Queue from the outside.

Keep trying though.

One could accuse you of double standards, when the US ran roughshod over the UN there was a massive hue and cry over it, now that United Nations officials described the process as "representative and fair" its not good enough.

Hobbes

Nuttzz wrote:

One could accuse you of double standards, when the US ran roughshod over the UN there was a massive hue and cry over it, now that United Nations officials described the process as "representative and fair" its not good enough.

pika? o_O How do you work out double standards from that?

The UN monitors did not fully monitor the elections, there are all manners of weirdness to the elections that make it far then fair.

Sorry am I supposed to love the UN with open arms because I am against certain things? :rolleyes:

Nuttzz

I did say could

The UN monitors did not fully monitor the elections, there are all manners of weirdness to the elections that make it far then fair.

Why would a UN Representative Carlos Valenzuela with the experience that he has say tha the election is going well? Why would other UN representatives say that elections were "fair"? People can provide all the links they want but Valenzuela and his people have the track record, are on the ground and are working of an organisation whose boss called the US action in Iraq illegal, they is unlikely to give their opinions just for jollies.


This is an interesting view on the elections
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68454

The only people who truly represent the Iraqis are the insurgents who are fighting for freedom from Western capitalism and bourgeoise values. But they too have surrendered! They only managed to attack a handful of polling stations and killing a few dozen of the traitors who thought they should vote and thereby participate in this travesty.

of Saddam Hussein was the liegitimate government of a sovereign country ........his reign 30 year rule shows that Iraqis approved of his by and large benevolent dictatorship.

Sand

This is an interesting view on the elections

A decent example of people who are so brainwashed into hating the U.S. that theyll support *anyone* who is seen to be their enemy. Either that or he's a good troll.

AmenToThat

Interesting article Iv just seen on yahoo news........................

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Facing the prospect of a Shiite Muslim landslide, Sunni politicians offered on Saturday to participate in mapping the nation's political future. But Sunni rebels showed no sign of compromise, killing two U.S. soldiers and at least 33 Iraqis in a string of attacks.
Officials of the Shiite-led coalition that has rolled up a big lead in Sunday's elections said it wants the prime minister post in the upcoming government — casting doubt on chances that U.S.-backed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi can keep his job. Meanwhile, police questioned the driver and translator of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, who was seized by gunmen Sunday near Baghdad University — the first reported kidnapping of a foreigner since Sunday's election. But police said the two were not suspects in her abduction.


Allawi, whose ticket is running a distant second in election returns so far, had been seen as a possible compromise candidate if the Shiites and their allies don't win the two-thirds of the 275 National Assembly seats needed to pick the government. But the United Iraqi Alliance — a Shiite-led group whose leaders have ties to Iran — appeared confident it would have to be given the top spot. "The Alliance would like to get either the position of the president or the prime minister and it prefers that it be that of the prime minister," Redha Taqi, a top official in one of the coalition factions, told The Associated Press.


The presidency is a largely ceremonial post, currently held by a Sunni Arab, Ghazi al-Yawer. Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani has already announced his candidacy for president, and the Kurds are likely to end up as one of the top three blocs in the assembly. Shiites and Kurds suffered under Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime and are expected to work together in the assembly.


The Iraqi election commission released no new election returns Saturday in contests for the 275-seat National Assembly, but predicted it would announce final vote totals by Thursday. The assembly must elect a president and two vice presidents by a two-thirds majority. The three in turn select a prime minister subject to assembly approval. Partial returns from about 35 percent of the 5,200 polling centers showed the Alliance, which was endorsed by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, with about two-thirds of the votes to 18 percent for Allawi, a secular Shiite. Shiites are believed to make up two-thirds of Iraq (news - web sites)'s 26 million people. Most of those returns were from Shiite provinces where the Alliance, whose leaders have links to Iran, had been expected to run strong. No returns have been announced from much of Baghdad and from heavily Sunni Arab or Kurdish provinces.


But many Sunnis apparently stayed at home on election day, heeding boycott calls by hardline clerics or fearing insurgent attacks. That has raised fears that the Sunni Arab minority, estimated at 20 percent of the population, may not accept a new Shiite-dominated government, fueling the Sunni-led insurgency. In a bid to avoid marginalization, a group of Sunni Arab parties that refused to participate in the election said Saturday they want to take part in the drafting of a permanent constitution — a chief task of the new National Assembly.


"The representatives of these political bodies that did not participate in the elections have decided in principle to take part in the writing of the permanent constitution in a suitable way," a statement from the group said.
The groups were mainly small movements and it was not clear whether they represent a major portion of the Sunni Arab community. The initiative was spearheaded by Sunni elder statesman Adnan Pachachi, who ran for a National Assembly seat. Pachachi told CNN that he had talked with Shiite and Kurdish leaders about a role for the Sunnis in drafting a new constitution "and they all welcomed this idea." "So I think this will help to perhaps lessen the tensions and help in satisfying the country to some extent," Pachachi said.


Nevertheless, there was little sign that armed Sunni groups — including nationalists, Saddam supporters and Islamic zealots — were ready to join in any national reconciliation. Strong detonations rumbled through Baghdad at sunset, and police said insurgents had fired mortar shells near Baghdad's international airport. Two American soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing Friday night near the town of Beiji, about 155 miles north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said Saturday. A roadside bomb killed four Iraqi National Guardsmen early Saturday in Basra, Iraq's second largest city. Gunmen stormed a police station in the northern city of Mosul, killing five officers, police said.

The brother of Mosul's police chief was kidnapped Saturday, police said, three days after the official, Gen. Mohammed Ahmed al-Jubouri, threatened to destroy rebel sanctuaries if insurgents did not surrender their weapons within two weeks. Elsewhere, insurgents assassinated a member of the Baghdad city council, Abbas Hasan Waheed, and a member of Iraq's intelligence service in two separate drive-by shootings.

Bombs and clashes killed seven Iraqis in Samarra and Tal Afar, north of Baghdad, and in Ramadi, to the west. Eight bodies were found Saturday in Anbar province — five in Ramadi and three in the town of Baghdadi — and residents said they were believed to be Iraqis who worked for the Americans or Iraqi security services.

The extremist Ansar al-Sunnah Army posted a video on an Islamist Web site Saturday showing seven people being shot. The group said the seven were Iraqi National Guardsmen captured two days ago in an ambush west of Baghdad.

Police interrogated the driver and translator of the Italian journalist, Sgrena, 56, who was kidnapped Sunday near Baghdad University compound. Officials said the two have not been charged. A Web site posting in the name of the Islamic Jihad Organization claimed responsibility for the kidnapping, but Italian officials said they were not convinced the statement was genuine.

---

It seems the Shia faction supported by Sistani is walking away with it and if they can bring even one of the two main kurd parties on board then the American puppet Allawi is history and is going to spend much of the rest of his life looking over his shoulder Id imagen.

If the Shia grouping backed by Sistani does indeed end up with such a huge proportion of the vote then they can basically run the country as they please) as far as Im aware Kurdistan has some leway in terms of making its own laws.

To me the elections make no difference whatesoever to the situation on the ground.......infact Id say many of the Sunni's that have so far sat on the fence will realize that they are not going to get any joy out of the Shia south and may now throw in their lot with the insurgency

What chance the demand for a Sunni homeland being the rallying cry within the next year in the towns and cities north of Baghdad?

It was also pointed out last night on the Pat Kenny show that when they showed Kurd voters during the election not one (and I noticed this myself) was waving an Iraqi flag....all were drapped in the Kurd flag.

America and Britian have got their election whether they like the results is a completely different matter..............

Sand

Actually if the constitution is rejected in any 3 of the 18 provinces it is invalid and will have to re-negotiated, so the Shia majority cant have it all their own way and will have to engage with the Sunnis and address their concerns, as well as the concerns of the Kurds. As such, its good news to hear that even some Sunni political groups are looking to participate.

All the insurgency has to offer Sunnis is death, intimidation and chaos. The fact they had to threaten to murder anyone and everyone who voted shows just how much support they feel they can count on. The insurgency will continue for quite some time, but it has nothing to offer and whatever support it enjoys comes from a fear of Shia veangence and nationalist ire against the Coalition forces. The constitutional proccess will address the former, and the continued drive to train the Iraqi security forces up to fight the insurgency instead of Coalition soldiers will address the latter.

Meanwhile the surrender will continue to be advocated by defeatists, much as it was advocated in the face of Nazism. That Fisk chap on the Late,Late last night pretty much advocated surrendering Iraqs to the Insurgency, a perfect recipe for a second Saddam. It always irks that people see themselves as defending the interests of unfree people when advocating tolerating or even encouraging violent, oppressive regimes ruling them instead of fighting for something better. It's like they're saying democracy was worth fighting for in 1939 to protect my rights and the rights of my fellow Europeans, but its not worth fighting for the rights of Iraqis - they want a dictator, they need a dictator, a lie as shown by the courage of voters to defy even the threat of death to embrace the chance to vote. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

AmenToThat

Sand wrote:

Actually if the constitution is rejected in any 3 of the 18 provinces it is invalid and will have to re-negotiated, so the Shia majority cant have it all their own way and will have to engage with the Sunnis and address their concerns, as well as the concerns of the Kurds. As such, its good news to hear that even some Sunni political groups are looking to participate.

Or the Shia may decide that the fact that they have been given the mandate by their people will allow them to simply overule everyone else.
Comments comming out of Najaf tonight from the Marja suggest that the Shia Clerics including the previously moderate Grand Ayatollah Sistani will now settle for nothing less than a state run under the guidance of Sharia law
Let us not forget that Sadr is still very popular in Iraq and the only reason that the whole Shia community didnt rise up with him was that Sistani knew he could get the same results for the Shia majority through elections

Sand wrote:

All the insurgency has to offer Sunnis is death, intimidation and chaos. The fact they had to threaten to murder anyone and everyone who voted shows just how much support they feel they can count on. The insurgency will continue for quite some time, but it has nothing to offer and whatever support it enjoys comes from a fear of Shia veangence and nationalist ire against the Coalition forces. The constitutional proccess will address the former, and the continued drive to train the Iraqi security forces up to fight the insurgency instead of Coalition soldiers will address the latter.

I think you will find that even the American generals are now starting to admit that they cannot build up the army because of the numbers being either murdered permanantly injured and indeed deserting. As for the constitution the fact that the Clerics (Shia) are now taking centre stage will drive the the Kurds ans Sunni's further away.
As for death and intimidation I think you will find that the 'liberators' are giving the insurgents a run for their money in those stakes

Sand wrote:

That Fisk chap on the Late,Late last night pretty much advocated surrendering Iraqs to the Insurgency, a perfect recipe for a second Saddam. It always irks that people see themselves as defending the interests of unfree people when advocating tolerating or even encouraging violent, oppressive regimes ruling them instead of fighting for something better. It's like they're saying democracy was worth fighting for in 1939 to protect my rights and the rights of my fellow Europeans, but its not worth fighting for the rights of Iraqis - they want a dictator, they need a dictator, a lie as shown by the courage of voters to defy even the threat of death to embrace the chance to vote. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Only one city has been layed to waste during this war....................Fallujah,
And guess what? it wasnt the insurgents who layed waste to it or its people.
The polls (partial) are showing that Allawi's coalition is only getting around 18% of the vote among the Shia population despite the fact that a massive media offensive was run on his behalf.
Yet he had the right to order the closing of newspapers and tv networks he deemed (without evidence)to be helping the insurgency, btw what constitutes helping the insurgency?
He had the right to order a city destroyed (Fallujah) and its population dispersed across the country?
We have already had one mini dictator since the invasion and he was installed by the Americans and British, sure hell Saddam himself was backed by the Americans for years so it cuts little ice with me you comming on here and lecturing to me about surrenders to dictators Im afraid .

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Actually if the constitution is rejected in any 3 of the 18 provinces it is invalid and will have to re-negotiated

I'll probably need to wander around Bremners orders again, but I am pretty sure there was something in there to stop something like this happening.